Let me re-iterate myself: I didn't mention any specific attribute, not to say specific gender or ethic groups. So, what you are saying here is probably not a natural interpretation to draw from my question.
I do agree with the cultural fit part though. It's subjective and easy to manipulate to what direction as convenient to the company.
Talk about "dumb", I don't think sane companies will ever hire anybody who they considered as "dumb", because it's counter-productive. However, it's possible that a certain group have a slightly lower bar. They are still good, but just not as selective as their counter part. As long as it's good for the company's public image, morale, etc, they might want to make this trade-off.
Does this policy not uncommon in the industry? -- Is essentially my question. Please note that this doesn't necessarily mean that certain group(s) are superior/inferior then the other group(s). This simply means the general public confused the population as general population, instead of number of candidates. So that companies might want to skew the graph a bit to make it composed more like general population to please general public, media, whatever.
I genuinely have no idea what you're trying to say.
Everythin you write makes me think that you're saying that diversity means a company has to lower the bar; and that they get other benefits for doing that - public image is one example you give.
The only possible conclusion to draw from that is that yu're saying people with a protected characteristic are not as "good" as the general population.
His question is regarding so-called "affirmative action" or quota-like initiatives in companies, where those with a protected status are given a preference in hiring purely based on their protected status. That's what he means by lowering the bar.
I don't know how many companies do this, but many people on HN (including myself) agree that such practices are unfair. I agree with sarahj's comment on the matter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8431039
Creating a good environment for diversity is about noticing and eliminating biases, and trying to provide an equal playing field for all potential candidates. OP appears to be concerned that some companies will take things further than that to give "diverse" candidates an unequal advantage. That's all.
From what I have seen, top players in the field do use gender neutral language in their job posting. Regarding point 2, I think the point is the number of candidates. Even if all the groups are uniform in terms of skill, the larger group will end up getting more offers.
Totally agree with you. In terms of hiring, any factor other than job-related capability shouldn't be considered. Trying to optimize diversity metrics violates this principle.
That video demonstrates what happens when you try to land in the ocean while you are fighting with hijackers which causes a sudden dip to one side, when you happen to be over a coral reef for the engine on that side to hit. Even with that, the crash was quite survivable. A large number of the fatalities were due to drowning, because people inflated life rafts while still inside, which blocked them in so they drowned when the plane sank.
This is probably not a good crash to use as a baseline for predicting what would be typical for an ocean landing attempt.
The hijackers, who were apparently young, stupid and intoxicated - forced the pilot to try to fly to Australia, even though the pilot said they didn't even have enough fuel to make it 25% of the way.
The plane ran out of fuel off the coast of Africa, and the engines died.
The pilot used a Ram Air Turbine (basically using airspeed to drive a turbine) to provide emergency power so he could land.
However, I assume the hydraulics didn't work at this stage, hence he couldn't use the flaps to slow it down.
I disagree, the US just isn't that different. Yes, theres small pockets of intense difference, often composed of first and second generation immigrants, but otherwise "American" culture is fairly homogeneous thanks to mass media.
I do agree with the cultural fit part though. It's subjective and easy to manipulate to what direction as convenient to the company.
Talk about "dumb", I don't think sane companies will ever hire anybody who they considered as "dumb", because it's counter-productive. However, it's possible that a certain group have a slightly lower bar. They are still good, but just not as selective as their counter part. As long as it's good for the company's public image, morale, etc, they might want to make this trade-off.
Does this policy not uncommon in the industry? -- Is essentially my question. Please note that this doesn't necessarily mean that certain group(s) are superior/inferior then the other group(s). This simply means the general public confused the population as general population, instead of number of candidates. So that companies might want to skew the graph a bit to make it composed more like general population to please general public, media, whatever.