chutzpah

JP234 said:

ihatescreennames said:

JP234 said:

ihatescreennames said:

JP234 said:

ihatescreennames said:

JP234 said:

davidw said:

chutzpah said:

Kierkegaarden said:

“Prescott explained that the company's dedication to inclusivity and diversity is motivated by a "selfish and practical" perspective. She believes that to create the best products for all consumers, they must be developed by a diverse team of individuals, according to a report from The Independent.”

I don’t agree.  To create the best products for all consumers, they must be developed by a competent team with diverse skills and perspectives.  Why are they so focused on the gender and race of a developer? 

Because gender and race diversity brings different perspectives.  You're so close!

But why does "diversity" only pertain to gender and race? I'll wager that there is more "diversity" between an Asian born and educated in the US and an Asian born and educated in China or an Asian born and educated in Japan or an Asian born and educated in India, than there is between him and a White person born and educated in the US. The same goes for White. There's "diversity" among Whites from the US and those from the UK or Australia or Sweden or France, etc. Why is "diversity" only pertaining to gender and race? There can be as much or more "diversity" among people of the same race than there is among people of different races.

As for "........ diversity brings different perspectives", this might matter when designing a GUI or working in HR or working in promotion and ads or customers relations, or designing a virtual assistance, etc. but "diversity" should have no bearing when it comes to designing chips, writing search algorithm or debugging software and many other jobs where "a different perspective" doesn't matter.  

A company shouldn't hire a female that is good at debugging software because she might bring a different perspective into debugging software. A company should hire a female that is good at debugging software because she good at debugging software. However, if a female speciality is in designing virtual assistance and your company team in charge of designing a virtual assistance is all male, then adding a female to the team might just make the design better because of the different perspective she adds to the design.     

Stop trying to justify your bigotry in word soup and just say it out loud! Diversity is fine, as long as it only includes differing white people.

If there's anything that gets to me, it's when bigots play the "We should only hire the best qualified people, based only on merit!" trope. Well, we've missed hiring millions of the best people for the job due to the exact embedded societal racism and sexism your beliefs prove.

“ On the face of it, sounds like something you'd hear on right-wing talk shows. Poor choice of words, when you read the article and realize that enacting policies of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion will benefit Apple Inc. in the long term through hiring and promotion based solely on merit, not race, class or religion. And that's practical, enlightened benchmark for sustainable growth.” - JP234 in the very first comment on this article

You’re arguing both sides here.

I can do that, too!

"Well, we've missed hiring millions of the best people for the job due to the exact embedded societal racism and sexism your beliefs prove."

That's the message. Admit that, or own your bigotry. Geez!

You post a lot but I can’t tell if you’re reading and comprehending other posters. 

Also, you keep calling people bigots when there is no evidence they are. This is bizarre. 

No evidence? I'm really interested in what you would classify as evidence of bigotry if you don't see any in this thread.

As I mentioned, you don’t seem to be comprehending. The post you quoted when I replied to you is absent any bigotry. My posts are absent any bigotry (as they are simply responding to your posts about that first quote) but somehow you feel it’s necessary to call me a bigot. As I said, bizarre. 

EDIT: To be clear, you quoted Davidw and called him a bigot. There’s no bigotry in his post. In fact, he’s just asking some questions and presenting some examples. 

Also, I didn’t say there was no bigotry in this thread so I don’t know where you came up with that. 

EDIT 2: I just noticed your response to me pointing out that in your first post you advocate for hiring and promoting based only on merit, but in a later post you say hiring and promoting based on merit is a tired old trope used by bigots. Your response seems out of context.

Man, some bigots will say anything to deny or justify their bigotry. They should try reading Breitbart News, where at least the bigotry is open and unashamed.

docno42 said:

sconosciuto said:
Corporations have free speech rights just like you and I. Disney has every right to speak up about legislation. Corporations do this all the time as a matter of fact.

