Rule35
So anyone saying 'trans people deserve basic human rights' is actually saying something else, like about access to women's spaces. That disingenuous advocacy of one thing to get another thing through under the table is more activist than principled. In a company or otherwise.
Yes, but ... That's work they brought on themselves by not doing the right things in the easy way. Sure, once they're there, there is a lot of work to come back but that should be used as a reason to not use those frameworks in the first place.
Some accessibility is like adding alt-text. It adds work. But almost everything else is just not abusing the browser and is generally done simply by following the recommendations. And not trying to live on the bleeding edge.
There's a difference of magnitude, in that one is a guy's name and the other is a guy's project's name. But no, I don't see a fundamental difference.
If you can't reliably pronounce my name and it'll sound like a bad word when you try, then you should say what you can say safely. I don't care enough that I want you nervous or slowing down a meeting. But if you expect me to change my name to what you could say I would not.
You trying your best is okay, you requiring me to lower the bar so you can succeed is not okay.
Anyways, yes we could require him to change his name because it's distracting. That would be one thing to do. It's the solution suggested by people in this thread...
They aren't though. This isn't about the poor (theoretical) coq-sayer, this is about the righteousness of the name decriers. If you can't point to a real victim we're better off assuming there isn't one and that you're just trying to look hip.
> any other name, idiom, or figure of speech that offends, embarrasses or diminishes others?
Sure, if it did actually diminish people someone would take you seriously. If the product was named after a slur, actually referencing it, and rudely. Like "TheMick, a project to track alcoholism".
But who is hurt by the concept that words in one language sound like different words in another? And is the speaker of the first language to blame or the speaker of the second who hears a dirty word? Allocate blame here, that we may smite the wicked.
> I guess you don't find it embarrassing so you don't see the problem
Even if I did I'd be hard pressed to tell some French people that they have to change because of my sexual puritanism. Is the left into forcing America's sexual mores on people again this week?
Because then you wouldn't have to say allegedly.
Similarly, some part of the system remains imperative. The network card at least, will always resend a packet. The goal is to pass around idempotent messages except for the very leaves.
For instance, instead of an endpoint 'email(customer, data)' you might have 'email_or_report_on_send_status(customer, data)' and the later endpoint would check the cache for (customer, data) and merely report the previous results if it found them.
I agree though, this stuff used to keep me up at night and eventually I've grown more natural about not mutating things unless I mean it. (This phrase sounds like a comic-book villain.)
Edit: Even mentioning the rule to someone who asked can bring out the haters.
And then the question adds state, "as of yyyy/mm/dd, which customers were more than $30 into credit?"
Hasn't anyone told you that you learn more with questions than assertions?
No. I'm saying that the language used is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Regardless of all the stuff you mentioned, which is true, the system is still a benefit.
You should not go out of your way to further weaken trust in the system that has benefitted those minorities you mention more than it has hurt them. Especially as you are presumably not those groups, you should be careful not to wreck what they have. (You may not be aware, but white 'progressives' often speak for people of color. Their messages sound like ones of support initially, but because these people are often merely social signaling the rhetoric can often prove harmful to people who have to live with it.)
> [...] all disproportionately impact minority groups compared to Caucasians
Some minorities, yes. Others, no. Deeply troubling to the white v black narrative is that Nigerian immigrants often do very well in the USA, even when Americans don't know if they're american-descendants-of-slavery or not.
But yes, ADoS do have it rough. If you want to support someone though, vague "minorities" is not how you do it.
> Per the Innocence Project, 70% of the cases
You can't use that stat in that way, presumably they picked the most egregious cases which would be the poorest, etc.
Or, you'd adapt a hardware wallet to do the same. Either way, there'd be two devices from two manufacturers, communicating over a transparent protocol.
imho the thing to do is take OPs suggestion, Paradox should make gay-marriage possible but have people refer to it in variable ways. Some egalitarian societies can call it marriage, others sodomy, etc. And then add other cross-cultural restrictions too, where civilizations may not recognize bi-religious or bi-racial marriages for various reasons.
In other words don't minimize the issue, lean into it in a CK way, deeply and unsettlingly.
It varies from acceptance of an adult just being trans, of trans babies, of schools preaching medical transition without parent approval, and of issue of bathroom usage and sex-segregated prisons.
Regardless of the political questions presumably Swedes are fairly liberal about someone's personal choices.
Actually, it probably is somewhat. I hate paying money but that my taxes go to useful things makes it bearable. I hate sucking up to a guy in a uniform but that he also arrests murderers makes it less infuriating.
But moreover, that's not the issue brought up originally, which was net damage to a group. The implication was that the justice system harmed minorities and as a group that's simply not true.
Also, the language used is trying to borrow outrage. Harmed minorities? No, harmed the poor. Many of whom were minorities. But there are rich racial minorities too.
Attempted murder, and arson of occupied structures. Far worse than the capitol riot.
