There is no great source on the details across the nation, but there are a hodgepodge of municipal-level studies that shed a light.
There were roughly 20k gun homicides in the US in 2021[0]. It's been fluctuating between 10k and 20k over the past five decades or so, with the last few years seeing a quick increase and seeing a (hopefully) local peak in rates.
In one study in San Francisco, ~70% of gun homicide victims had a criminal record, and three quarters of that figure knew the suspect[1]. A similar study in Milwaukee found that ~90% of both victims and suspects of gun homicides had a criminal record[2], and the top two reasons identified of the circumstances behind the homicide were arguments/fights and robberies. There are other studies done at local levels in many other places with similar results.
A DOJ study notes that three quarters of all gun homicides were during the commission of a (different) felony[3]. And you can query the CDC WONDER mortality database[4] yourself to see that gun homicide rates in "large central metro" areas are twice as high as those in medium, small, or non-metro areas, and that men 15-34 years of age comprise the majority of gun homicide victims.
So, perhaps my "gang-on-gang" statement wasn't really accurate (since a "gang-related" incident is loosely defined), and I'll leave the "vast majority" determination to you; but the point is that most gun homicides occur among the "criminal element" in "bad parts of town", and is not really relevant to life as a software engineer.
Exactly, the reason "active shooter" situations frighten ordinary folks is because they're the rare type of shooting that can victimize you even if you're law-abiding and don't live in a very high crime area.
In 2020, 687 people were killed in railway accidents in the EU, being Poland the country with the highest number with 148 fatalities, followed closely by Germany with 137.
Trains are really unpredictable. Even in the middle of a forest two rails can appear out of nowhere, and a 1.5-mile fully loaded coal drag, heading east out of the low-sulfur mines of the PRB, will be right on your ass the next moment.
there's a lot more than I would have thought in the US.
Railroad deaths totaled 893 in 2021, a 20% increase from the 2020 revised total of 744 and the highest since 2007. Nonfatal injuries totaled 5,781, a 4% increase from the 2020 revised total of 5,544.
wow, I guess mass shootings are no problem at all and when they happen we should be like, "so what? 3000 people died of cancer today, who cares if some kids got their faces blown to pieces". thanks for clearing that up! problem solved
It's possible to think it's not ok but also so vanishingly unlikely to happen that it's not a useful comparison point for quality of life in Europe vs America.
For me, "never get sick or have any kids or anything" is a much stronger point against life the US - these are issues almost everyone has to confront.
> Why don’t we band together, mass produce 2500 nuclear plants that are at least as large, and make an actual difference.
Because the same climate activists who keep harping on the "climate crisis" and successfully push policies like in OP, are also irrationally opposed to nuclear energy.
Since these folks are calling the shots, we're heading into an energy crisis in which:
1. More and more demand is placed on our power grid due to moves like banning natural gas for heating.
2. This same power grid is rendered less and less capable and reliable due to being increasingly based on unreliable energy sources like wind and solar.
I grabbed some stats off google: solar nuclear and battery costs
Companies that are planning new nuclear units are currently indicating that the total costs (including escalation and financing costs) will be in the range of $5,500/kW to $8,100/kW or between $6 billion and $9 billion for each 1,100 MW plant.
Installing a solar farms will cost about $0.80 to $1.36 per watt. Solar farm costs can be estimated by energy output (megawatts) or size (acres). One megawatt is the power equal to 1 million watts, and one megawatt will power about 164 homes. ~$800-$1360/kw
Battery:
$152/kWh
Now, BNEF expects the volume-weighted average battery pack price to rise to $152/kWh in 2023
Nuclear would get some serious economies of scale at 2500 units, so those prices aren't a fair comparison of what could be.
I've long maintained here on HN, however, that under-investment in nuclear has made it not cost effective compared to renewables + storage (remember you don't need 100% storage.) At current market prices, nuclear doesn't make much sense. It could have really helped if we'd started earlier with it though, before renewables were in the picture.
