It most definitely is not illegal. Many colleges have race and gender based quota systems. Governments have race and gender quota systems. Many federal, state and local governments set aside X percentage of their contracts solely for minority or female owned businesses.
Whether this is right or wrong is another debate. But race, gender or "diversity" hiring or recruiting certainly isn't illegal. It happens all the time.
The distinction between quotas and "outcome based goals" is kind of hazy. To be clear, recruiters aren't required to hit certain targets. Leadership does tell recruiters that they're aiming for a a certain targets but as far as I know recruiters don't receive any penalty if they fall below that target.
Even telling recruiters to hire a certain demographic is discrimination. The parent post said that recruiters had large bonuses for certain demographics.
I am the root commenter. Bonuses are given regardless of the candidates' divery status, it's just that diverse candidate get a slightly higher bonus. The difference between the bonus of a non-diverse and diverse candidate is about 20%. That difference is not constant because bonuses vary based on other things like the role being hired and the amount of experience. Experienced hires have a bigger bonus than new grads - this is to counteract a past tendency to hire younger employees which led to a skewed age and experience distribution. We also have bigger bonuses to hire managers because we have a chronic shortage of them.
"Students attending schools located near and downwind from busy highways had lower rates of academic performance, higher absenteeism and higher rates of disciplinary problems than those attending less polluted schools."
Is it because of the pollution or because kids who live near highways come from poorer socio-economic environments? Kids who grow up in poor rural areas nowhere near cars also have performance and behavioral problems.
Also, some of the top schools in the NYC metro area are situated near highways or high traffic areas. Why aren't these kids affected as negatively? Could it be many of them come from higher socio-economic situations?
Finally, isn't it a bit disingenous to say poor kids pay for it when they don't pay taxes. Also, the article claims these kids receive free lunches, so most likely they parents don't make enough money to pay much in taxes. So the "wealthy" who pay taxes are already paying for the poor kids, their school and their air filtration system are already paying taxes to clean up the pollution. So they already paid, what more do they have to pay for?
Ideally, it would be great if every kid had a school in a middle of prisinte woods without any pollution, but then people would complain about the destruction of pristine nature.
The study they link to claims to account for this by tracking the same students between different schools. They also track different schools which are the same distances from a highway but suffer different pollution because of wind patterns. It would have been quite easy for you to click that link and read the abstract.
Yeah while pollution is no help clearly and lead poisoning is known for bad options it sounds like the mechanism for worse academic performance from power lines - lowered property values and the fact poorer kids tended to live in "undesirable" locations.
The simplest solution to numerous large problems in the US education system (while politically infeasible) is to fund schools based on student count uniformly, based on federal and state taxes, and not at all based on local township taxes.
Everyone here is celebrating "people leaving facebook" as if it is a victory. People are simply moving from facebook to instragram as instragram is viewed as more "hip" and "young".
The title could be "Instragram gaining millions of users in the US" but I guess that doesn't sell as well.
Also, facebook may be losing users in the US, but it's gaining users overseas. So overall, facebook's overall user count is going to continue to climb for a while.
There isn't a "safe or bug free" codebase in any language for any complex software project. The only code that you could possibly verify as "safe" are simplest of programs.
There is always a trade-off between complexity, security and performance.
If we really wanted to help people, we'd focus more on heart disease, diabetes, etc. But I guess we don't want to tackle the food industry, soda industry, process food industry, etc.
I don't who is behind all the "alcohol, drugs, suicide" scaremongering. But I have a sneaking suspicion that the "solution" will be pump people with more pharmaceuticals.
I'm not saying suicide is not a terrible thing, but it certainly isn't a "national emergency" compared to heart disease, strokes, cancer or diabetes.
It's about what's trending. Recent stats on US life expectancy showed an overall drop. Heart disease and (I think) cancer trended down (as it has for years), but that was more than offset by the up trend in suicide and overdoses. I'm not sure what the definition of "emergency" is, but I'd say the data shows suicide and OD are the top concerns at the moment.
The data clearly doesn't not say what you claim. As for trending? I wouldn't call anything going from 1.9% of deaths to 2% of deaths as trending. Focusing on the 2% rather than the 98% seems also doesn't seem to be sensible.
Interesting that Soviet republics figure so heavily on the top of that list. And they uniformly have huge male:female ratios.
Also that Japan, notorious for a suicide culture, is only 30th. Maybe if they counted all the murders made to look like suicide, they would be further up.
