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

Apple asks investors to block proposal to scrap diversity programmes

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 118 posts

Re: Apple asks investors to block proposal to scrap diversity programmes

#91

Post by inglor_cz »

mschuster91 wrote: post #88
inglor_cz wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Existence of some counterexamples does not upend the basic observation: that way, way fewer women are capable of carrying a 100 or even a 60 kg person out of a fire than men. Which makes efforts to recruit as many women into firefighting as possible a sad ideological travesty, and people are perfectly right calling it out. There is a difference between emancipation and group delusion. There are meaningful physical di…

> Existence of some counterexamples does not upend the basic observation: that way, way fewer women are capable of carrying a 100 or even a 60 kg person out of a fire than men. My point is the need for this ability is next to zero because it is extremely dangerous, and yet women are judged by that on their inability to be a firefighter at all ? That's bullshit, pardon my French. > The vast majority of the really dang…

My point is the need for this ability is next to zero because it is extremely dangerous

That is an absolute non-sequitur. Yes, it is dangerous to carry a person out of a fire. But it is still an expected, though infrequent occurrence during duties of a firefighter. By deliberately striking this capability from list of demands, you are also deliberately restricting the total life-saving capabilities of the firefighting crew, all for checking some ideological boxes.

I am absolutely against this and I want firefighters in my city to be physically capable of doing such tasks. It may happen that my life or life of my loved ones is actually at stake, and such capability will make a difference.

On the other hand, I couldn't care less about diversity checkboxes. The idea that a firefighting corps is better for having more women is as weird to me as the idea that a firefighting corps is better for having more Taylor Swift fans.

Re: Apple asks investors to block proposal to scrap diversity programmes

#92

Post by lostmsu »

Arisaka1 wrote: post #7
machinekob wrote: post #3

DEI was so good and righteous idea that it shifted most of the western world to the right more than dozens of islamist terrorist attacks in previous decades. And ofc. all US corporations would follow this cultural change or they’ll risk antitrust/tax/law investigations from Trump and all EU government that’ll be elected in next few years.

Didn't the exact same companies introduced the exact same changes they now revert not out of firm belief but to demonstrate support? If someone adapts to the environment out of self-preservation then they were never supportive of any cause. I wish people would stop humanizing big companies.

I don't see how this "flexibility" is not a human trait also.

Re: Apple asks investors to block proposal to scrap diversity programmes

#93

Post by franktankbank »

eesmith wrote: post #76
poulpy123 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DEI is focusing on the identity of the person instead of the abilities/programs/skills/work related arguments. When the LAFD communicates that the LGBT status of the 3 heads of the department they signals it's the reason they got hired to this position. if you add absurd communication like saying it's better to be rescued by someone that looks like you or that the first thing you'll say to someone you want to rescue…

DEI is focused on the identify insofar as that identity has been the basis of discrimination preventing equality on the basis of abilities, skills, etc. > they signals it's the reason they got hired to this position That does not follow. When an organization communicates that Obama was the first US president born in Hawaii, that does not signal that he was elected because he was from Hawaii. The local paper had a sho…

I see the whole thing as a triangle:

nepotism on one point

dei on another point

and meritocracy on the third

Each presents different ways to make selection and each has intrinsic biases which are in tension with one another. Neither one can be the end all be all solution because each leads to unhealthy endpoints if carried on for long enough. I suspect Sergei Volkov did in fact benefit from nepotism but maybe that's not a bad thing on its own?

Re: Apple asks investors to block proposal to scrap diversity programmes

#94

Post by eesmith »

franktankbank wrote: post #93
eesmith wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DEI is focused on the identify insofar as that identity has been the basis of discrimination preventing equality on the basis of abilities, skills, etc. > they signals it's the reason they got hired to this position That does not follow. When an organization communicates that Obama was the first US president born in Hawaii, that does not signal that he was elected because he was from Hawaii. The local paper had a sho…

I see the whole thing as a triangle: nepotism on one point dei on another point and meritocracy on the third Each presents different ways to make selection and each has intrinsic biases which are in tension with one another. Neither one can be the end all be all solution because each leads to unhealthy endpoints if carried on for long enough. I suspect Sergei Volkov did in fact benefit from nepotism but maybe that's…

Where is discrimination on that triangle?

If discrimination is on that triangle, where do you place efforts to counter discrimination?

You suspect because it fits with your worldview, or you suspect because of your knowledge of the cosmonaut program, and their willingness to have less-than-the-best in what is otherwise a very competitive field?

Re: Apple asks investors to block proposal to scrap diversity programmes

#95

Post by franktankbank »

eesmith wrote: post #94
franktankbank wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see the whole thing as a triangle: nepotism on one point dei on another point and meritocracy on the third Each presents different ways to make selection and each has intrinsic biases which are in tension with one another. Neither one can be the end all be all solution because each leads to unhealthy endpoints if carried on for long enough. I suspect Sergei Volkov did in fact benefit from nepotism but maybe that's…

Where is discrimination on that triangle? If discrimination is on that triangle, where do you place efforts to counter discrimination? You suspect because it fits with your worldview, or you suspect because of your knowledge of the cosmonaut program, and their willingness to have less-than-the-best in what is otherwise a very competitive field?