> It is oriented to appeasing stockholders (investors), who want to see earnings grow.
This strategy appeases short-term shareholders, at the cost of significantly penalizing long-term holders. It's not a simple case of "appeasing shareholders".
My point is that shareholder capitalism doesn't necessarily lead to the short-term focus you describe. Shareholders can in fact be the group with the longest-term focus of all. They can still be there and care about the company long after the current C-suite are all gone.
While it's certainly possible for that to be true, it isn't in reality. The average holding period of a stock is 5.5 months.
People have proposed to not give people voting power as shareholders until they've held the stock for a period, because there is this huge population of investors that care nothing for the long term viability of thr company.
I don't think I have communicated what I meant. Stock traders would be people who trade stocks looking for return on investment through trading, not from investing in a company by holding stock.
Even Minneapolis ended up reversing their "defund the police" effort:
> Dealing the final blow to the local "defund" movement last year was a city council vote to essentially refund a cut they'd made the prior year. Mayor Jacob Frey is proposing another budget bump for the next two fiscal years.
As far as I'm aware, every single city that defunded its police to any extent - ended up with a major crime surge and then reversed itself. You can see in the article that Minneapolis was no exception to that rule.
This argument makes no sense at all. San Francisco homicide count is close to the national average, however, unlike most cities, these homicides aren't confined to bad neighborhoods and criminals operating within them, but can affect anyone.
Which makes SF far more dangerous to law abiding professionals like ourselves, compared to cities that have the same homicide count, but where the victims are other demographics and not our own.
> Which makes SF far more dangerous to law abiding professionals like ourselves
If San Francisco has national average drug crime as well as above national average rates of "professionals" as well as organized crime, then it seems to follow that if SF homicide count is close to the national average, you are actually less likely to be a victim of a homicide than if all of those homicides were among a small population of "professionals."
There's been plenty of evidence posted to this thread showing that SF is more dangerous to law-abiding civilians than other cities. This in addition to the incident that started this thread in the first place: the homicide of a law-abiding professional in an upscale part of SF.
You keep trying to counter that with wild speculation that contradicts well-established facts. It simply won't do.
Usually you mention that sort of compensation opportunity cost and the hiring company can match it with a sign on bonus to make a pain free transition.
We're really assuming a lot about the new employer here. Let's not get too smug about the great employment market we've had for the past decade. It may not last forever, or much longer.
Also, it depends on the opportunity cost. It's great to think you're such a great guy that any employer will pay anything to have you, but that's simply not true for most people. If you're losing out on a major grant or bonus, that could be far more than the new employer is willing to pay. I know because I've been in these situations, on both sides of the table. If we budgeted $500k for some job, you're not getting an extra $250k just because you'd about to get that in two months if you stayed with your current employer.
And no new employer can compensate you for the right to mention on your resume that you completed a major project you were 6 months from completing when some criminal decided to harass you.
it is and there's nothing formulaic here nor any guarantees. Folks can also sit and wait it out and tell the recruiters "now's not a good time but I can reach out to you after X months and we can continue from where we left off once I secure XYZ".
People can also decide to pass on deferred compensation when it's not "life changing money" as I heard one individual express once when he left behind some pension or stock or whatever the carrot was that was held out in the nearish future at a previous company I was at. Basically end this deferred compensation for the promise of a better one albeit with a later maturity date.
Lots of calculus and variables involved in these situations obviously but it never hurts to ask and align on these sorts of things where possible. Folks usually don't get mad when others act in their best interest, they'd do the same if they were in the others shoes is how it seems to me.
Once during a hiring panel at a previous role, the hiring manager asked us to be sure we reviewed the candidate as a junior. After we gave feedback, they mentioned they were being pressured to hire a woman and that this was why we were asked to judge the candidate below standards. Ultimately got the job, and while she turned out to be a quick learner and great coworker I still remember how shocked and… helpless I felt to actually witness it for myself. Several other candidates, all male, were not hired because we only had one remaining headcount. I feel like I was party to discrimination and still feel vaguely guilty about it.
