Americans really do not prefer either candidate. Our political system is deeply screwed up. Saying something like "Just vote for the right people and everything will be better!" doesn't help us Americans because the system is both a two-party system and is heavily influenced by the rich. The two problems combined has really made our country less of a democracy and more of an oligarchy.
Safe spaces are echo chambers. Only people who align with their own views are allowed, so those views are the only ones expressed. It's "Free" as long as you say what they want to hear.
There is a difference between the two. Getting doxxed is caused by social regulation going awry. Getting removed by a company is that company controlling the narrative. Neither is good, but one still allows for the freedom of expression.
I'm sorry but I fail to see a difference between the two. In either case users are leaving/avoiding a platform due to abuse and this free speech on the platform is lessened (except, of course, for the harassers).
"You will be judged by the company you keep" is starting to bite these platforms, and they're trying to do something about it.
It is tough to break out of the instant gratification cycle when everyone you see is in the same cycle. People on facebook spend all of their time looking at other people on facebook. Living differently takes someone or something to shift their perspective, as well as the self-discipline to create change. This expense makes me believe that the lifestyle of instant gratification is the new normal, and I doubt it will be going away any time soon.
That just makes me wonder: How can we manipulate this change for our own advantage?
That's literally the exact opposite sentiment of the post. How about using those triggers for something more useful? Or encouraging people not to do those things?
Why not aim to create something that improves things, rather than looking to exploit it and add to the problem?
I understand the sentiment of the post, but it's just not realistic. If we could get rid of the problem, that would obviously be preferable, but it's not going anywhere. It's just too pervasive and exploits psychology too well.
We should encourage people to do those things and break free, and some will be able to. Many people, however, lack the willpower to do so. If we can find a way to make people learn and feel fulfilled while in a short-attention-span environment, that would be an improvement from where we are now.
I personally question the legitimacy / usefulness of affirmative action, but the best argument in support of it which I have heard is that people bound their career prospects based on the individuals they observe to be occupying those roles in society. For example, if a person is female and all the software developers they see are male, perhaps they believe that software development is inherently a male job and not for them. This could then lead to a negative feedback loop where females are afraid to make the first step into the industry because no one has done it before them, and the industry misses out on people who could turn out to be very qualified workers. Affirmative seeks to break this loop.
It forces a company to try multiple approaches to hiring. E.g. having many criteria for what the company considers a good candidate.
For example, a tech company that requires college degrees for all candidates might want to loosen that, and figure out other signals that indicate strong candidates without a degree.
There's a strong tendency to hire what you know (e.g. people like you, and to interview how you've been interviewed).
If South Africa hadn't mandated that companies have a certain percentage of blacks in senior positions, then the economic and political power still would have been heavily lopsided towards the white minority after apartheid ended. Things aren't golden and fantastic there now, but it's still more equitable than it would have been without that affirmative action.
Theoretically, those people who lost their jobs are now free to use their time producing some other product, thus increasing GDP. We'll see if that happens, though.
Exactly. Skilled labor and an aged population doesn't help much. What happens to the worker over 50...or even 40 with a family to privide for...there isn't much time to acquire new skills. It's easier said when you don't have a family to provide for or responsibilities. There should be a transition period where people are allowed time to obtain new skills instead of being dropped...and in some cases, left to be picked up by local government - job training programs are not cheap.
They have those training programs in America. The problem is training or education never created a job. You can stamp all the degrees and certifications you want, but if there's no jobs, its fundamentally not going to help.
If you have 11 pounds of flour to put in a 10 pound bag, no matter what you do with applying nice looking labels, its not gonna fit.
'Society at large has decided that it likes suburbs and McMansions just fine.'
No, the people with the money and land have decided that they like suburbs. I am sure that if a millennial could buy a small patch of land and build a small house on it for cheap, they would.
Things are still pretty bad. Underemployment still hovers at around 15%. Unemployment numbers are pretty useless when someone who lost their full time job, is trying to find another one, and is working a handful of hours part time to get by in the meantime is counted as "employed".