What kind of discrimination isn't covered by motives of nepotism or DEI?

To be clear I think its not necessarily bad, its the dose. The Cosmonaut had proven genetics, that counts for something on top of meritocracy.

Re: Apple asks investors to block proposal to scrap diversity programmes

#96

Post by tivert »

lupusreal wrote: post #50
gnz11 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, I’d argue most people don’t think or care about DEI or go on social media to post weird rants. Most people have better things to do. Social media and the Web can amplify opinions that really aren’t that widespread in reality.

People care insofar as their lives are made to intersect with it. Zuckerberg in particular most likely cares and isn't being performative when he speaks out against it. I'm surprised that people are surprised he has. The man likes to larp as a bronze age hunter, killing goats with spears in his backyard. He trains in combat sports and wants to have a celebrity boxing match with Elon Musk. He's the father of half-asia…

> He's the father of half-asian children, who are classified as "negative diversity" by DEI initiatives.

WTF!? Do you have more information about this "negative diversity" concept?

Re: Apple asks investors to block proposal to scrap diversity programmes

#97

Post by lupusreal »

slt2021 wrote: post #60
defrost wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you can't explain why its predictable that lesbians --> failure.

it is predictable because they are hired and promoted because of their sexual identity and gender (which has no connection to job duties), not merit. The moment you start hiring based on identity, instead of merit is when things will go south

Exactly. If the special non-merit criteria were instead "likes trains" or "has a monobrow" it would have the same effect. Not because those traits are negatively correlated with being good at the job, but simply because those traits are unaligned with the job, so statistically its unlikely for the best candidate to just coincidentally happen to also have those special traits.

Re: Apple asks investors to block proposal to scrap diversity programmes

#98

Post by snehk »

newsclues wrote: post #9
tomlockwood wrote: post #2

I don't quite understand what the conservatives think DEI actually is, because as far as I can tell three women being in leadership positions in the LA fire department is "DEI". It just seems like the new "woke" or "political correctness", and just as vague.

https://newdiscourses.com/2022/04/dei-explained-new-discours... I think this is a quick explanation. Many people on the left complain about the “old boys club” where “white men” hire each other and control all the power without merit for their authority, and DEI seems to be a way to smash the patriarchal old boys club and enforce the new regime where women, and minorities are in control. Shouldn’t the people be wary…

If others are just as capable, then there's no need to change any of the requirements, right? Why is it happening then?

Re: Apple asks investors to block proposal to scrap diversity programmes

#99

Post by eesmith »

franktankbank wrote: post #95
eesmith wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is discrimination on that triangle? If discrimination is on that triangle, where do you place efforts to counter discrimination? You suspect because it fits with your worldview, or you suspect because of your knowledge of the cosmonaut program, and their willingness to have less-than-the-best in what is otherwise a very competitive field?

What kind of discrimination isn't covered by motives of nepotism or DEI? To be clear I think its not necessarily bad, its the dose. The Cosmonaut had proven genetics, that counts for something on top of meritocracy.

Do you consider slavery, the Trail of Tears, the internment of Japanese-Americans, and the restrictions on women from serving in combat or some juries as discrimination?

In many states, it is okay to discriminate based on political views. Here's an example of a socialist working at Goodwill who was fired for being a socialist - https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2002/07/can-your-boss-fi... with the quote: “The law is pretty clear that a private employer can fire someone based on their political speech even when that political speech does not affect the terms and conditions of employment.”

Is that form of discrimination either DEI or nepotism?

Some US veterans get preferential employment in the Postal Service.

Is that form of discrimination DEI or nepotism?

The Freedmen's Bureau assisted only former slaves. Was that discrimination? Was it DEI?

Japanese-Americans who were interned or their heirs received payment as reparations. Was that discrimination? Was it DEI?

Re: Apple asks investors to block proposal to scrap diversity programmes

#100

Post by sillyfluke »

machinekob wrote: post #3

DEI was so good and righteous idea that it shifted most of the western world to the right more than dozens of islamist terrorist attacks in previous decades. And ofc. all US corporations would follow this cultural change or they’ll risk antitrust/tax/law investigations from Trump and all EU government that’ll be elected in next few years.

>DEI was so good and righteous idea that it shifted most of the western world to the right more than dozens of islamist terrorist attacks in previous decades.

If by "shifting right" you mean people in the US voted for Trump because of DEI, the numbers don't really add up. Biden beat Trump by 7 million votes in 2020. Trump beat Harris by half that number in 2024. More than that, the Republicans ran the same anti-woke campaign in 2022 and yet the Dems still gained senate and governor seats then. It's not like DEI was any better in 2022 for that narrative to make sense.

There was no major cultural shift. Trump won because of the economy not DEI. Hell, I would wager half the democrats who worked in STEM fields thought DEI was counterproductive from the beginning and they still didn't vote for Trump because of it (e.g., pg). It's been debated around here since the days of that google engineer getting fired for his anti non-merit hiring criteria memo and long before that.

In AOC's district, the same people voted for AOC and Trump. People said "fuck this, I gotta put bread on the table. something's gotta change."

Post reply on HN