151–160 of 224 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is more profitable? Unfortunately such decisions often made on the basis of profit over ethics.
Screening on convictions alone may be more profitable in the short term but in the long run, as the article here shows, it may end up costing you much more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there's ethical dilemmas no matter how you slice it You're exactly right. So the question becomes, "Is it better to disqualify applicants based on accusation alone, knowing that you'll disqualify some number of innocent people, or is it better to screen on convictions alone, knowing that you could possibly not screen out some guilty folks you otherwise would?"
You can go better than "accusation". Anyone could accuse anyone of anything. But you could set the bar in the middle with "arrested", which is half way between "accusation" and "conviction".
Unfortunately there really is no middle ground. You can't point to an event and say that you're __% certain that the accusation is true. So again it boils down to whether you base the decision off of accusations or convictions alone.
As someone stated elsewhere it's not just an ethical decision, either. Economics should play at least a minor role in the decision-making process.
i'm not sure why it's Uber's fault. in the uk, Uber drivers are all registered taxi drivers, because of regulations. it's not Uber's fault that the indian market is not as strictly regulated, and that one of their drivers did this. Not that i'm saying it's ok, it's not. but uber seems to be catching a lot of flak for things they haven't done. sure they probably could have done more to prevent it, but so could the gov…
It's Uber's fault because they claim to screen their drivers' backgrounds for criminal activity, including sexual assault. This driver raped a woman in a taxi he was driving in 2011, which Uber either didn't know or didn't care about. Pretty reasonable to expect Uber to detect and prevent people like that from driving cars for them, I think.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
@tomp > even though the underlying mathematical principles are the same. Don't hire a man because he could be a rapist? OK. Don't hire a woman because she might give birth? Outrageous. Yeah, one is not hiring someone who forces and hurts people for his sexual pleasure, the other is not hiring someone giving birth, something we celebrate, and helps human society continue existing. I don't even know what "the underlyin…
Oh for goodness sake. The point was, as an employer or potential partner, you want someone who will be effective in that role. Whilst being distracted would be a negative, regardless of the reason for that distraction. Not a moral argument; a statistical one as stated - avoid anyone with any chance of distraction is a valid game-theory strategy.
That's how I understood it too.
I was pointing to the inhumanity of treating people as mere means to an end ("not effective") especially in the case of pregnant women (which translates to women should either not get pregnant because its bad for business or be unemployable when they consider to do so).
You say it's just a "statistical argument". That's what I responded to, too: that's it's not OK - at least to me - to do mere statistical arguments when moral judgements are involved. Or rather, it's ok to do them as science, but this is not that, this is how actual managers and employers think and treat employees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what then, an Uber customer would have to just say "yeah ok rapes happen so let me keep taking Uber"? The point is, Uber is claiming to be better than cabbies in that they screen drivers, etc. Clearly they aren't doing anything of the sort. So they are as unsafe as taking any other cab.
Well Uber might still be the safest choice. I can't imagine Indian taxies being very safe in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nice victim blaming - they got raped because they didn't want to shoot someone.
Singling me out for nonsensical comments based on a wild misreading of my posts has reached the point of silliness. Why do you bother?
It ignores the fact that people have to be 21 to get a gun and gun ownership is not guaranteed.
You migt not think you're blaming the victims but here tou definitely are. You are saying that women who don't carry guns are to blame for being raped, and for other women being raped. Did you realise that when you wrote it? Is this an example of you "asking difficult questions"?
This combined with their app's shady activities ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8660336 ), it does seem like a very good idea to stop using it.
If you read any of the technical analysis, those claims are clearly unfounded and the hacker doesn't even understand how REST works: http://thenextweb.com/apps/2014/11/27/ubers-app-malware-desp... As an Android developer, the root and vulnerability reporting behavior is pretty standard for bug tracking, and in Uber's case fraud prevention as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A few days ago my girlfriend took a swing at me. I just let her go ahead - she had basically no real ability to harm me short of hitting me in the eye. Let me emphasize she's bigger and stronger than any Indian woman I've met. If I did anything other than stand there and let her hit me, it wouldn't even be a fight. Now give us both a gun. I'm probably a better shot, less afraid, and under close-up circumstances I can…
South Africa has a very high rate of rape and private gun ownership is permitted, what do you suggest there?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Singling me out for nonsensical comments based on a wild misreading of my posts has reached the point of silliness. Why do you bother?
Your suggestion - that women should carry guns - ignores the society that doesn't condemn rape; the courts that don't convict rapists; and the police who don't arrest rapists. It ignores the fact that people have to be 21 to get a gun and gun ownership is not guaranteed. You migt not think you're blaming the victims but here tou definitely are. You are saying that women who don't carry guns are to blame for being rap…
You got me. If I didn't ignore those things I probably would have written this:
"Which do you think will reduce rape right now?...change the culture?"
"Getting the police to do their job would be great. How do you do it?"
"...a Beretta in every purse is the only real solution, but it's also a solution that the government will never support. Only rich people and jewelry stores deserve to be protected by guns."
You are saying that women who don't carry guns are to blame for being raped...Did you realise that when you wrote it?
I didn't realize I was sending secret messages that can only be decoded by you, no.
I am shocked, shocked that an unlicensed taxi firm has problems with its drivers.