Pretty sure I lost some brain cells reading your comment
> The US is nowhere near the top in terms of suicide rates in the world.
... Is that really an argument against action?
> compared to heart disease, strokes, cancer or diabetes.
Because studies have shown that making a small effort will make a large difference in suicide rates... It would be great if we could cure cancer, but we just can't.
That would require people taking a hard look at themselves and their own habits, which won't happen. Hard to scare people with what they are familiar with (even if it's slowly Killing them.) See also: climate change.
Have you read "Trust Me, I'm Lying" by Ryan Holiday?
While he was working at American Apparel, he figured out that while it was expensive to advertise directly on major news sites, etc, it was fairly easy to figure out what smaller sites were the real "influencers." By advertising or promoting material there, he got coverage on larger blogs for a fraction of the price.
astroturfin on reddit/whatever chan you think is tolerable is pretty common now. the days before the aladdin trailer reveal had will smith and aladdin nostalgia popup all over the place
The Central Bank isn't regulated, isn't transparent and certainly doesn't have any external auditors either. I don't think you understand how cryptocurrencies, central banks and regulations work. Also, regulations doesn't protect against hacks or theft or shady practices.
Do you have a source for any of this? Because my career as a securities regulation & banking attorney tells me the truth is actually the exact opposite of literally everything you’ve asserted.
How is that any different than the new yorker or traditional media spreading lies and hate about jussie smollet, covington or any other incident and causing mentally unstable people to attack others?
I find it strange how new yorker feels they should be allowed to be toxic but everyone else isn't. It's strange how they feel they aren't responsible for the mentally unstable they accidentally influence but everyone else is responsible.
Using that logic, every movie director, author, journalist, musician, etc would be liable for the actions of the mentally unstable. That would be the end of all media, including the new yorker.
Actually, sleep would have been evolutionarily beneficial to us since we can't see well at night and it would keep us out of way of predators at night. Sleep wouldn't be a drawback, it would be a benefit to our survival.
It's why hamsters are nocturnal. Their predators hunt during the day, so they sleep during the day and play at night.
Evolutionary theory would say the hamsters that like to play during the day got eaten so that only those who slept during the day got to mate and pass on their genes, etc.
If you think sleep is a drawback for humans, trying visiting a forest at night without a flashlight.
So, why would sleep be benefitial to non-nocturnal animals? That is, I think the parent is saying that sleep must be very important because almost all animals sleep. If sleep wasn’t very important, a lot more animals wouldn’t sleep.
Depends on what we're debating. Are we debating whether or not humans need sleep? Or simply that beings with similar brain "design" need sleep? Perhaps due to a flaw in our (Animals) common ancestors we developed sleep to overcome other negative traits. Which is to say that sleep is simply one flaw to compensate for another flaw.
Given the path evolution takes it seems a stretch to ever consider it best, perfect, good or anything other than "it worked just enough at the time". Just enough being the key. All we know is that sleep didn't disrupt animals enough to entirely fail the evolutionary test. However plenty of garbage features go along with more powerful features. One in isolation is not proof of it's perfection, I would think.
There is no denying that sleep is beneficial and I agree with that assertion. I was specifically addressing his point about the drawbacks of sleep - "There are several survival drawbacks from sleep, as it leaves one vulnerable.".
Sleep wasn't a liability to our survival, especially our ancestors. It actually aided in our survival. Human beings who were active at night would have been the vulnerable ones as they would attract predators and were more likely to perish as a result. Especially considering out vision would be limited in the dark.
In short, sleep kept us away from the dangers at night.
Imagine a hypothetical state of pseudo-sleep that causes us to withdraw during the night (the same as normal sleep), except we keep our eyes open/ stay alert.
We are just as hidden from predators, but now even more equipped to defend ourselves.
Therefore it seems difficult to deny that sleep itself has some form of rejuvenative benefit.
Who is denying that sleep has rejuvenative benefit? I'm not. I know that sleep has a rejuvenative benefit.
Please try reading my comment or following the thread. I'll paste it here : "I was specifically addressing his point about the drawbacks of sleep - "There are several survival drawbacks from sleep, as it leaves one vulnerable."."
In other words, sleep has rejuvenative benefits and it keeps us away from predators. Sleep can have many benefits. You can stay up all night, but you'd miss out on the rejuvenative benefits of sleep. Or you can safely tuck away and sleep and gain benefits of safety and rejuvenation.
Whether this is right or wrong is another debate. But race, gender or "diversity" hiring or recruiting certainly isn't illegal. It happens all the time.