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

The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

tracingwoodgrains.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 724 posts

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#341

Post by rdtsc »

ryandrake wrote: post #334
rdtsc wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The part that always made this obviously insane for any systems-thinking person is as follows [...] if the problems are indeed as dire as claimed, then instead, proper steps must be taken to solve the root causes of the perceived disparities—and also, proper steps must be taken to ensure that the base assumptions you started with That's why a smart systems-thinking person kept it to themselves. It's a funny thing.…

> An evidence of this is as soon as the "floodgates" opened, all these companies started dropping DEI initiatives and closing departments like that. If their bottom lines clearly showed they had improved their financials due to it, they would adamantly defend it or double down. Just looking at the Meta article: The article cites "pressure from conservative critics and customers" as the reason, not financial performan…

> Just looking at the Meta article: The article cites "pressure from conservative critics and customers" as the reason, not financial performance. The Meta representative was quoted pointing to "legal and policy landscape" changes. Nothing about if or how the initiative affected the company's bottom line.

Of course they won't say it doesn't work. They'll cite external pressure or other reason. But they get pressure from customers for privacy and other issues, yet that doesn't phase them much. So if they saw clear advantage to the policy, say it just improved their bottom line, stock price, etc, they would have easily brushed away the "pressure" and said "sorry, we're here to make a profit and this makes us a profit, tough luck".

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#343

Post by e44858 »

dingnuts wrote: post #259
oremolten wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you please elaborate how DEI is not discrimination? Is hiring based on someone's RACE ever not discrimination?

if this question is in good faith, you can read about this ideology by looking up Robin DiAngelo or Ibram X Kendi, who are experts on the pro-DEI academic theory that answers your question. It seems that the American voter disagrees with Kendi et al > The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present disc…

That just leads to an endless cycle where each group tries to avenge discrimination by the other group.

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#345

Post by tim333 »

apical_dendrite wrote: post #148

I'm fairly certain this was an example of overfitting and Freedman's Paradox, not deliberate cheating. Let's say you have a completely random data set. You generate a bunch of random variables x1 through xn and a random dependent variable y. Then you poke around and see whether any of the x variables look like they might predict y, so you pick those variables and try to build a model on them. What you end up with is…

Have you looked at the info on the test here https://kaisoapbox.com/projects/faa_biographical_assessment/? (copied from another post)

To pass the test you have to click A on all 62 questions apart from question 16 where you have to click D to say your lowest grade in school was in history. The thing's a complete travesty.

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#346

Post by teractiveodular »

ein0p wrote: post #314

> In a moment of dark irony, the sort of diversity-focused work she’s passionate about—not lowering the bar, but inspiring more people and providing them with mentorship and opportunity to reach it Discrimination by race, gender and sexual orientation (aka DEI, jokingly disabbreviated as "didn't earn it") always results in lowering the bar. No exceptions. Either the candidate earns a position fair and square, in whic…

The one positive "DEI" thing you can do without lowering the bar is to widen the net: look harder for qualified candidates in places where you didn't look before.

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#347

Post by teractiveodular »

scott_w wrote: post #324
lordloki wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you started out your hiring practices focused solely on one race...and you don't think it's racist?

Weird how I knew performative outrage would be the response, just as night follows day.

It's not performative outrage, it's a statement of fact. You didn't merely widen the net, you spearfished candidates of the right race and ignored those of the wrong ones. Regardless of your intentions, how is that not racist?

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#348

Post by teractiveodular »

0xB31B1B wrote: post #119
empath75 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything is heavily automated right now up to and including autopilot landings. The people are in the loop to cover the gaps where automation doesn't exist or when it fails. Everything is so tightly scheduled at airports now that any kind of failure in automation would pretty rapidly lead to catastrophic outcomes if humans weren't constantly involved in decision making. Even if you just had humans on "stand by" it…

Sort of. There’s like 5 conditions of automation commercial planes can be in. The automation mostly functions to make the pilots workload manageable, not to make their workload non existent. Commercial flights used to have a crew of 3, captain, first officer and flight engineer. The automation has reduced the workload to eliminate the flight engineer role and make flights operable by 2 people.

Flights are operable by 1 person, and this is in fact the normal state of affairs in general aviation. The second person on commercial aircraft is there mostly for redundancy, although obviously having another pair of hands makes things easier.

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#349

Post by tremon »

ImJamal wrote: post #297
legitster wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With a grain of salt - any hiring lawsuit by its nature is going to be a discrimination case. The fact that everyone is really quick to just throw around DEI = discrimination is kind of my point. Even the text of the Brigida lawsuit clearly points out that nobody would have a problem with the FAA increasing minority representation in other ways.

If I deliberately hire whites more than other races nobody would deny that is discrimination. If I deliberately hire more minorities than whites, that is not discrimination?

If your candidate pool is 80% white and you hire 25% minorities, is that discrimination? I have seen people argue (rabidly!) both ways on that question.

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#350

Post by ryandrake »

rdtsc wrote: post #341
ryandrake wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An evidence of this is as soon as the "floodgates" opened, all these companies started dropping DEI initiatives and closing departments like that. If their bottom lines clearly showed they had improved their financials due to it, they would adamantly defend it or double down. Just looking at the Meta article: The article cites "pressure from conservative critics and customers" as the reason, not financial performan…

> Just looking at the Meta article: The article cites "pressure from conservative critics and customers" as the reason, not financial performance. The Meta representative was quoted pointing to "legal and policy landscape" changes. Nothing about if or how the initiative affected the company's bottom line. Of course they won't say it doesn't work. They'll cite external pressure or other reason. But they get pressure f…

If the real reason these companies dropped the policies was that they were unprofitable, and their bottom lines showed it, then why did they wait until exactly November 2024 to all drop them at once? Surely they could have discovered this many quarters ago. Did the policies just suddenly become unprofitable right as the next political administration was decided? Why would company directors across entire industries just sit there nodding their heads, as you say, voluntarily not making more profit for shareholders? It doesn't seem like the bottom line was the real reason in this case.
Post reply on HN