ricardoplouis

Our workforce is more educated now than at any point in history. This means we'll have more and more people competing for jobs they are overqualified for. From a job seeker perspective, it will only get harder as the traditional credentials have lost their value.

I've also been on the hiring perspective and I can tell you there is no shortage of candidates, nor do companies have a hard time finding employees. The problem is that they either:

A: Want top talent without paying the premium B: Want top talent for a role that doesn't require it

If you ask any hiring manager, they'll always prefer the senior talent over the junior one, even if the role doesn't require it. But once they see the rates that senior talent commands, they might adjust their expectations.

I don't think there is any dream solution given that the problem is more cultural than anything. If anything, the market will loosen up in favor of the hiring managers in the long run, but continue to squeeze workers given our current trajectory.

Location: Remote - US Remote: Yes Willing to relocate: No Technologies: NextJs, React, Node, Typescript, PostgreSQL, Supabase, Tailwind Résumé/CV: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lSITbDJN9_-q5eFlBsBlBxGprvD... Email: [email protected]

Chasing profits didn't cause slavery to end, it was the abolitionists who were standing up for human rights. Historically massive social change doesn't come from the top down like you are describing. It would be akin to saying LBJ was a civil rights hero for his legislation. Sure, he signed it, but the civil rights movement of 60s is why it was possible in the first place. Hardly can one deserve credit for playing a forced hand.

Location: Chicago, IL, USA Remote: Yes, 5 years of remote experience Willing to relocate: No Technologies: Typescript, NextJs, React, Javascript, Tailwind, Node, Postgre Résumé/CV: LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/ricardo-pierre-louis-1821372a2/) Github (https://github.com/rickyplouis) Email: [email protected]

Hello I'm Ricardo, a front-end dev with 5+ years of experience in startup environments both large (Series E) and small (Angel).

Worth noting that while affirmative action has been banned, we still have proxies for race (aka legacy admissions) which overwhelmingly favor rich and white students. And given the historical discrimination of elite universities, this ban on affirmative action without addressing legacy admissions or historical harm will only increase the number of white students at universities. We can't pretend that eliminating race based admissions will serve the greater interest without addressing past (and current) systems of white supremacy.

Link to demographics on legacy admissions: https://www.culawreview.org/journal/legacy-admissions-an-ins...

I'm mostly referring to the cases where the teenager or child was killed by the police for no reason at all. There's no movie involved, but the execution happens nonetheless

https://eji.org/news/black-children-are-six-times-more-likel...

The luxury and call to arms fails to reach all ears considering out government routinely does the same thing to teenagers in the states, but because they are poor and black, it's largely considered acceptable in our culture.

It's worth asking what made issues surrounding climate change so unpopular in the first place. Advocates and activists are working against decades of misinformation from oil execs. Even something as straightforward as replace coal with renewables is deeply unpopular in large parts of the country because there's the stigma of job loss associated with it. While it's easy to take aim at climate advocates, why not take aim at the ones who actively profit off the destruction of the planet?

I've personally seen the race problem in multiple large scale socialist orgs, but feel free to ignore the criticism.

There is truth to the matter, but it's also because class conscious groups fail to recognize that they perpetuate the same racism, sexism, etc... that the elites do.

Coincidentally, ignoring race as an issue is the one issue many people on both sides of the political spectrum can get down with even though economic equality does not guarantee racial equality.

Given the stark racial inequality we have today due to compounding wealth from centuries of colonialism and slavery, it seems diversity is the bare minimum we could do to address such a burden, and it's a shame that is even considered controversial. Is there an "unoffensive" solution to address this history or should we all just get along and pretend it didn't happen?

Worth noting both Adam Smith and Marx agreed that landlords were parasites.

Slight anecdote on test scores. In H.S. a friend and I both scored the same on a college admissions exam. A few months later after studying my score went up a couple points while his jumped dramatically to the highest percentile. I asked him how he managed to make such a jump and he told me he took prep classes specifically designed to help him score higher. I looked it up and the prep classes cost was hundreds of dollars per course.

I bring this up to say that I see many arguments here that diversity means lower test scores. But test scores are a mechanism that can be gamed with wealth. It's nice to think you scored what you did because of how smart you are, but if it's possible for someone to become dramatically "smarter" in a short period of time, then I think it speaks to the invalidity of the system.

You make a weak case for representative democracies while ignoring the police killing part. Where does that fit in?

If a foreign country had a rogue police force that killed citizens and then passed a law criminalizing the recording of the police we'd easily call them a dictatorship.

Wouldn't you rather have a healthy dose of skepticism and pessimism surrounding new inventions? Even if the negativity is off base, it's far more preferable to a world where everyone is always positive and praises what geniuses the creators are. The former atleast breeds discourse while the latter only serves to make people feel good.

Yeah, I guess the bigger point being missed (by the article and most of the comments) is that there is a whole generation of people having sex but not having kids due to concerns for the future. (Myself included)

Kinda funny that sex is equivalent to reproduction in this piece.

Try to support your local news service first if possible.

Any search engine with a profit motive is inevitably doomed as one value overtakes the other. To have a search engine that works means having one where scaling endlessly in pursuit of profit is discouraged.

The public's interest is a weak argument. I can say it's not in the public's interest to have someone who lost the popular vote in office at all, but that is only my opinion and doesn't speak to the original point.

I'm implying that the spirit of free speech should apply equally to all. If the president can come back after inciting violence, then everyone else should as well. It's not a selective principle that you get to choose how you follow.

If you don't want violent rhetoric to spread then yes, limiting free speech and universally applying those rules is a viable path to achieve that.

Otherwise, you create a regulatory environment that only applies to you if you don't have the power, political capital, or fanbase to yell loud enough in your favor.

Is there just a different set of free speech rules for the rich and powerful? If I incited violence on the platform, I doubt Elon or Dorsey would be letting me come back after a ban.

As a country that strips away voting rights from felons, it's arguable that we still don't have a democracy until all citizens are guaranteed the right to vote.

Mental health has been an issue for as long as we've known, but Facebook does have a curious way of amplifying societal problems such as this and making it worse.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-knows-instagram-is-tox...

That's a fair point assuming upward economic mobility in the U.S but statistically speaking it's more likely someone stays rich or stays poor than it is that they move upward into a different bracket entirely

https://www.forbes.com/sites/aparnamathur/2018/07/16/the-u-s...

While it is true that much of the recent wealth in the U.S. is self-made and not entirely inherited. It's also true that a child born poor in this country is far more likely to stay as such than they are to become part of the top 10%.

If we lived in an egalitarian society, then pointing out the wealth of the top 10% might be divisive, but considering that our current wealth inequality is worst than 1774 France, then I believe it's a fairly accurate picture being painted.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/us-inco...

> Live-streaming service Twitch will ban users for offenses such as hate-group membership or credible threats of mass violence that occur entirely away from the site, in a new approach to moderating the platform, the company said on Wednesday.

Can't be part of a hate group or threaten violence no a mass scale. I believe the only reason that banning these two things are considered an infringement on free speech are because they are core to American ideals. If we viewed hate groups or mass violence with the same contempt we view something like child grooming for example then I don't think we would be having the free speech discussion, but here we are.

Would be a shame if someone added a..... JavaScript framework to it.