I was skeptical that month-over-month CPI had come down to reasonable levels over a wider time window, but it is much lower than the same period a year ago, and close to recent historical norms outside that inflationary spike. I am eager to see Tuesday's numbers for February inflation.
What absolute rubbish. White males commit much much less crime per capita than Hispanic or black males. Fbi statistics demonstrate that with absolute clarity. It's been the case forever and has actually gotten Worse since the 1960s so please spare me your systemic racism argument. How is the country more racist now than the 1960s?
You are a bigot with no empathy and hate in your heart. Please grow as a person.
>Past discrimination doesn't justify discrimination in the present.
You show a kind of logical thinking, since it is in fact a kind of discrimination in the present. However, you can verify for yourself that this is correct through something like the following. It's pseudocode, to help you reason correctly:
// assume all we know about the candidate is whether they are "A" or "B" and their years of experience.
// generate 10,000 candidates
candidates = 10,000 x random (a or b)
for each candidate trueability = random (1 to 100) // their true ability which we don't know is a random number 1 to 100
for each candidate years of experience = random (1 to 20)
// however, let's corrupt our data. Let's artificially reduce the years of experience for all candidates who are "A".
// let's add sexism
for each candidate:
if candidate gender == "A" then years of experience = 0
Under this scenario, is using the proxy "years of experience" the best way to get trueability?
Bag of candidates = 10 random candidates from all candidates
How can you judge the best candidate if the most salient characteristic (years of experience) is artificially constrained?
This is the situation under the true historical context I quoted above:
>The IBM interviewer commented that he had never seen such a high score from any applicant and offered me either a secretarial or an entry sales position. I countered that I was interested in their advertised technical positions that required a math background, especially given my score on their math aptitude test, but he simply said that those positions were for males. End of conversation.
This means that my outrageous pseudocode with this corrupt line that caps talented candidates at 0 years of experience - actually describes real life. Continuing to use the proxy rather than get the trueability is not justified.
Under such a scenario, it is no longer possible to use the salient proxy characteristic to judge the candidate.
I want you to really get this, so I'll use a final motivating example.
- Should a company hire violent rapists?
Of course not. They are a threat to other employees.
Okay, so what if someone accused you of being a violent rapist even though you were innocent? That would suck! Imagine if you tried to appeal but were told: "Sorry. We understand you were falsely accused in the past, but a false accusation in the past does NOT justify us spending resources on determining whether the accusation is true or not. It is easiest for us to use the proxy of not hiring anyone like you."
I use this example because if I were a woman denied a job just because I wasn't a man, I would feel it is a gross injustice similar to a false accusation. So, you should use that feeling to realize that the "discrimination" you're complaining about is in fact righting a wrong.
You are saying: "Righting past wrongs does not justify spending present resources". This is a moral question. Personally, I feel I have enough resources to spend an extra few seconds each candidate to see their true ability, rather than applying a heuristic based on past discrimination. In my experience this also gives me access to better teams faster. If that comes at the cost that I have to get to know candidates it seems like a small price to pay.
Dr Fauci told people masks where ineffective early on in the pandemic, allegedly for the "altruistic" motive of ensuring "front line" workers don't have issues getting hold of masks. Do you attribute a percent of transmission to him?
The final verdict on the efficacy of masks against this virus is still TBD once we have more information and the passage of time removes the political agenda's that cloud this conversation. Your "own the libs" certainly doesn't help either.
It's creepy how some people keep trying to memory hole what our own health officials said about masks in the early days. I wonder whether they really think this kind of thing flies under the radar or they are so embarrassed they parroted the 'masks are worse than useless' line that they genuinely forgot about that part of the story themselves.
Though IMHO, given the role vitamin D deficiency seems to have on mortality rates, I think the harshest criticism (charges?) should be reserved for any mayor who ordered tanning beds to close in his or her city.
oh yes, because there is HUGE reward in fighting against the most popular narrative /S.
In all seriousness, sometimes for certain people (outliers) there can be, but like musicians and sports stars for every one person who turns a censored idea into a speaking tour there are millions who are just quietly fired.
You can be suspicious all you want, but frankly that is totally irrelevant info and frankly useless. Some people are suspicious that the earth is round, either it is or it isn't and if you think he's wrong, prove him wrong and publish your findings, that's the system. The system is not "I don't like this idea so it must be wrong"
This is honestly going to end in disaster soon enough
