I get why one would think that but I don't think it's actually true. I think the "exception" is actually there because they'll be sued into bankruptcy even though they'd likely win the lawsuits.

It's not actually an exemption, it's preventing lawfare.

The point is that each hire is an individual decision.

If I were painting a picture I might use a lot of different colors but if you ask me to pick my favorite color 5000 times, I'll say the same color 5000 times.

Or stall. Acceleration has been slowing significantly and gains seem to be tied to huge memory footprints.

What I actually think that I haven't said is that "representation" is a self defeating idea that encourages people to view themselves as different.

> I agree. Limiting your pool is a bad idea. That’s literally why inclusivity is a good thing. Because people self-limit the pool to people who look like them, and because other societal barriers limit the pool by excluding people. Actively acting to include people broadens the pool, it doesn’t limit it.

That's true, however, when the high end of the pool all looks a certain way because of systemic issues then the team built will tend to look that way and not be inclusive.

Thise creating the team could have the best of intentions the outcome could very likely be the same as if they were discriminatory.

People feel social and sometimes legal pressure to make sure it looks like they aren't discriminatory so, when they are choosing that last (few) member, they'll limit the pool of possibilities.

The other half of what you said is logical though, that inclusion probably leads to a more diverse future but at the cost of the present. The cost of the present is the part you're pretending doesn't exist.

> If you think on the scale of an individual hire or grant, i guess i can see how it would seem like limiting the pool - but zoom out like two steps and you’d see that’s not true.

Every single hire is an individual hire.

You're acting like these things aren't intertwined.

You can't adjust the lever of representation without affecting who gets opportunities.

You can believe what you want about the merits of adjusting those levers but to pretend like you can limit your pool of people to a smaller group of people and not affect the apex of the talent pool is disengenous. Be honest and say you think it's worth it.

Scientists have two easy avenues if they are currently in the US, the US or their home country. Immigration to work in a foreign nation is not always easy and takes time.

If there are no martian biologists because of systemic discrimination, why would the best if the best biologists include a martian.

The argument defeats itself. I don't understand why people keep repeating this lie instead of the truth.

The only way this makes sense is if you think the only way someone can be inspired by someone else is if they look the same.

I'd really like to know what kind of tangled logic it requires to believe that.

Regardless, police unions aren't the only example of unions who have worked against the benefit of everyone else but themselves. I only used them as an example because I didn't think anyone here would argue disagree that it's had negative outcomes.

What I didn't expect was to find someone arguing that a union wasn't a union. It doesn't matter if it's legal in other places, it's legal in the US. Just because Japan has made police _unions_ illegal doesn't make an US police _union_ not a union.

We'll see. It's not like police unions are making life better for citizens.

Unions are there for one reason, the union members. This will most likely be good for the employees and good on them for acting in their best interest but it seems just as likely that a unionized rockstar is negative for the consumer in either increased pricea, extended timelines or minimum effort to meet exact requirements from employees.

The benefits that workers gain from unionizing come from somewhere.

What are these "social human constructions"?

It's kind of like the university system. It's a (mostly) privately run industry that gets massive injections of cash from the government because of both campaign promises (everyone needs healthcare, everyone goes to college and, bonus, everyone gets a house) and it being an incredibly unpopular position to either remove that funding or make the program entirely public which would, imo, alleviate both problems (but have their own unique drawbacks). The hybrid model we have is the worst of both worlds.

The hybrid system we have now of massive injections of public money into private industry is like blood in the water for do nothing intermediaries. PBMs are just the assistant dean of underwater basketweaving for medicine.

Population is up but less people are walking (probably). Is it more dangerous to be a pedestrian now than it was at some point in the past? That chart doesn't have that information.

> Vehicles with hood heights of more than 40 inches and blunt front ends angled at greater than 65 degrees were 44 percent more likely to cause fatalities.

I'm not sure that height matters for a young kid and, 40 years ago, there weren't abs and sensors that will brake for you. Plus, drunk driving rates were much, much higher and the vehicles were significantly heavier.

I don't have any insight on the answer but I'd be curious if the rates of kids dying as pedestrians/cyclists have gone up (per mile, which would be hard to track down and sway the numbers significantly).

Anecdotes from sunk cost users aren't evidence.

That can be an example of model legislation but, broadly, model legislation is created by an organization for use as an example for multiple different legislatures (usually states). Everyone from think tanks, busineses, the EFF, the ACLU and PETA draft model legislation.