fileyfood

I don't believe she's talking about gentrification as a good thing, just using it as a metric. For example, on a lower income, I wouldn't choose to look in a highly gentrified area for housing, because rent prices may be unaffordable and come with a lot of amenities I don't need. Food/restaurant prices may also be unaffordable. Personally, I have chosen to live in more and less gentrified areas based on how much money I was able to/comfortable spending on rent. At an extreme end of the spectrum, most of us may not live in Beverly Hills, CA, or own a condo in midtown Manhattan, and it's informative to say those areas are extremely gentrified and un-affordable.

There are more discussions about income inequality, capitalism in the housing market, unfair housing practices, etc, that the author wasn't trying to comment on when she was broadcasting information.

Imo, the challenge is that it may be assumed that you have bad intent. And also imo, I don't expect this challenge to go away, or be "fixed" (if it is a problem at all). The power to have your words be broadcast to millions in an instant is also the challenge of having millions of reactions to your words.

It sounds like she's both socially and fiscally liberal, but doesn't identify with the mechanisms at play in the liberal sphere because they threaten individuals. In many states in the US, socially liberal policies like abortion, gay rights, etc, etc are heavily blocked and contested, so I don't agree with your characterization of these as mainstream. I agree they are mainstream among liberal Americans.

My understanding is that her article is advocating for respectful and open discourse, and greater detail and understanding of the issues is always welcome. The point I see is that a person can be offended by a post or statement, out of context of the post's intent. Currently, the discourse supports the offended person, and condemns the poster. For example, in the gentrification example, the retweet was focused on communicating relative wealth of the communities, it was not focused on the political issue of gentrification. The author was not saying she agreed with gentrification, and was expressing any opinions about race, rather, she was trying to communicate the relative wealth of the different communities. This backlash to her retweet drove her to release an apology.

Former Carnegie Mellon student here. A couple students had a private argument over chat (facebook messenger) in which one student said some things that were not politically correct. The other student screenshot-ed the messages and posted them in the largest facebook group, with over 10k members. The post was heavily upvoted, and the student who made the non-politically correct comments received death threats and hundreds of angry messages. The student wrote a long apology to the community for their behavior and a planned "re-education" program they were undertaking to be better educated.

Agreed, engineering teams are effectively stable startups. You make your own decisions & get compete for funding (recs), while delivering products for other teams. If your team is unable to deliver for a customer team, they might make the solution themselves, and then end of with more recs (growing startup), at which point their team may break up into 2 teams if it gets to large. On the flip side, if you see a need within your greater org or company, you can get buy-in and build a great product for the teams around you.

"Hard Interviews, Happy Workers". This note near the end assumes correlation shows causation, which it does not. You could also argue that more workers want to work in certain jobs, creating more competition and leading the company to make interviews harder. The workers in those jobs may be happier, but not because the interviews were harder.

I agree, and I'd argue the potential confirmation bias presented by one side easily inspires skepticism from the other side

Personally, I am more likely to trust sources that appear to think critically. A lot of reports are heavily one sided, and will provide a lot of evidence backing up a point, while appearing to hide the evidence of the opposition.

I find that a much stronger piece comes when a report questions its own assumptions and explains why we are making a judgement given the shortcomings of the initial argument.

When you consume mainstream media you get a lot of one-sided reporting, which inspires me to try to find the holes in their arguments. This puts in the position of question Coronavirus measures etc.

The reality is, the people making the measures are probably aware of the assumptions they are making, and are trying to recommend the best approach given what we don't know. Given the limited information, it is nice to have as much transparency as possible though.