A single person can be diverse relative to a group, though. Like a black woman would add diversity to a group of white men, for instance. When we talk about diversity in recruiting, usually we mean diversity of the candidate relative to the makeup of the company.
Optically maybe, if that’s what you’re aiming for. Just assuming that the “group of white men” are “all the same” is not very deep. The truth is that they’re all individuals with individual stories strangers who judge them by their looks know nothing about. It used to be understood as a good thing to not judge people based on their gender or skin color, including the nowadays declared “evil” white men.
That's what the parent is saying. The aforementioned black woman may have more in common with the white men on the team than other white men. If you were striving for true diversity, it is quite possible that yet another white man with a different background would provide the greatest diversity, but if you are only optimizing for optical diversity then those considerations go out the window.
> Are you and the parent really arguing white men are even better than black women at diversity?
People with different backgrounds are "better" at diversity than people with the same background who look dissimilar, for sure. The wealthy black woman who went to school at Stanford alongside all the other white men on your team does not bring any meaningful difference in viewpoint. The tribesman from Kenya, on the other hand, comes with a very different outlook.
Of course, something akin to "Must be a US Citizen" is attached to most jobs because we don't actually care about diversity, just optics.
"diversity of the candidate" doesnt make any sense. Or are you looking at the candidates ancestory and deciding what their diversity is?
A single person isn't "diverse." I know some people are trying to change the meaning of "diverse"to mean "a minority."
May be if they are all posing for a stock photo then yes. But how does it add diversity in a workplace. Assuming all the white men are from different countries.
What if the black woman is privileged, and went to a prestigious college all expenses paid by parents...you know, like most of the white men you meet in tech?
Meanwhile, the person who is self made (real diversity in this situation) and successfully bootstrapped themselves gets passed over because thier skin color is too bright.
Qualified diverse people are rare (no relation to skin color "diversity"). That is why everyone is cracked out over skin color and gender because there is an actual population of people that the HR secretariat pool can EASILY identify by just taking a glance. Thier mission, of course, is to please thier white male executives.
Great question! The value of `role` tells the screen reader the element is a button, that's all. To be focusable, handle touch, mouse and keyboard (space and enter ofc) inputs you could write bespoke JS and CSS, or change `div` to `button`
This is all true and correct advice. I’m reticent to add this because, but for those curious about how close you can get to native <button>/<input type="button"> without the native form control, tabindex=0 gets you pretty much there. They’re all effectively useless without JS and all have the same styling capabilities these days, however, so better to just use the thing that’s designed to be a button unless you have a really special use case that you really understand (you don’t).
That doesn't quite get you there, though. For example, it doesn't submit a form it is contained in when clicked.
There are some use cases where a <button> won't work (eg if you want to use flexbox), but even then I'd first re-evaluate how important that use case is, then reach for a properly tested library to turn another element effectively into a button [1], and only then try to implement it myself and probably forget some built-im functionality, breaking things for users and costing me lots of time.
Flexbox not working in buttons is news to me (and I use display: flex and display: grid all the time). I just tested in both Chrome and Firefox and display: flex works just fine inside a button.
I think there was a bug in Chrome a couple of years ago where they incorrectly denied some element the ability to be flex containers (<fieldset> was a really annoying case of this) but I think that is fixed now.
The only case that I can think of where you can’t use a <button> is if you have nested interactive elements (a button within a link/button). There are sometimes ways around that (absolute positioning of the outer link/button) but sometimes there aren’t and then you need to re-implement a fake button from a <div>.
Oh hmm yeah, you're right, I must've mixed it up with another example in my mind. Ah well, replace that with your example in my comment, and the point stands :)
Indeed, I just remembered I actually have a SO answer where a “fake” button is one of the solutions ( https://stackoverflow.com/a/55155649/2444959 ). This question was about having an enabled button inside a disabled fieldset.
I actually do think that use cases are rare, and when you need a fake button, there are probably better solutions (in the SO question, the question author probably just wanted <details> and <summary>) but—though rare—these cases do exist.
I don’t really see a good way out of this for the UK if pensions are in such a bad state that they can’t tolerate any change in interest rates. The era of free money is over, at least for now. The BoE can’t keep rates at 0 any longer. The government is going to need to borrow money to function (like all governments do). So the only option is going to be to sell bonds on the open market. That’s going to mean that bond prices will fall to the market rate, which is apparently higher than the pensions can tolerate.
The gist being that pension funds hedged with derivatives that are dependent on small movements of bond rates. However, since the rates increased quickly, the pensions needed to sell more bonds to fund their margin calls, which further caused a need to sell more bonds. They started their own death spiral.
