AppleZulu

About

Username
AppleZulu
Joined
Visits
260
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
9,215
Badges
2
Posts
2,546

Reactions

6.6KLike165Dislike347Informative

  • Apple fights back against shareholders who want to end DEI hiring

    AppleZuluAppleZulu
    SmittyW said:
    AppleZulu said:
    SmittyW said:
    AppleZulu said:
    hodar said:
    Who said that LGBTQ or minorities cannot be qualified?  How about hiring the brightest, the best and most talented without regard to their skin color, their plumbing or things that have absolutely nothing to do with things unrelated to the job?  Hire by merit, that's how Apple got out of the garage.
    Funny how “merit” wasn’t important when systematically refusing to hire certain genders and ethnicities was de rigeur. There was no meritocracy then. Now, as soon as anyone talks about systematically extending opportunities to the same people who were previously systematically excluded, we hear how there must be a meritocracy. There’s not much merit in that. 
    Agreed. The way to fight hate, is with more hate!
    DEI is literally the opposite of hate. Hate is exclusion. Inclusion is literally what the I stands for. Increasing the recruitment pool almost always yields stronger teams. 
    Favoring one group or groups over another group is inherently exclusionary to the latter group. Thus, by your definition, DEI is hateful (which is obvious).
    You don’t seem to know what the definition of “definition” is. 

    Taking down the “whites only” signs in a public high school and escorting black kids in to assure they get the same books and same teachers as the white kids is not “favoring one group or groups over another group.” It is enforcing the opposite. 

    Nor is it “favoring” the black kids in that high school to recognize that the deficiencies of the separate-and-unequal jr high and elementary schools they’d been to prior to desegregation means they may need extra assistance to catch up to their white peers who’d always gotten the new books and better facilities. 

    Yes, segregation is officially over (though taxpayer funded school voucher initiatives are working hard to restore it), but the unequal treatment continues to this day, and every initiative to change that, from the workplace all the way back to pre-school is met with opposition seeking to retrench the status quo while euphemistically relabeling it as a meritocracy.

    It’s just another version of Jim Crow. Remember ol’ Jim? He had a bit of a passive aggressive vibe. “Sure, you can vote, but first you have to correctly tell me how many jelly beans are in this jar.”

    Now it’s “Sure, you can compete for jobs in our meritocracy, but first you have to get an education after we’ve sucked the money out of public schools for these new ‘choice vouchers’ that you can’t use because you don’t have transportation to our private schools on the other side of town, and they won’t take a voucher as full tuition anyway. Also, you’d have to apply and be accepted, and clearly you’re unqualified. And don’t you dare accuse us of discrimination, because you can’t prove it. We’ve outlawed collecting demographic info on our admissions, because that would be ‘racist.’ ”
    gwmacSmittyWmattinozsconosciutopaisleydiscomuthuk_vanalingamronntiredskillsspheric

  • Apple fights back against shareholders who want to end DEI hiring

    AppleZuluAppleZulu
    auxio said:
    hodar said:
    Who said that LGBTQ or minorities cannot be qualified?  How about hiring the brightest, the best and most talented without regard to their skin color, their plumbing or things that have absolutely nothing to do with things unrelated to the job?  Hire by merit, that's how Apple got out of the garage.
    The problem is that if there are never role models or opportunities from the get go, then that potential will never be realized, even if a child is born with it. Study history and think a bit. African Americans didn't even have civil rights until the late 1960s (i.e. were pretty much reliant on white people for any chance in America). Same with women being reliant on men since they didn't have civil rights either. And think about how many LGBTQ people had to hide who they were from society in order to have opportunities (never mind if they were someone of color, which you can't hide). Discrimination happens whether it's written in laws or not.

    By having companies publicly declare "yes, we hire marginalized people", and hopefully even investing in education and business opportunities, it creates an attainable path to success for those people. It's not just about hoping they get to that point at the time of hiring.
    Precisely. The anti-DEI “meritocracy” crowd likes to pretend they’re being noble and quote MLK’s “content of their character” line from the 1963 March on Washington out of context, misinterpreting King to mean we should simply declare there to be a meritocracy and there will be one. 

    If they listened to the whole speech, they’d find out that MLK’s message was that his “dream” was like the aspirational goal of a business plan, and in the rest of the speech, King was telling us (like in any good business plan) about all the hard work we must commit to and then actually do before we can ever come close to achieving that goal. 

    The hard work in this context involves starting before previously excluded people are even born and clearing the path for them to have unhindered access to the same encouragement and opportunities as anyone else. For those who have already started on their path through life and have been excluded, discouraged from, and steered away from opportunity, the hard work means recognizing how those obstacles have already undermined their position in any imagined meritocracy and then intentionally doing things to correct for that. 