Then that door swings both ways. If Disney has a right to speak up about something then Florida has every right to revoke extra special benefits unique to Disney and no one else.  

avon b7 said:

chutzpah said:

avon b7 said:

davidw said:

Kierkegaarden said:

What is the purpose of forcing a company to publish user numbers for a service?  Does this protect users or otherwise help them in some way?  This is all about control and nothing more. These new regulations will result in less innovation and more convoluted software interfaces.

The EU Commission has to keep tabs on the criteria that makes one a "gatekeeper". The EU commission wants to make sure none of the US big 5 techs falls below any of the criteria that they set to ensure that only the US big 5 techs are labeled "gatekeepers". If any of the US big 5 techs drops below any of the thresholds they set, they must convene to lower the threshold set in the DMA, to ensure that the US big 5 techs always remains a "gatekeeper". The DMA allows for this. 

https://www.ft.com/content/49f3d7f2-30d5-4336-87ad-eea0ee0ecc7b

>“Let’s focus first on the biggest problems, on the biggest bottlenecks. Let’s go down the line — one, two, three, four, five — and maybe six with Alibaba,” he said to the Financial Times. “But let’s not start with number 7 to include a European gatekeeper just to please [US president Joe] Biden,” he added. The EU defines “gatekeeper” companies as those which span several countries, have a significant impact on the market, and link large numbers of users to large numbers of businesses. <

Of course ..... "large number of users" ... is anywhere between the minimum that any of the US big 5 techs have and the maximum of any EU company. If the two numbers overlap, then that criteria will no longer be used to determine a "gatekeeper". 

And speaking of less innovation, here's a good article bringing up that point.

https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/the-digital-markets-act-the-path-to-overregulation/

We can dispute the criteria used to determine what constitutes a gatekeeper but attempting to draw up conspiracy theories is just wackiness.

The limits have been set. If an EU based company reaches gatekeeper status it will fall under the legal obligations too. 

That’s it. 

My house. My rules. And the same rules for everyone. 

As far as innovation is concerned, why not simply let the industry play out under the DSA/DMA and then evaluate the situation? 

Laws are not knocked up forever and unchangeable. They get reviewed. 

That said major EU directives have often been the model from which others imitate. 

Care to name a major EU directive that has bombed? How do they stand up when compared to others? Are EU citizens up in arms about them? If they are, I certainly haven't heard about them. 

The Common Agricultural Policy certainly has its critics, and its freedom of movement guarantee combined with a devolved and haphazard approach to bloc border control creates some problems.

No legislation will be free of critics but even the critics can't argue that the CAP hasn't been a success is many, many ways. The fact that is has been around for 60 years now says it all.

Some criticism is warranted but it wouldn't have been around so long if it had bombed (and the French have turned trashing lorries of Spanish tomatoes into a national past time). 

Free movement has been one of the quintessential examples of the EU getting things right. Probably the best EU example of the exact opposite of bombing. Once again though, for some people, the very nature of free movement is abhorrent. 

Bloc border control is quite literally a non-issue for anyone with a EU member state identity card or passport, under the treaty regulations. Other considerations can come into play when individual states implement extra controls (as was the case with Covid) but that is normal as each member state retains the right to refuse entry on certain grounds and is provided for in the treaty. Also, member states can suspend Schengen adherence but if you have a valid ID/passport you are good to go. 

Sadly, after Brexit, I had to return my 'Member of the Union' certificate so free movement is gone for me. 

Dooofus said:

neoncat said:

Dooofus said:

I seriously doubt it. It would be a step backward, as Apple has not made a wired ear bud product in years.

Umm...

although it's been a few years

Yes, and few years since Apple's sold them.

davidw said:

chutzpah said:

Kierkegaarden said:

“Prescott explained that the company's dedication to inclusivity and diversity is motivated by a "selfish and practical" perspective. She believes that to create the best products for all consumers, they must be developed by a diverse team of individuals, according to a report from The Independent.”

I don’t agree.  To create the best products for all consumers, they must be developed by a competent team with diverse skills and perspectives.  Why are they so focused on the gender and race of a developer? 

Because gender and race diversity brings different perspectives.  You're so close!

But why does "diversity" only pertain to gender and race?