I just first want to say kudos for having a well reasoned point that you’re defending with logic, patiently and consistently, with respect for all.

That’s rare on the Internet, and Lemmy in particular, which is severely prone to the group generally deciding on one “right” position and mercilessly punishing dissent.

All that said, I think I broadly agree with you, and further, think that all of this DEI stuff is essentially “affirmative action for a new generation”.

It’s so hard to nail it down and defend it because (it seems) proponents don’t like to explain so much of how it works (and how it works differently from not incorporating it), and rather tend to answer with what it accomplishes. In theory at least.

The problem, of course, being that this subtly shifts the criticism and defense from DEI itself to its goals.

You can say “DEI means that the company is better by getting the best employees and also helps historically disadvantaged demographics get better jobs” without at all describing how that happens, and suddenly disagreeing on the merits of DEI gets misconstrued as “companies should only hire white guys and maintain the status quo”, at which point they’re more easily targeted with ad hominem and lumped together with true bigots and racists.

Regarding the issue itself, from everything I’ve seen, DEI should be less “this is an initiative we’re doing and have a team on it and track it’s metrics” and more just, “We’ll hire the best person for the job.”

Because ultimately, anything other than “We’ll hire the best person for the job.” means, by definition, “We’ll pass on the best person based on their, or the other candidates’ race, gender, religion, etc.”

If that means an overwhelmingly white male workplace, that’s a social indicator, not a problem for the company to fix. Also, hypothetically, what’s the desired end goal in terms of workplace diversity? To match the local area as closely as possible? If so, what happens when the most qualified candidates happen to be overwhelmingly from a minority? Are they going to start hiring less qualified white guys to balance it out? They shouldn’t. But they also shouldn’t hire a less qualified woman just because they only have one other woman in the whole building.

Ultimately, the only extent I could see a DEI policy actually having merit and being worth talking about would be something sort of like the Rooney Rule. A company saying, “For any position we post, we’re committed to interviewing at least X candidates from historically underrepresented minority demographics. We may still end up hiring a white guy…but this will ensure that we don’t get so used to seeing nothing but white guys that we forget to look elsewhere.”

It’s also not their place to level the social playing field, yet here we are.

Because he thinks it makes him look cool and edgy, especially in an environment like this, where the way to gain popularity is to be the most extreme far left voice in the crowd.

People like that are the vegans of politics: even if you may agree with them in many ways, their repulsive attitude and conduct more than overrules any common views you might share.

Legally it’s totally okay, actually.

I know this is all very unpopular opinion here on Lemmy, but it’s fact.

Same picks for the same reasons.

… although I’m less proud to admit that I read it as “Known Father” the first time, didn’t catch it until I came to the comments, and he still didn’t make the top 2.

I just kinda figured that “Known Father” meant he was always talking about his kids and experiences with parenthood, and that was enough to eliminate him.

I kinda get it though…it’s not like these armed forces are producing the movie themselves.

The studio wants to make a movie about/involving these entities. They want it to be as realistic as possible and the entity itself has the authority to give them access that it could also deny.

If you’re in charge of, say, the Marines PR department, you’re constantly trying to make the Corps look good and boost recruitment. If you can do this for next to nothing against your budget by granting access to a studio making a film that will give you essentially free PR, that’s a great move. The bigger the movies potential, the more the entity in question is motivated to support it.

On the other hand, if the film is going to make your organization look bad, no PR person with a functioning brain is going to help that project in any way.

Idunno, I feel like these organizations do enough actually bad things, that I don’t feel the urge to crucify them for cultivating image and working to generate positive PR.

That’s totally fine.

It’s also easy to say that when you’re the living embodiment of the luxury and excess of the establishment/status quo.

Like… dude…of course you don’t want to see revolution… every single fucking element of the system tilts not only in your favor but also in favor of perpetuating and furthering your absolute stranglehold on wealth, power, security, etc.

The more interesting answer would be to the question: if, as a society, we became so united in our acceptance of this that it literally became commonplace for CEOs to get whacked and then for juries to nullify the charges and for the killer to walk free…and it was happening dozens of times every year, or month…

…would you support a revolution to change the status quo that was literally killing people like you with zero repercussions?

If not, you’re an absolute idiot, or you’re actually on our side in this.

If yes, then you know damn well what’s going on and, shocker, you’re playing dumb for a cheap attempt at sympathy.

Windows ‘just works’? What about all the programs crashes that you need to go through endless YouTube tutorials to fix? What about having to fill up a form and register your credit card for every closed source program you need to install?

I’ve literally never had either of these experiences with W10.

At least not in the past 5+ years.

Yes it was longer than that.

My main thing is that, then and now (based on discussions I read between users), most any user experience that I relate to seems to be equal parts:

“try to figure out the Linux equivalent of what you were doing in Windows and hope it’s compatible with the rest of your needs”

“Try to figure out how to get Linux to behave like Windows to accomplish something you did with that os”

“Become a hobbyist…programmer? IT specialist? And get familiar with tweaking and adjusting the details of how your computer works just to get it to do things you want”

Like…for people who enjoy it, I’m happy for them. Really! But I don’t want to have to familiarize myself with commands, learn how to boot things up, or learn a whole list of things just to get the simple mindless functionality I have with Windows from decades of time in the system.

I think back then I tried Debian, Ubuntu, and…is ‘OpenSUSE’ a thing? I even had a group of three friends who were all super into Linux encouraging me and helping me every step of the way, and I was young and technically inclined and happy to have a challenge…and in the end, I went right back to Windows after a semester or two of that, because I just found that my experience was, broadly speaking, “Enjoy a problem solving exercise in software management every time you want to do something, just to get to a basic level of function, with added quirks that you’ll just have to deal with…and little real benefit for the order of magnitude of extra effort”.