I agree with your take despite the downvotes. Ultimately this person went on to be successful and was formidable and honest. They deserved the chance they were given, just as most of the other candidates so far have made it my way (imo) did. People have taken chances on me too. Real life is full of complex feelings. I don’t really think this experience demonstrated anything to me other than that this sort of pressure exists.
Had a manager at one job tell me explicitly that they gave an interview to a candidate but knew it wouldn't move forward to a hire since they wanted to hire a woman. I felt gross hearing and knowing that but it was said and not written so there was nothing I could do about it. And I probably would've gotten fired for raising an issue even if I did have that in writing.
Question for this sort of situation: could you send an email to "confirm the case" to your boss and your boss'boss for this? They would need to respond and get this in writing. At that point, if they fire you they will have a big problem, if they don't hire the person, they will still have a big problem.
I understand that it creates a whole set of bad situations, so just asking what's the theoretical appropriate way to handle this
No. Don't do this unless you have a backup job, or can survive fine for a while on unemployment. If you do want to report the behavior, report the pertinent details to the EEOC (or whatever is equivalent for your country).
They could just not respond at all to the email. They could say the person receiving it didn't understand what the email was asking so deleted it. They could say that the managers never made any such statements and thought the employee (who they would also say had other performance or HR issues) was trying to entrap them, and that they fired the employee for the alleged entrapment.
Document and report. Don't try to catch someone unless you're advised to do so by a lawyer or law enforcement or the like.
Skewing heavily male I will grant you, but not even close to being majority white in almost all cases.
But that puts it right in line with your average computer science or software engineering cohort at any given university, so I'm really not sure what your problem is.
Like I get you might think it's unfair there aren't more women in software but I'm not sure what you want us to do about that my dude.
We can't just force more girls into software if they aren't interested in it.
Closest thing I can find that seems relevant in there:
"Compared to overall private industry, the high tech sector employed a larger share of whites (63.5 percent to 68.5 percent), Asian Americans (5.8 percent to 14 percent) and men (52 percent to 64 percent"
First point would be that doesn't really support your contention that 90% of tech employees are white men.
That said, they can't be measuring what we think of as tech; it's certainly more than the claimed 64% male. I'm pretty sure that restricted to actual tech, it would be both more male and less white.
HR roles, like most others, are numbers driven. Recruiters are expected to deliver a number of applicants, interview a number of candidates, etc. This means that yes, they often interview people they have no intention to hire: It makes the HR person look good.
This can happen if they have a diversity hire directive but interview non-diverse candidates, but it can also happen if they want to hire a white guy but have a company directive to interview diverse candidates for every role. Either way, they can say they looked at everyone before hiring whatever candidate they wanted.
I think it's much less of a problem these days, partly because the talent crunch forced tech companies to hire older employees as well.
It's still present, but not as rampant and intense as it was. Also, note that it was discussed and acknowledged at the time, but that didn't magically make it go away. Zuck stated on record that if you're over 30, successful companies should not employ you, and he was the founder, owner, and chief exec of a major tech corporation.
Everyone knew it was going on, it was also acknowledged, and it was illegal, yet nobody did anything about it, and it kept going. Dispels your illusion of how illegal / immoral practices just go away when they are exposed. The current trend of gender and race-based discrimination won't just go away by itself, either.
I work at a FANG and there was a reshuffling in my team of 30 people as a new manager came in - there were 5 women/25 men. After the reshuffling, the 5 women became the 5 new TLs of the 5 projects our team was subdivided into. And the manager talks all the time about how he wants to empower women. Not sure if that counts. I guess it could have just been coincidence.
Only once or twice this egregious. Most of the time however it’s explicit diversity incentives for executives if they want to hit their perf targets. If you can’t get the hires, the other way to game it is to shrink the denominator if you fail to increase the numerator.
Someone who was the ultimate decider said that the group already had enough "pale males;" a look was given to me and guy in the wheelchair because, by virtue of our disabilities, we were presumed to already be on the Yay Diversity! Squad, despite our pallor and penisness.
