Wesley_Hilliard
About
- Username
- Wesley_Hilliard
- Joined
- Visits
- 124
- Last Active
- Roles
- member, administrator, moderator, editor
- Points
- 3,856
- Badges
- 3
- Posts
- 644
Reactions
-
Apple Maps still calls it the Gulf of Mexico, and politicians are upset
Nope. Many of Trump's executive orders were actually illegal. An executive order is kind of like a promissory note that conveys the intentions of the administration. They are binding for federal employees and offices, but can't go beyond that and can't violate the constitution. The orders can later be considered by Congress and the Supreme Court if they need further legislation to make them more official, or if they need to be blocked.canukstorm said:
As a non-US citizen, how do Executive Orders work? Are they not binding? For example, the issue of birthright citizenship is a hot button topic which from my understanding is protected by the 14th Amendment. Can an executive order just overturn that even though it's in the Constitution?DAalseth said:I wonder if Trump knows it won’t change. He made all sorts of really stupid promises to his supporters. These Executive Orders let him say he followed through, but like his promise in 2016 to ‘bring back coal’ none of them stand a chance in hell of happening. He knows that but he’s just going through the motions. It’s also good misdirection so people talk about this, while he and his crew are doing real damage behind the scenes.For example, his orders about birthright citizenship aren't allowed, period. He can't actually provide amnesty to ByteDance from a law that was passed. And he can't withdraw from the WHO like that. He's being sued already and there are a lot of people on both sides of the isle that are unhappy with the many of the executive orders and what they do. Congress will likely overturn several. We'll see.
-
Apple won't return TikTok to the App Store until it's sold to a U.S. buyer
Apple and Google haven't reinstated TikTok to their app stores. They can't, because it is against the law. It is a $5,000 per user fine which would be about $850 million.LostNeverFound said:I completely understand removing TikTok from the app store on January 19th, when the ban took effect, and I also understand removing it after the 75 days pass, if the company doesn’t divest to a US owned company. But not allowing access to TikTok on the App Store during the 75 day extension, when it’s loved by millions of Americans, will only result in Apple losing a lot of money through loss of sales. People aren’t going to upgrade their devices due to not wanting to lose TikTok, and the entertainment it brings them. I hope Apple is ready to face a loss in profits, along with current and future customers.The executive order is actually unable to stop the justice department from seeking fines. Apple and Google are smart to avoid the risk. It'll take a sale to the US, an act of Congress or the Supreme Court overturning the original law, or an official extension provided by legislators to get it back on the app stores. Nothing less. The executive order isn't enough.
-
Apple fights back against shareholders who want to end DEI hiring
Saying a doctor hired at a company with a DEI initiative isn't as trustworthy as a doctor hired based on a metric like merit has incredibly racist implications. If you're hired at a company, it is because you are qualified. DEI initiatives do not enable hiring unqualified individuals. That's an incredibly poor argument that just exposes underlying prejudice.thrang said:
What a sentence.mattinoz said:Calvinator said:My goodness, all the verbal gymnastics here arguing against something as common sense as hiring the most qualified person for the job.Actually good leaders love diversity as it creates room for everyone in to team to lead from the side and show what they capable of.
Good leaders look to hire the best person for the job, race or ethnicity be damned. It wouldn't be very comforting to go into major surgery with a doctor who was hired because of DEI, even if better candidates were passed over because of the initiative.
If you're saying people are being passed over because of their sex, race, or ethnicity, there are ample existing laws on the books to bring action against those practicing discriminatory behavior.
DEI is dying and good riddance.