And while I’m sure some of that would have had to get better in the years between, most of the conversations I still see about Linux are enthusiasts enjoying coming up with solutions to the issues of using their chosen system. Which again, that’s fine, but I don’t want to have to become an enthusiast of an OS.

Given a choice between, “have to learn how to get the OS to do everything” vs “put up with data collection and some intrusive ads once in a while”… I’m happy to go with the latter to have things just work without having to learn a new skill set just to get the same level of functionality.

I’m happy to use W10 well after its official support ends, though I strongly suspect there will be significant extensions to that timeline. Even then, I’m happy to use it until it’s no longer the path of least resistance, at which point, I’ll reevaluate my options. When we get there, if it seems reasonable, maybe I’ll dip my toes into the Linux pool again.

Man, it’s a toss up for me as to which I hate more: Microsoft threatening and badgering me toward W11 (and by extension, a new computer) or Linux fanboys evangelizing for their preferred system.

Both are complete non-starters for me. I’m not buying a new machine while my current one does everything I need just fine… And after a few years of using Linux on my laptop back in college, I have no desire to set foot in that environment again either.

My perfectly good PC has an incompatible processor with W11, so I’m not upgrading.

I imagine it’ll still be just fine next October, so even if Microsoft doesn’t extend support for W10, I’ll still be using it.

They absolutely will.

Either directly, because those goods are now more expensive to Best Buy and they’re not about to eat that, so it’ll get pissed directly on to the consumer (with a mark-up)…

…or indirectly, when any one or more of the corporate entities involved in the domestic supply chain sees that domestic goods are now cheaper than imports for the consumer, which means that they now have an opportunity to simply raise their prices to match and pocket the difference.

Nevermind that domestic supply chains often have roots in China anyway, so it’s not like the domestic electronics are going to be able to hold price either, since their imported components will still be getting hit with the tariff.

My favorite part of this aspect of it in particular is that while electronics are no doubt ubiquitous, most electronics purchases are more discretionary. It’s not like a car where if yours dies you are definitely buying another one. Most times, people are getting a phone because a new model came out, or they decided theirs was too slow. They’re getting a new TV because they want to upgrade or found a good deal.

So when these tariffs hit and prices lurch up, expect sales to plummet as people decide they can keep going with their current electronics just a bit longer.

So congratulations, domestic beneficiaries of an electronics tariff, any profit increase you might have gained will now be more than gutted by the nosedive in overall sales!

My guess?

He’s far less concerned about the specifics of this situation and far more concerned about what happens if/when his Twitter is host to something horrible enough that people are calling for his head, and/or he is wanting to sell…or being pressured to sell Twitter…but there’s something specific he wants to stipulate in that transaction that a precedent set here might fuck up.

For a few years, it seemed like everyone I knew who has having a little girl was naming them after old presidents.

So many Kennedys and Reagans and Madisons…

My girlfriend at the time did really like “Madison”, but I told her if we were ever to have a little girl and we’re gonna name her after a former president, we’re gonna have a little Eisenhower running around.

She laughed (as was the intention) but agreed the trend was a little ridiculous.

Yeah, it sounds like it might be a great case to run up the flagpole to SCOTUS for an official ruling, since it crosses state lines.

Like …okay the child is behaving in a way inconsistent with State B Law, but they’re not in State B. That happens all the damn time, every day, with vice laws, weed laws, gun laws, etc.

Also, presumably, if the child moved out of the country, State B would be completely unable to enforce its laws in country B. So there’s a limit to this enforcement, but where is it?

I mean, it’s all very subjective, so “too much” for you seems to be what is a good amount for everyone else…but realistically, I don’t think this is a legitimate complaint since you still need to be able to make all these adjustments anyway… it’s just a matter of the way the adjustments are being made.

All a touch screen changes is that it can play host to multiple functions depending on context…but it loses much of the visual recognition and almost all the tactile feedback of a physical control.

And while vehicles keep getting more and more complex for sure, I feel like when I’m riding in a more touchscreen heavy vehicle, that screen is displaying the same static set of controls 99% of the time…and at that point, the flexibility it offers is largely irrelevant, and the tradeoffs mean giving up a lot to get very little in exchange.

They get really spicy!

Disagree.

Personally, I feel the problem is absolutely touchscreens.

I’ve only got five senses, and taste and smell aren’t helpful in a driving situation.

Of the 3 left, sight is the most important for the most important task: driving.

For other tasks, sound is best used to alert or remind about something, and is frequently diminished as a driving aid by music.

That leaves touch and sight for all remaining tasks.

Touchscreens are, despite the name, effectively 100% reliant on sight, since there’s no real tactile feedback to enable the user to make eyes-free adjustments. To use a touchscreen, you have to take your eyes off the road to see what the screen says and make your selections.

While some are better than others, I also feel like touchscreens are still embarrassingly and frustratingly prone to errors, missed touches, and generally not doing the things the user intended, requiring even more eyes off the road to undo whatever actually happened, get the interface back to the place you want it, and try again, hoping that this time it’ll work.

My mid-teens vehicle has a mix of a medium sized touch screen for the entertainment unit but physical controls for climate, driving, and a few of the entertainment adjustments, and while I was all about the advanced new touchscreen when I bought it, I find it’s my least favorite part of the controls this far along in ownership.

“I want things to be worse for everyone who isn’t exactly like me.”

You’re the worst kind of person.