This is a better article on the topic explaining that the ABA's requirements for different forms of diversity oppose the administration's ban on DEI. It also points out that this could lower the cost of law school by reducing superfluous requirements for law school accreditation.
My longest employment stint was at such a company and it was a very good experience for me. That said, even though I worked at such a company for a while, I don't have a very good idea how I would go about identifying other such companies with open roles. Any suggestions on how to do that?
For identifying companies by size/funding/vertical sure. Been a while since I used it (thank god I got out of sales) but they almost definitely track headcount growth if not actual openings. Trouble is you probably won’t find it in the free version
VC firms often have recruiters that are familiar with the stage and quality of their portfolio amd can provide warm introductions. Last go round I gave them my criteria (no moonshots, solid revenue, post series A, no crypto) and had several quickly lined up.
There are certainly legitimate concerns about the influence of Amazon and other large corporations, but the solution is not so simple as what you suggest. Corporations are associations of people, so you are advocating for civil rights for individuals up until they associate with others and act or speak collectively. That would be radically detrimental to the meaning of civil rights.
Corporations do not exist to facilitate collective advocacy. There is zero reason to believe that the views of the C-suite or board of directors for a corporation represent the views of a majority, significant minority, or even any of its employees.
Pretending like they are a vehicle for collective speech merely amplifies the speech of the owners at the (potential) expense of the employees. Perpetuating the facade is sadly both another symptom and a furtherance of the corrupting influence of money in our politics.
What about civil rights for individuals up until they form a legal structure oriented around amassing profits and protecting the individuals from liability?
An argument could be made to have different rules for benefit corporations and non-profit corporations as opposed to traditional for-profit corporations.
Corporations have personhood in and of themselves, and not in representation of a collective of people. This is what builds the corporate veil and legally shields investors and operators as individuals, to some degree, from corporate actions.
Organizations such as the ACLU and the American Red Cross are registered organizations and I doubt you'd advocate for restricting or redefining their civil rights. Perhaps you'd draw the line at for-profit organizations, but that doesn't make it better. Should Ben & Jerry's or Patagonia or other corporations with notable positions on social issues not enjoy the protection of civil rights from those who oppose them?
The bottom line is that any restriction or redefinition of civil rights is fraught with negative unintended consequences. It should be an option chosen with extreme care.
This. I finally switched from using various APC models to an Eaton 5S 1500 unit for my desktop and a couple peripherals and it's much better while still being comparably priced.
I would say that infrequently used tools are an especially good choice for battery-powered cordless tools when the alternative is typically a tool powered by a gas small engine. For example, I need a chainsaw for infrequent jobs, but every time I ran it, I'd have to fiddle with the carb and the spark plugs, throw out old gas, make a new gas/oil mix, etc., so it was a major pain and I'd use it only if I really, really needed it. I replaced it with a 36v Makita chainsaw and it's a breeze to use every time.
But I don't think it's about those kinds of tools. The type of power tools who truly benefit from having a combustion engine motor are not getting replaced by battery powered tools anytime soon because of energy density restriction.
If you could replace a gas-powered tool with a battery tool, either it would be way overkill or really old and inefficient.
In my opinion if the chainsaw you mentioned seems sufficient, it is probably not that necessary and you could get away with infrequent rental or even human powered tools.
Then again if you have the budget and don't mind spending it on things that deliver less value, why not but arguably if you were to spend that much on this type of tool you could get a much better gas powered chainsaw for the price...
Not who you're replying to, but I also have a brushless 36V Makita chainsaw. I buck and split 2-3 full cords of firewood every year for myself. The biggest logs I've cut with it are ~30 inches in diameter. I only have a 16" bar, so that means coming at it from all around. The Makita is stunningly good for my use case, much better than the gas saw I used to have.
I have two sets of batteries, and they'll get me through more cutting than I want to do in a day. Occasionally weather will cause me to need to do more than I want in a day, and one set of batteries will charge in just enough time for me to get through the other set and take a little break, so I can go all day long. In my case, the only time I'm not cutting near grid power is when I'm clearing a log that fell across a trail I'm riding in my UTV, but I'm not going to keep riding down a trail that has enough downed trees to consume a set of batteries.
There's no place to rent chainsaws within an hour's drive of where I live (I live in a rural, forested area). There are certainly more powerful gas-powered saws, but I don't need the power. If I suddenly feel like getting some cutting done, I much prefer not having to worry about whether I have gas and premix (I still have to worry about bar/chain oil, but a gallon lasts me 2-3 years). The nearest gas station is a 30-40 minute round trip. I love not having to worry about disturbing my wife or the neighbor when their windows are open. It was fun last summer when my neighbor came out of his house to be surprised that I'd bucked 3 logs, each 30 feet long and 18" in diameter, while he slept with his windows open. Saying there are "much better gas powered" saws implies a single dimension of comparison. That's not the case - there are just different trade-offs.
The battery tools are rapidly catching up; five years ago none of the tree maintenance crews I saw had anything but the gas; now they all have a Milwaukee or similar battery chainsaw in the truck. It's much quicker, lighter, and easier for all sorts of things that don't need the biggest gas saws.
And the price difference is dropping (the Milwaukee is about $500 including battery and charger, without sales) which is "close enough" to a quality saw, once you take into account the consumables.
That's the whole "golden age" - we are at or passing the point where the cordless tool is just better even accounting for all the various options.
This is most definitely true, but I think it highlights the mistaken idea that individual healthcare is a commodity. I think we all recognize that an excellent home builder, auto mechanic, attorney, software developer, etc., can have an outsized impact on the outcome of potentially severe or expensive situation but we often put less effort into finding a healthcare provider for a particular malady. I've had some severe negative outcomes from questionably competent, focused-on-billing doctors where I would have been better off not seeing a doctor at all than seeing them. Unfortunately, there's no reliable way to separate the truly skilled doctors from the ones who barely passed their boards.
I guess I hold the (idealised) view that doctors and hospitals should be held to higher standards than the other professions you listed, to varying degrees.
It's probably also harder make an evidence-based decision about a doctor than some other professions.
Their X Compact line of phones was great with high-end SoCs and incredible battery life but unfortunately, they haven't released any new phones in that line for several years so they're pretty dated now.