Any company that hopes to succeed is not filtering people out because of their sex, race, or ethnicity. Good workers are good workers. End of story.DEI isn't discriminatory. In fact, places without DEI tend to have more discriminatory practices like favoring white men. I like the idea of having hiring managers view two resumes without a name, sex, religion, or any other identifying feature on the record. Just their education and qualifications. After that, they can move on through the hiring process. DEI initiatives theoretically filter applications before they get to the hiring manager to ensure set quotas can be met. It is a fair and balanced system. Generally, seats that need to be filled are labeled as DEI before applications are even accepted, that way generally it isn't white people competing against a DEI seat.Many of the people saying DEI shouldn't exist don't seem to even know what it is like or how different companies approach it. They always seem to assume if a white person is going against a person of color at a DEI practicing company, that they'll always choose the person of color. It just isn't how it works.If we didn't build the modern world with systemic racism and sexism in place, DEI wouldn't be necessary. But we don't live in that world. Without DEI, we remove an opportunity to have a more diverse, more intelligent, and more productive workforce. All the evidence shows as much. There isn't a single credible piece of evidence out there that suggests DEI is harmful or discriminatory.
-
Apple fights back against shareholders who want to end DEI hiring
Instead of sharing a chart that was posted by End Wokeness out of context, you could read the actual reports they are from. Funny enough, even with this trend, the makeup of the United States workforce top to bottom was still predominantly white. It barely moved the needle. But it was a move in the right direction, at least that is until all of the companies from this study laid off large swaths of their workforce shortly after, which predominantly affected the people of color added to the workforce.SmittyW said:
Yeah, it kinda is.Wesley Hilliard said:
Yeah, that's not how DEI works. Lmao. Wtfthrang said:
Yes a bunch of nonsense. DEI has always been misguided, it’s clearly going away, and good riddance.Calvinator said:My goodness, all the verbal gymnastics here arguing against something as common sense as hiring the most qualified person for the job.
Funny, as nearly every writer here at AppleInsider appears to be white! (based on the author photos)… Wesley, resign to make room for a DEI hire! Do the right thing!
What is the definition of “white”? I look white by every definition, but had a half middle eastern / half Eastern European heritage. But I’m a white….minority??
But you wouldn't know that because you saw a chart posted out of context by a bigoted X account and figured that was all the information you needed.What about some basic math? 204 million white people in the US work force versus 35 million Black, 17 million Asian, and 49 million Hispanic. Even if every minority in America was hired there would still be about 100 million jobs to fill. DEI doesn't take white jobs. It's a fallacy invented by bigots. -
Meta CEO mocks Apple for 'sitting on' iPhone 20 years later despite doing the same with Fa...
People died because of the "truth" perpetuated by morons. Injecting bleach, not getting vaccinated. Darwinism at its best.9secondkox2 said:Once truth is legislated, there is no more truth. It’s whatever the parties in power say it is. Simple as that. Freedom of speech includes freedom to be right or wrong, to tell the truth or to lie. The facts aren’t difficult to uncover. Truth is not hard to know. But forced belief at the hands of the government ENSURES PEOPLE WILL ALWAYS QUESTION WHAT THE TRUTH IS. We’ve been through a microcosm of this with the Covid scenario. Effective treatments were blackballed, people who questioned a draconian establishment were banned from the platforms that claimed to give them a voice. Even questioning the lie masquerading as the truth brought harm.People are always fine with their view being force fed to others. But what happens when the opposing view is now called the only truth? You ok with that? Who establishes this? CNN? Fake news? Fox? A bunch of people who won popularity contests and now get to make laws? LOL
Freedom of speech is an inalienable human right. It is guaranteed by the constitution. The very first amendment. It’s not open to interpretation by the winds of prevailing ideology. It’s freedom of speech. Whether your view is unpopular, incorrect, or popular and exactly right.I think we the people will stick with the protections afforded by the long-standing constitution versus whatever the weirdo flavor of the day is. The truth has always come out this way. Anyone claiming to be the source of truth by which all others must be silenced is simply a wolf in sheep’s clothing seeking to only push an agenda, at the expense of actual truth.
Freedom of speech applies to government control over people's speech. Not private companies. Meta's decision has nothing to do with freedom of speech the same as X's. It has to do with fragile men seeking control. It has to do with stroking an ego. It has nothing to do with protecting speech, because these entities are not the government.
It's funny that all the morons that believe conspiracy theories are the ones worried about being fed "facts" from sources they don't agree with.
all any of this is is hate masquerading as justice.