Also, who the violence was directed at. In DC most of the rioters were unarmed and fought with police. In Portland and LA many protestors were armed and fought passing citizens, attacked drivers, etc. Police don't "deserve" to be hit, but they sign up knowing that the job can get rough. Random old ladies protesting the vandalism of their building shouldn't be hit but the justice mobs feel free to hurt anyone.
Seriously though, especially with individuals, why shouldn't you use all the information available, if it produces results even an iota better than blind acceptance (and for most people, their empathic-sense does)?
But, if you ask me a question where the answer is in the code, the proper answer you seek, in the detail you need, then I'm going to ask you to read the code first and only ask me what's left.
Perhaps the story is true as retold, or maybe the original guy asked about the right things and read the code for the rest, but people watching from the outside couldn't tell and conflated it all, turning it into a story of ladder-pulling bitterness.
That doesn't really ring true for me because I want coworkers taking responsibility for these odd systems (that they have to find me to ask about). But I don't want to be stuck in the role of their System-X guy who they get to do their changes. This guy's incentive would be to walk the line, educate and hand-off.
I didn't ask when people started making up the claim, I asked how the claim was reasonable. The person sorting M&Ms would have been paid just the same. How does a reasonable request become dickish?
> they didn't have any particular preference for non-brown M&Ms but just wanted to mess with the people waiting on them"
Mess with? There's that unsupported judgement again. Am I messing with the cook if I ask for less salt, or no onions on my burger? Or are those valid things for a customer to want? Do I have to prove a medical reason for not wanting onions? Or brown M&Ms?
> management consultants [...] love the idea that organizations have a homogenous culture and the same ones that skimp on the buffet preparation also skimp on the rigging safety.
That's generally true but it doesn't need to be. If it saved them one bad show ever it's worth it. Even if it didn't, if they thought it would it was still probably a safe investment.
I'd be happy if a performer went out of their way to make sure that a live event that I paid for and travelled to attend went off without a hitch. To do otherwise would be dickish.
I'm just trying to answer your question from a few posts back about what I found distasteful. The best summary I can come up with is 'women trying to act like whores to be attractive'.
Maybe that's not how it is for Cardi, and that's her image of healthy sexuality, but I wouldn't show it to my kids or my lover.
As an aside, I realized that I watched the grammy performance which may not be the same as the music video.
Re your source, 1) The verge is currently lying about the warehouse/driver distinction so their credibility is very low, 2) the claims were anonymous or second-hand, and 3) they aren't saying there weren't bathrooms - but that people were trying to improve their speed.
Literally nothing that supports the need for a union. Nobody claims to have a medical reason that they needed to use the toilet and having been forbidden, or even had pay docked. That would be illegal under OSHA guidelines and they'd have just reported it as such at the time. Courts are extremely friendly to these suits from workers but apparently they never actually happened.
> “From their point of view, we don’t have the right to be ill,”
Nope. Illegal. If that happened there'd have been a lawsuit.
> “I had a fit at work and was taken to the hospital. The next day, someone rung me and asked why I was not in work. I explained to them, but it was still marked, ‘no call, no show,’”
Um yeah, you didn't call or show. That you (may have) had a valid reason to leave yesterday doesn't translate into not having to let them know if you're coming in today. Not a valid complaint.
> But despite having legally compliant break times, workers noted they had to walk quite a distance from their main work area to the break area, which greatly diminished how much time they had left to rest.
If you're required to take your break in a designated area then the time to travel there is not part of your break. If some manager got this wrong and stuck to it, it's a reason for a complaint and a maybe a lawsuit which the employee would profitably win. Maybe this happened, but all companies can make mistakes and the fix is easy.
It's not that they can't just want to unionize. That would be fine. Pointless, but fine. What's not is the lies. Their case for abuse clearly has no merit.
Nope. There's a limit to everyone's insurance, beyond which they will not pay for more treatment. You won't get told that you're too fat but your treatments will cost more and consequently you'll get less of them. Your insurance contract is for a sum of money, not a specific set of life-saving actions.
But generally that limit is much higher than what you've paid so your expensive treatments take money from the pool.
> there is no ethical dilemma in insurers paying for HIV treatment regardless of whether the patient acted irresponsibly.
As long as their fees cover the payments. But if they're costing more than they're paying as a class, meaning that all other users are compensating them, then yes - dilemma.
> It’s obviously irrelevant here as we are just talking about access to drugs for HIV patients, not access to an inherently limited resource. Either you pay for Truvda or you don’t. There’s no queue.
Paying out of your own pocket, 100% fine regardless.
But what's your point? That colonization doesn't always work? Sure.
It's not the goal but when you've convinced yourself you're fighting the good fight I guess you take the gloves off.
Why, oh why, must socialists lie?
You don't seem to have realized that you aren't the first group to use these arguments and tactics, or how badly they fail. Sadly only after exacting great societal consequences though.
Not the scantily clad ladies dry-humping. But that they look like they're doing it for the male gaze, as they stare into the camera instead of each other's eyes.
I guess it feels like what you'd get if you tried to have a three-way with two hookers. Hollow and depressing.