Matt Levine in his excellent Money Stuff newsletter had a neat summary of what happened there [0].
Basically:
1. A pension fund has to pay a $100 pension in 30 years (=liability) [1]. So, it buys a 30 year bond today (=asset) that pays $100 in 30 years. The asset and the liability are matched, and it is flat rates: long one bond (which it bought), and "short one bond", namely the pension it has to pay. +1 -1 = 0
2. However, rates have been quite low over the last two decades, making bonds expensive. So, the pension fond decides to try something new: mix bonds with stocks. They have higher expected returns, so it can get away with buying a bit less upfront, say half a bond and some shares. There will be a shortfall, but if the shares outperform the bond, as expected, it will sort itself out in 30 years.
3. Now the pension fund is long half a bond (which it bought), and "short one bond", namely the pension it has to pay, so in total not flat, but short half a bond: +0.5 -1 = -0.5. This means that the fund is unhappy when bonds rise in price, ie yields fall.
4. But even though rates were low two decades ago, they have fallen even lower after the GFC etc. [2] So, funds were unhappy, as they appeared to get worse shortfalls. So, they got the great idea of hedging, ie synthetically going long bonds: happy when bond prices go up, yields fall.
5. But recently, yields have shot up, bond prices fell. That's good, per se, for the pension funds - they're naturally short bonds, after all. Except that now they've hedged - and their hedges went massively against them.
6. Bonds are so cheap now, with high rates, the pension funds should be buying them. But instead they might be forced to sell to cover their margin calls, driving bond prices down even further, and ... we're in the spiral you mentioned.
[1] They actually have to pay a pension more or less every year over the next N years, but one can simplify this particular story by just picking one year.
The books don't need to balance now: there can be a shortfall. That, however, is more of an accounting artefact (the books are not balanced now, but it is going to be ok in 30 years if the stocks outperform as expected).
The problem is that as rates fall, the shortfall increases. That's still just an accounting artefact, but it looks bad. To mitigate the bad look, the funds entered real hedges, which are now (with rates moving the opposite way) blowing up.
So, my understanding is that the funds took a real and unnecessary risk to mitigate what was basically just "bad optics".
But did they really enter into these hedges after the GFC? It seems like rates were already near-zero so it wouldn’t have made much sense to hedge against lowering rates.
Doesn't matter which is more common. All actively developed languages eventually get new keywords and breaking changes. However, most of them will not interfere with existing code running under previously defined behaviors.
Even node 10 applications that use MooTools (i.e. JavaScript executing in a different runtime) will continue to work just fine if `flatten` is added as proposed in node 11+. The developers will eventually need to patch it but it's not like this bug where one day users autoupdate their browser and half the websites they visit are broken.
I don't think the GP is saying the government needs to enforce laws on the usage of the blockchain, in general. Rather, one use of the blockchain is to run a centralized investment bank. In such cases, the government should regulate them just as they would any other investment bank, on or off the blockchain.
Communist countries did succeed because they controlled demand. Although I don’t think people would like the solution that much, e.g. three families living together in a 3 bedroom apartment, one family per bedroom.
No, they didn't. They just had supply&demand based on how long you were willing to wait, the black market, barter, privilege, and a market of favors and counter-favors.
One of the founding principles of this country is “no taxation without representation.” Disregarding the will of the voters seems to run contrary to that.
Pro-housing principles have been quite popular with California voters; Scott Wiener (the state senator with the most aggressive upzoning bills) is the most popular elected official in SF even. It's just they're only popular at the state level, not the local level - that's what it means to be a NIMBY. But none of the major YIMBY policies have lost anyone an election yet that I know of.
If the law obliges construction to happen, and the law prevents it from being prevented, then the will of the people is expressed legislatively. This would normally be considered an expression of representation. This kind of a SEZ could be terminated if the relevant people elected relevant representatives to the relevant legislature.
The will of the voters is sometimes different depending on what you ask them.
If you ask people if they support a constitutional right to free speech, they'll probably say yes. If you ask them if someone should have a right to say some specific disagreeable thing, many people will say no.
Similarly with NIMBYism, people say they want houses built and support candidates who say they'll fix the housing crisis, but if you ask them about some specific planned development close to them, they say no.
I have no idea what the will of the voters actually is on this issue. Everyone agrees there's a problem, but most people are against all solutions.
> If you ask people if they support a constitutional right to free speech, they'll probably say yes. If you ask them if someone should have a right to say some specific disagreeable thing, many people will say no.
Source? I think most people are going to understand that speech you disagree with is part of freedom of speech.
If the speech gets offensive enough, you can get people to say it shouldn't be protected.