    The civil rights acts passed six decades ago declared ‘ok now, let’s quit discriminating against these excluded minorities.’ Since then, at every turn the same disingenuous, passive-aggressive arguments and tactics have been trotted out to resist doing the hard work King told us we’d have to do in order to reach that meritocracy he described. 

    Now here we are again, sixty years on, with people insisting we mustn’t do the work, but should instead declare the mission accomplished while ignoring all evidence to the contrary. The purpose of these tactics is transparent. It is to continue the systematic exclusion of those who have historically faced obstacles at every turn, while handing out participation trophies to the folks who haven’t been repeatedly kneecapped and assuring them they earned their spot on merit, just like their forefathers before them. 
    marklarktimpetusSpitbathmuthuk_vanalingamgrandact73kiltedgreenSmittyWronntiredskillsForumPost

  • Apple Camera due in 2026 -- but Home Hub may get delayed

    AppleZuluAppleZulu

    yyzguy said:
    I’ve always thought Apple should create a high end DSLR that works seamlessly with the rest of their ecosystem.  The camera itself could be “dumb” just take great pictures and let photographers perform post processing on iOS or MacOS.
    I’m not sure what the point of that would be. Professionals and “serious” amateurs already have high-end “dumb” cameras, meaning they’re selecting a lens specific to the intended shot and shooting in manual mode (photographer chooses ISO, exposure, and f-stop) and saving to RAW files (sensor data is saved uncompressed and unaltered). They then do all of the post processing (digital version of what used to happen in the darkroom) on a computer. 

    Unless there’s significantly unique tech in their sensor and optics designs for iPhone that would be transferable to full size cameras and lenses, it’d be hard for them to compete in an already narrow, competitive pro gear market. Since much of the innovation for the iPhone’s cameras is in maximizing capabilities for short, flat lenses and tiny sensors, that seems doubtful. 

    Apple’s forté in photography has been to vastly improve the consumer/amateur camera space by coupling high-end optics with a lot of computational power and putting it in everyone’s pocket. The average person now gets vastly better pictures than people were getting a generation ago with their snaps developed at the local photo-mat. That still doesn’t really transfer to the pro market. 

    [Also, know-it-all side note: DSLR=digital single lens reflex= optical viewfinder sees directly through the camera lens via a periscope mirror that physically flips out of the way when the shutter button is depressed, allowing the lens to expose light to the digital sensor, positioned where film used to be in an SLR camera. With the advent of sufficiently fast, high resolution screens in both the viewfinder and on the back of the camera, most high-end gear has done away with the optical mirrored mechanism. This sheds weight and camera size. You’ll see them referred to as “mirrorless” cameras rather than DSLRs.] 
    ForumPostmuthuk_vanalingamAlex1Ngatorguyramanpfaffmike1

  • Apple CEO Tim Cook personally invested $1 million in Trump's inauguration

    AppleZuluAppleZulu
    9secondkox2 said:
    AppleZulu said:
    ike22w said:
    Tim Cook did the same thing with Biden. Also, why did Wesley coin the President-Elect as controversial? He won in an electoral college landslide and also won the popular vote by over 4 million votes. I’d say the country clearly stated who they wanted. No controversy here folks. Maybe let’s just stick with tech news and not show our biased political views in a tech article. 
    He's controversial not because he won, but because of who he is and what he believes. There's nothing biased or even political about that. The mountain of lawsuits, assault claims, overt racism, sexism, and indignation for any country that isn't the United States makes him a controversial president.

    Saying someone is controversial isn't an insult or attack. It's a simple fact.
    That’s your opinion. Many of us believe it was Biden, his family, business dealings, and policies that are controversial in addition to the law fare waged against the former and future President. 

    We appreciate the articles, but perhaps they can be a little more universal instead than of obviously creating a dividing line. 

    Literally anyone can be labeled controversial by anyone who disagrees with them. Doesn’t make it so. 