That was the phrase, I was in the room, etc. It doesn't just happen, they don't really try to hide it now.
You make them sound like saints. They are not, and they have a history of being less scrupulous than some of these other companies. Here's just a small example of what they're capable of when their obsession for secrecy and control makes them flex their corporate muscle: http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/mobile/09/07/iphone.5.probe/ind...
And we didn't even talk about their sweatshops in China which has always had persistent labor-abuse issues[0], the Chinese government boosting iPhone production with child slave labor, and all the many other scandals they've been involved with.
I really have no idea how anyone would get the notion that they are any better than the rest of the pack. Perhaps their upbeat pristine presentations, live from Cupertino. They should broadcast one from their sweatshops in Shenzhen. Some of the highschool kids they pressed into 11 hour shifts to assemble their iPhones could sing the praise of Tim Cook: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/21/apple-iphone-x-reportedly-as...
> And we didn't even talk about their sweatshops in China where employees kill themselves an awful lot, the Chinese government boosting iPhone production with child slave labor, and all the many other scandals they've been involved with.
This tired argument again.
Apple has always led the industry in their auditing of their supply chain and taking proactive steps to address illegal and unethical behaviour. There will always be mistakes but it's how you deal with them that counts.
If you're going to call Foxconn a sweatshop then arguably Amazon, Tesla etc should be called them as well.
5 years ago it was the massive child-slave-labor scandal, which I suppose is what you refer to as "mistakes happen". Apple chose to continue to use Foxconn for production, even though they had similar scandals before and after the child-slave-labor one, until our present day.
That's not a "mistake". Apple is deliberately choosing to use a producer which has had persistent issues with labor abuse, some of which were as serious as pressing schoolchildren into 11 hour shifts of slave labor.
Let's face reality here: Apple is using Foxconn because they produce their products quickly and cheaply. They don't care about the abuse as long as it makes more cheap gadgets with fat profit margins. They aren't saints, nor better than other companies in their position.
> If you're going to call Foxconn a sweatshop then arguably Amazon, Tesla etc should be called them as well.
I never said Apple is worse than the rest of the industry. I refuted the notion that they are far better, and the overall halo of sainthood hung over them in this thread.
I clarified the comment, since suicide rates aren't the only factor by which to judge or point out the issues at Foxconn. Foxconn had a long list of labor abuse[0], and apparently they still do given large-scale worker protests last November[1].
You'd think so, but from his own account he's not. Pre Asahi he used Fedora because it was easy to get working and he found Debian too hard to install. Could just be dry Finnish humour.
For me personally it's much easier to install and maintain Arch based distros than Debian based ones. It is very simple and doesn't try to do everything in your place. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Ubuntu/Debian/Fedora and others are great if they work out of the box. As soon as some proprietary GPU or other driver gets involved it can get painful. I recently installed Fedora on latest Thinkpad with dedicated Nvidia GPU and could not get it to work properly on Fedora. Driver crashed and did not load during startup. After trying a bit I switched to Arch and while the initial setup took longer, everything works and I can actually update it without requiring to add some shady 3rd party repos or compiling essential packages after each update manually myself.
He actually believes the opposite. He wants to work from a reliable system so he can focus on the important work, not fiddling with drivers for touchpads or dealing with bugs that are secondary.
I've never read that about Torvolds, who I believe uses fairly standard GNOME. Could you be confusing him with Stallman who does things like use wget for browsing the internet?
Driver support for bare metal use on the M2 Air was really, really poor at the time. Linus mentions Asahi Linux, so he probably wasn't running virtualized Linux under macOS. Maybe he SSHed into the box, or it wasn't an M2 model after all.
Fedora's primary distribution may have Gnome, but there are many other desktop environments that are available "out of the box", as I'm sure you know. I've been running Fedora on dozens of systems over the last decade and I've never used Gnome -- because it's annoying and supremely unintuitive.
That's out of 330 million total population.