261–270 of 323 posts
From their "Privacy" page[1]: --- You have the right, and we encourage you to: View the publicly available information that is available about you online. Contact us at privacy@fama.io to see a copy of your Fama report, if it has been created on behalf of a Customer. We’ll get back to you within 24 hours. ... You can opt out of our service by contacting us at privacy@fama.io, as long as you have not provided written…
The reason companies have to do so damn much checking upon hiring is because the employment laws make it damn near impossible to recover from a mistake. If you want to make a difference in this space, don't always vote for whatever issue the screws the rich companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And "someone that doesn't think you're fully human based on the color of your skin or your sexuality" is a pretty remarkable simplification of the concept that someone might have religious, moral, philosophical, practical, political, or other considerations about certain behaviours -- in an era when all nuance is often lost and they are bagged as bigots... There were plenty of claimed religious justifications for b…
> There were plenty of claimed religious justifications for businesses who wanted to discriminate against mixed race couples, but in the end, that didn't really matter. There is no functional difference between bigotry with "nuance" and bigotry itself. Sure, there's "no functional difference between bigotry with "nuance" and bigotry itself". But here the word bigotry is used twice in a weaselly way, making it a circu…
My point is that there's a functional difference between bigotry and a nuanced position that touches on sex/race/etc relations - and that the latter does exist, and is often called out unfairly.
Now, one might believe that such a nuanced position is impossible to exist (without being bigotry).
That is, one might believe that nobody can have a stance on a matter concerning sex/race/etc that goes against what some enlightened minority holds, without being a bigot.
I try to point that this is wrong, via reduction ad absurdum.
And my first argument is: there are opinions called out as bigotry which some of the members of the group they reference also hold (e.g. saying something about group X which some X also believe, and being called a bigot about it).
If one doesn't believe that those opinions are nuanced, and not necessarily bigotry, then they should also accuse those members of group X as bigoted against themselves - which is absurd.
My second argument is: why would one believe that an accusation of bigotry can't be off? Especially since any random person/mob can make such accusations, for whatever purposes, and with whatever faulty reasoning -- and not only some ultimate arbiters of truth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's so easy to stay out of this. Keep up your health and don't take on debt. Gives you a lot of freedom. https://sivers.org/richand
Yes, lucky people have more flexibility. The problem is that very few people avoid getting sick or hurt[1], having kids, needing loans, getting laid off, etc. and a healthy society should work for more than 10% of the population. 1. “Keep your health” up is obviously naive to start with but also ask how many people are, say, hurt in car crashes or on the job every year and how cruel your advice would sound to them.
No? Then my advice can apply to 80% of the people.
Here's the company doing this: https://fama.io/ The idea that you can assess someone's workplace performance based on automated screening of their tweets is utterly absurd. If anyone works somewhere that uses this tool, or anything similar to it, you should run far, far away from that company. This is a terrible precedent, and much too much Orwellian for my taste. EDIT: somewhat related, but a while back I made a Twi…
Some great people I know use twitter regularly but is that safe? How can someone handle that atrocious interface which doesn't work 50% of the time outside of the app? Can you even be real on twitter without getting lynched by someone?
Maybe someone should make social media where promotion, influencers, marketing companies, etc are banned or not allowed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US had been full of racisst, homophobic, and sexist people much more in the past and it didn't hurt their "effectiveness in the workplace", to the point that the US was the #1 economy in the world. So, maybe personal opinions of that nature are not related to being a good developer or a good car mechanic or hair dresser. Second, what's a offensive (e.g. homophobic, sexist, etc) is quite an arbitrary thing these d…
If keeping racists around was so good for business, then business culture would not have drastically changed in the last 50 or 60 years. As far as US being #1 economy, that generally happens when the rest of the developed world is in rubble (post WWII). Men being sexist and racist was not necessarily a contributor. Another trend was more people smoked cigarettes. Do you thinking smoking cigarettes means a more effect…
Nobody said it was "good". What was said, to quote, is: "So, maybe personal opinions of that nature are not related to being a good developer or a good car mechanic or hair dresser" -- in other words, that it was not really a contributor (pro or con).
>Another trend was more people smoked cigarettes. Do you thinking smoking cigarettes means a more effective business?
No, but I do think whether an employee smoked or not said nothing about how good they are at their job.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, lucky people have more flexibility. The problem is that very few people avoid getting sick or hurt[1], having kids, needing loans, getting laid off, etc. and a healthy society should work for more than 10% of the population. 1. “Keep your health” up is obviously naive to start with but also ask how many people are, say, hurt in car crashes or on the job every year and how cruel your advice would sound to them.
Do 80% of people get into car crashes or hurt on the job every year? No? Then my advice can apply to 80% of the people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a toddler level correlation/causation conflation and misunderstanding of psychological motivations and a thorough lack of understanding of humor. To assign so much meaning to a like is to presume to understand its meaning. But what if the like itself is ironic, sarcastic, or merely a bookmark? This kind of literalist interpretation is laughable, and will surely be looked upon in the future as a cringe-worthy…
Please read my comment again. One like from your personal Twitter account on a nazi post or conspiracy theory meme means nothing. 90% likes on such content categories from your personal account? That means a lot about you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There need to be laws against background checks in their entirety. People who have supposedly paid their penitence for their crimes are still punished up to 7 years after the fact, or longer, and cannot obtain meaningful employment due to it, and are thus stuck committing crimes to survive. Absolutely abhorrent.
Yep, in the state in which I reside (Indiana), there is no seven-year limit. Did something stupid when you were 20? It's still gonna be held against you when you're 65.
Whatever happened to the 90s where the prevailing advice was that the internet was a dangerous place, and you should always used pseudonyms?