    When the majority of the country approves of the guy enough to make him president again, it’s not what believes or stands for that’s controversial. Just the facts. 
    I don't know what to say except words have meaning and you don't have to read our website. It's not biased to call him controversial, but if that hurts your feelings then find an article that will lie and make you feel better I guess.
    Words do have meaning. That was my point. Your opinion about the president is your opinion. You are entitled to it, but your need to shoehorn your opinion everywhere possible when necessary - to the point where you are actively encouraging longtime website members (who have been with the site longer than yourself) to go elsewhere is antithetical to any business goal in addtiion to just being rude. Doesn't seem very professional. And that comment in bold proves it. Nowhere did I display emotion. I simply stated facts. If that hurts your feelings, maybe you should be doing something else. 
    The thing that you have complained about as being the writer’s opinion - that Donald Trump is controversial - is not just an objective fact, but an understatement of fact. Like him or don’t like him, the mere mention of Trump is “likely to give rise to public disagreement.” This has been proven literally millions upon millions (upon millions) of times over the last decade. It’s a fact you have proven one more time yourself right here by reacting to this article. 

    It’s telling that your reaction to the mere mention of this fact is that it must be some sort of slight against your hero. How fragile is he (and by extension, are you) that anything less than affirmative adoration must be called out as objectionable opinion? 

    I suspect that if an article here referred (also factually) to President Biden as “controversial,” you would say it’s a euphemistic and therefore objectionable “opinion” in support of Mr. Biden. 

    You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. You reaction here and the split vote last November affirm that Donald Trump is controversial. If you aren’t capable of accepting that fact, then you should indeed consider retreating to only those media sources that will tell you what you want to hear. There are plenty of them, and they have certainly made a lucrative industry of catering to your sensitivities while making a shambles of our country’s public discourse. 
    Thanks for sharing your opinion of my opinion about his opinion. As always, your opinion is welcomed, even though you don’t know fact from fiction. 
    I’ve made the facts clear. No. I’ve pointed out the facts that were already clear. Your rejoinder is the equivalent of “nuh uh,” which is not a convincing argument. 
    9secondkox2tiredskillsroundaboutnow

  • Apple CEO Tim Cook personally invested $1 million in Trump's inauguration

    AppleZuluAppleZulu
    ike22w said:
    Tim Cook did the same thing with Biden. Also, why did Wesley coin the President-Elect as controversial? He won in an electoral college landslide and also won the popular vote by over 4 million votes. I’d say the country clearly stated who they wanted. No controversy here folks. Maybe let’s just stick with tech news and not show our biased political views in a tech article. 
    He's controversial not because he won, but because of who he is and what he believes. There's nothing biased or even political about that. The mountain of lawsuits, assault claims, overt racism, sexism, and indignation for any country that isn't the United States makes him a controversial president.

    Saying someone is controversial isn't an insult or attack. It's a simple fact.
    That’s your opinion. Many of us believe it was Biden, his family, business dealings, and policies that are controversial in addition to the law fare waged against the former and future President. 

    We appreciate the articles, but perhaps they can be a little more universal instead than of obviously creating a dividing line. 

    Literally anyone can be labeled controversial by anyone who disagrees with them. Doesn’t make it so. 

    When the majority of the country approves of the guy enough to make him president again, it’s not what believes or stands for that’s controversial. Just the facts. 
    I don't know what to say except words have meaning and you don't have to read our website. It's not biased to call him controversial, but if that hurts your feelings then find an article that will lie and make you feel better I guess.
    Words do have meaning. That was my point. Your opinion about the president is your opinion. You are entitled to it, but your need to shoehorn your opinion everywhere possible when necessary - to the point where you are actively encouraging longtime website members (who have been with the site longer than yourself) to go elsewhere is antithetical to any business goal in addtiion to just being rude. Doesn't seem very professional. And that comment in bold proves it. Nowhere did I display emotion. I simply stated facts. If that hurts your feelings, maybe you should be doing something else. 
    The thing that you have complained about as being the writer’s opinion - that Donald Trump is controversial - is not just an objective fact, but an understatement of fact. Like him or don’t like him, the mere mention of Trump is “likely to give rise to public disagreement.” This has been proven literally millions upon millions (upon millions) of times over the last decade. It’s a fact you have proven one more time yourself right here by reacting to this article. 

    It’s telling that your reaction to the mere mention of this fact is that it must be some sort of slight against your hero. How fragile is he (and by extension, are you) that anything less than affirmative adoration must be called out as objectionable opinion? 

    I suspect that if an article here referred (also factually) to President Biden as “controversial,” you would say it’s a euphemistic and therefore objectionable “opinion” in support of Mr. Biden. 

    You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. You reaction here and the split vote last November affirm that Donald Trump is controversial. If you aren’t capable of accepting that fact, then you should indeed consider retreating to only those media sources that will tell you what you want to hear. There are plenty of them, and they have certainly made a lucrative industry of catering to your sensitivities while making a shambles of our country’s public discourse. 
    Xed9secondkox2tiredskillsmacguimuthuk_vanalingamteejay2012roundaboutnow