Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

PSF has withdrawn $1.5M proposal to US Government grant program

pyfound.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

791–800 of 886 posts

Re: PSF has withdrawn $1.5M proposal to US Government grant program

#791

Post by [deleted] »

SR2Z wrote: post #789
virx61 wrote: post #758

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Memory hole” is a term that should be reserved for things everybody actually forgets. This is more of a thing lots of people probably remember, but they don’t bring it up all the time.

No, lots of people willingly stuck their heads in the sand and ignored the abuses that were happening. See Brigida v Buttigieg for a particularly egregious example around the hiring of ATC. The FAA, on an official test that ATC candidates were required to take, would disqualify applicants if they didn't answer questions like "what was your worst subject in school" with answers like "math" or "science." This explicitl…

[deleted]

Re: PSF has withdrawn $1.5M proposal to US Government grant program

#792

Post by FloorEgg »

judahmeek wrote: post #548
FloorEgg wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The federal regulations... It's not hard to find if you go looking...

Then it shouldn't be hard for you to say something other than 'do your own research'

Actually it took me almost an hour to re-do a portion of the research and lay it out, which I did further down the thread, if you care to look.

Also you didn't ask me to link you to my sources, you asked me what my sources were. I answered your question directly in the best way I could at the time.

Expecting an internet stranger to spend an hour digging up sources for you, when you don't ask respectfully or with any inclination of curiosity comes off as combative - I am not here to debate, I am here to discuss. If you are genuinely curious, take 30 seconds to scroll down and find the other comment I made that took me an hour to put together.

Re: PSF has withdrawn $1.5M proposal to US Government grant program

#793

Post by inemesitaffia »

kelnos wrote: post #630
userbinator wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at the FAA ATC hiring controversy. https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/the-faas-hiring-scandal-...

Everything I've read (that isn't from a blubbering MAGA source) suggests that the "controversy" is entirely manufactured.

A fascinating claim.

You do know there were exams leaked to a group right?

Re: PSF has withdrawn $1.5M proposal to US Government grant program

#794

Post by jchw »

epistasis wrote: post #773
jchw wrote: post #763

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My thought is, if this sort of problem was happening at a company as big and influential in the industry as Google, that's already pretty bad. The backlash may not be warranted either way but the other position (that everything is fine and nothing needs to be done) isn't necessarily correct either.

> that everything is fine and nothing needs to be done That's a complete statement that nobody is even advocating for. We already have the enforcement mechanisms in place. Just because a law is violated doesn't mean that we get rid of the entire scheme and try something else. Theft does not mean that we need to get rid of property rights, and theft doesn't mean that we need to stop people from seeking material goods.…

> That's a complete statement that nobody is even advocating for. We already have the enforcement mechanisms in place.

> Just because a law is violated doesn't mean that we get rid of the entire scheme and try something else. Theft does not mean that we need to get rid of property rights, and theft doesn't mean that we need to stop people from seeking material goods.

> Perhaps there should be better enforcement mechanisms, but I'm sure that all the DEI advocates would be all ears, because the illegal violations of the law are not what DEI advocates want, precisely because it leads to backlashes in addition to being counter to the explicit goals of all DEI advocates I have ever heard.

My point is just that it seems to be a real problem worth discussion and consideration, not just something made up for concern trolling. Whenever you have potential incentives to violate the law, there is reason to be somewhat concerned. It doesn't always manifest, but sometimes it does.

(P.S.: It is true that nobody is advocating for illegal hiring practices, at least not in good faith. Still, disregarding the apparent connection between DEI initiatives and illegal hiring practices they can incentivize just terminates the discussion.)

Re: PSF has withdrawn $1.5M proposal to US Government grant program

#795

Post by qcnguy »

LexiMax wrote: post #732
qcnguy wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also worth pointing out that despite this thread being full of ridiculously low quality posts, I haven't flagged any of them. That's the sort of thing DEI leftists do, not everyone.

It doesn't matter if you have used them in this thread or not. An account of your age and your disposition should not have access to automated moderation tools, period. Moderation via easily gamified populism is the worst kind of moderation.

Because the leftists flagging and downvoting everything they disagree with in this thread are clearly exemplars of excellent user moderation? Knock it off.

Re: PSF has withdrawn $1.5M proposal to US Government grant program

#796

Post by acdha »

tstrimple wrote: post #742
acdha wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is your data showing those programs don’t exist? For example, conservatives like to talk about the plight of male nurses but even a cursory search shows that there are exactly the kind of programs you’d expect to find.

These people are very disconnected from reality. They make wild claims like groups for men are illegal and you’d never see a group dedicated to helping men in the nursing field. The feminists would destroy it! And yet… https://www.aamn.org/

It’s really telling how they’re just so confident about easily debunked claims.

I’m reminded of a retired college admissions administrator whose theory was that some of the men in college gap was over-confidence: statistically the women who applied overall were far closer to the women who were accepted, whereas like a third of their male applicants had no chance so a roughly even balance of applicants turned 2:1 in favor of women being accepted. I’m sure that many of them grumble about DEI, unaware that merit is _why_ they weren’t accepted whereas their fathers’ generation would’ve found room for many of them via legacy or sports spots.