Is Fred Phelps holding a sign saying "Fags die, God laughs" at a military funeral protected speech? It was non-obvious enough that it went to the Supreme Court, meaning a lot of people thought he had no right to say that.
Do you have the right to burn a US flag in protest? There literally were laws banning that until the Supreme Court said that's protected.
I don't think it'd be hard to find people who are still in favor of a flag burning ban, or who want to ban offensive speech near funerals.
I don't have statistics but anyone who was around for those examples knows there were plenty of people on both sides.
Some public sectors have success with this (e.g. Singapore, Vienna)
I think the main issue I have with it as a proposal is that the fiscal resources required to sustain such a program only exist at the federal level, and it's not ethical to embark on such an endeavor if there is no solid 60-vote bloc in the Senate and poor people are at risk of getting the rug from pulled out from under them. (See how our current housing authorities are doing to know how that plays out.)
> fiscal resources required to sustain such a program only exist at the federal level
Some USA resort towns and counties do it. They are flush with vacationer tax dollars and short labor, so local gov't builds housing mainly for workers.
The feds don't have the funds to do this, though the feds can borrow from the future apparently indefinitely.
Most states and localities cannot borrow anywhere near as much before testing the markets. (For a non-state example of how horribly that can turn out, look at Puerto Rico.)
So pass laws to provide incentives for bare bones low income construction, and disincentivize excessive luxury construction. In a lot of places you can't build unless you also build a certain amount of parking, the same approach could be applied to affordable apartments.
We also need laws against large scale speculative home purchases. An individual having a vacation home/rental unit or two is one thing, but home flippers and large scale property rental corps are a big problem.
Maybe "desirable" isn't the right word, but I walked through several public projects recently in my area and they are much safer and better maintained than the historic image. Talking to people there, it was evident that they were not the "freeloaders" so often portrayed by a certain group of politicians either - many were there because of health care costs and other calamities that were beyond the person's control. I was there in the middle of the day and it was obvious that a whole lot of people were out at work - again, not the image so often unfairly portrayed of the unemployed freeloader. The houses and grounds were clean and well-maintained, more so than the poorer neighborhoods surrounding them.
GI Bill suburbia was built by private home builders and contractors, not the government. They were not public works. The government subsidized the loans.
Government loan subsidies, government loan guarantees, additional subsidies in the mortgage interest rate deduction, local government paying for infrastructure (roads/utilities), ...
perhaps I take a broader definition of public works than you do.
Also, say a city or state government wants to build a low-cost/low-income housing (or take historical examples if you will), the type of undesirable stuff the parent was talking about. Who do you think actually does the building work? Is it government employees, or is it sub'ed out to private builders and contractors?
And if it is government workers, can you please explain why say the Army Corps of Engineers would be better or worse at building a bridge than say a private contractor? Which of the two is more incentivized to cut corners and do things on the cheap wherever possible?
Of course the government subcontracts the work out to do the actual construction. By the government has no incentive to build livable housing. Government employees don’t live in the housing. The government doesn’t have a business reputation to uphold. As crazy as it might sound, those who live in a community just might have a better understanding of how it should be developed compare to those on the outside.
>...perhaps I take a broader definition of public works than you do.
You're taking an incorrect definition of "public works". Words have meaning: "Public works are a broad category of infrastructure projects, financed and constructed by the government, for recreational, employment, and health and safety uses in the greater community."
Suburbia was not constructed by the government, and is not for recreational, employment, and health and safety uses in the greater community. It is for the use of a private owner.
Suburbia is by definition not a public works. QED.
>Who do you think actually does the building work? Is it government employees, or is it sub'ed out to private builders and contractors?
Many times it's a mix of both. Cities and states employ thousands of plumbers, electricians, etc. Nonetheless, if you get a house constructed by WestCoastHomeBuildersLLC, but they subcontract a large percent of the actual construction out to subcontractors, you'd still say your house was built by WestCoastHomeBuildersLLC. That's who you'd go to for warranty issues, for construction progress, etc. Same applies for the government and public works.
>And if it is government workers, can you please explain why say the Army Corps of Engineers would be better or worse at building a bridge than say a private contractor?
For the same reasons private industry is better at building practically... everything.
>Which of the two is more incentivized to cut corners and do things on the cheap wherever possible?
Government for sure because they can save money and face zero liability issues down the line. Insanely impossible to be fired so you can be lazy and cut corners all day and you'll still keep your job, and they projects are constantly cutting corners to save on materials. Then after you poison (Camp Lejeun) thousands of people you just shrug because no one goes to jail.
We can look to the communities the Soviets built mid-century. They were organized around the concept of community, something sorely lacking in big metro urban neighborhoods.