Re: PSF has withdrawn $1.5M proposal to US Government grant program

#797

Post by MoltenMan »

wredcoll wrote: post #784
MoltenMan wrote: post #775

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like you're glossing over my main point, which is that this stuff 100% does breed resentment for the average person, which is how we end up with people like Trump (obviously there are many more factors to consider but this is definitely one of them). The difference between your scenario is just how visible it is; I have never ever had somebody go up to me and say 'This opportunity is being given to you because…

> I feel like you're glossing over my main point, which is that this stuff 100% does breed resentment for the average person, which is how we end up with people like Trump (obviously there are many more factors to consider but this is definitely one of them). I mean, having to cater to the feelings of overly sensitive men is how most of these problems started in the first place.

Ack! There is nothing 'overly sensitive' about being annoyed when you see somebody else get an opportunity because of the color of their skin or gender. It's human nature! In fact I suspect the average person in favor of DEI and / or identity politics would still suffer a decent amount of cognitive dissonance if they were passed up because of something like this. Again, it's just human nature!

Please try to imagine advocating for women's rights 100 years ago and hearing somebody say something like 'overly sensitive women want to vote! Psh!' If you want to argue for DEI please try to present good faith arguments.

Personally, I don't really get butthurt about things, so this isn't a problem for me (although I do think it's a problem in general as it is obviously going to anger people). I do think one of the main problems with DEI is that it attempts to address the symptoms instead of the root cause of the problem. I.e. trying to get girls into stem / coding in highschool or college instead of figuring out why they're less interested in it from a much younger age (and if that's even a problem; classic nature vs nurture problem).

Re: PSF has withdrawn $1.5M proposal to US Government grant program

#798

Post by wredcoll »

MoltenMan wrote: post #797
wredcoll wrote: post #784

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I feel like you're glossing over my main point, which is that this stuff 100% does breed resentment for the average person, which is how we end up with people like Trump (obviously there are many more factors to consider but this is definitely one of them). I mean, having to cater to the feelings of overly sensitive men is how most of these problems started in the first place.

Ack! There is nothing 'overly sensitive' about being annoyed when you see somebody else get an opportunity because of the color of their skin or gender. It's human nature! In fact I suspect the average person in favor of DEI and / or identity politics would still suffer a decent amount of cognitive dissonance if they were passed up because of something like this. Again, it's just human nature! Please try to imagine a…

You just wrote a whole bunch of paragraphs talking about how appearances made you feel things without ever addressing the actual facts.

>DEI is that it attempts to address the symptoms instead of the root cause of the problem. I.e. trying to get girls into stem / coding in highschool or college instead of figuring out why they're less interested in it from a much younger age (and if that's even a problem; classic nature vs nurture problem).

Except there are DEI initiatives that look at every level.

Being in favor of the status quo is pretty easy, I admit, and hey, if you happen to benefit disproportionately from the status quo, bonus, right?

Re: PSF has withdrawn $1.5M proposal to US Government grant program

#799

Post by gcanyon »

rayiner wrote: post #786
TimorousBestie wrote: post #767

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To make your analogy work, the benefit would be for people who weren’t personally abused, but whose parents or grandparents were abused. No, this is a consequence of your ideology, which assumes that racial discrimination ended with the Civil Rights Act and etc. (Hence “we could simply just enforce. . .”) Mine does not. Note that the metaphor as stated by 0xDEAFBEAD, which you already said was good, did not include…

It’s not just “my ideology.” The universities and corporations that practice DEI do not believe they discriminate against people in the present. They see it as a remedy for historical discrimination. It’s also not even an ideological matter. It’s a testable fact. There’s very little evidence that universities and corporations are discriminating against non-whites/asians.

So if admission rates are below population averages, is it your contention that:

   1. Fewer minorities *want* to go to college -- what do you think causes that bias?
   2. Minorities want to go to college, but due to factors of their environment are less able to make it to college -- what do you think leads to that inability?
   3. Minorities want to go to college, and their environment is just as supportive of that goal as for white, but minorities are less capable (on average) of achieving that goal -- what are we to make of this?
   4. Some other explanation I haven't thought of?

Re: PSF has withdrawn $1.5M proposal to US Government grant program

#800

Post by gcanyon »

TimorousBestie wrote: post #728
rayiner wrote: post #705

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a good metaphor. You can’t undo racial discrimination against someone who is now dead by discriminating against someone else who is now alive.

No, it’s a bad metaphor. The correct analogy is, “Suppose you were abused by your parent; should you be allowed to establish a benefit specifically and only for the abused children of other parents?” You and 0xDEAFBEAD answer that question no, because that benefit discriminates in your mind against all non-abused children. And against all adults, probably. I don’t know how deep the grievance mobilization goes.

I'd argue the correct analogy is "Suppose you were abused by society; should society be forced to address that abuse." But that's just me.
Post reply on HN