DreamlandLividity @ DreamlandLividity @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

586

Joined

2 yr. ago

It would likely be impossible to redirect google.com without either sparking a cyberwar or building something like the great firewall of China, quite possibly both.

Blocking is somewhat possible, but to redirect, they would have to forge google certificates and possibly also fork Chrome and convince users to replace their browser, since last I checked, google hard-coded it's own public keys into Chrome.

Good for where you live I guess?

Most states don't require assessments: https://hslda.org/legal/

Yeah, because we don't have enough socioeconomic inequalities in the world, let's create more borderline (or outright) illiterate people.

Yeah, I have a 7 pro and it seems more like top of mid-tier device rather than a flagship, but I got it for GrapheneOS and will buy Pixel again just because of it.

And this right here is how you convince people to home-school after the first few fines.

My response to "capitalism is terrorism" was "Go move to Cuba then".

I don't know if this exists in different cultures, but in Czechia we often respond to stupid things with something equally or more stupid to show we don't take it seriously.

It has 88 down votes.

The issue to that is some moderation is mandatory by law, e.g. CP, copyrighted works. So mods still have to have the ability to remove data from the instances server completely, not just hide it. And instances probably also want to be able to have enforced rules on top of that.

I think what could do better is federating on communities level. So if you post or comment to memes community, it can post or comment to version of the community on multiple instances, each with different moderators.

The graphical proof is really nice :)

I use Tuta. It works decently well.

If you are willing to forego Google Pay, I strongly recommend GrapheneOS.

I didn't say they don't, but again, that is the same for US based social media and even more so for traditional media. Almost everyone is pushing an agenda these days.

Most people believe that they are smart enough to not fall for propaganda. Unfortunately, most, if not all of them are wrong.

I think both. I imagine I would do a lot of good on global level, but probably abuse it on personal level.

Although the specifics also matter, e.g. will there be a way to steal it from me, forcing me into paranoia?

And if you believe in yourself, how would you try to convince an hypotetical entity to give you this wealth?

It can't end worse than the direction we are going, and will very likely end much better overall.

Yeah, this

For me, the lesson needs to be to seek depth where something seems disagreeable but has vagueness, especially ideological labeling. I wish that was a realistic ask for all people. It has made me change my opinions a lot over the years as I've learned more—not necessarily dramatically, but it has tempered them with nuance.

This indeed is a really good takeaway, but I think we also need to at least try and make messaging clearer for those that are not going to. For example, many companies have statements of commitment to DEI on their webpages, but rarely what it does and more importantly doesn't include.

Then I guess the issue is we need more granular names for various DEI policies, because it is impossible to discuss any merits or demerits of something this vague and broad.

This vagueness then makes the issue far more divisive as proponents pick best policies to defend and detractors pick the worst examples to criticize.

My interest is in achieving outcomes and frankly we don't have the knowledge on which methods are most realistic and effective. I can't make a hard decision about something without that.

My issue isn't with trying varying methods. My issue is with labeling very different methods with the same name (DEI), which results in confusion and not constructive discussions, since everyone is working with different definition of the word.

The resulting vagueness then makes the issue far more divisive then it needs to be as proponents pick best policies to defend and detractors pick the worst examples to criticize.

Than maybe the issue is that people need to communicate properly what they mean by DEI exactly, because I never heard a DEI policy like that, neither online, nor in the news, nor at my job.

PS: Besides, hiring a competent guy from McGill sounds to me like hiring on merit. Hiring based on paper diploma is not hiring on merit.

There really is no mentionable amount of DEI hiring quotas, at least the market I am familiar with (US). It's practically illegal due to the Supreme Court's recent decisions. Though it was rare even before that. Not sure if that is the case in other places.

I think that's sort of an impossible task though, for any sufficiently large idea. You can't control all people

Sure, it is impossible to do perfectly. But don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Look how many comments into this thread we are based on my perception that DEI hiring involves preferential treatment for only minorities. And this is not the only thread.

At most people mention that not many companies do that. So far, no one outright stated giving preferential treatment to minorities when hiring shouldn't be part of DEI.

Even you didn't come out and explicitly say, let's only look at peoples socioeconomic backgrounds, not race and gender. It even sounds a bit like you want them to, it's just the pesky SCOTUS blocking it.

Supporters of DEI are either afraid to commit to not doing certain things, or they do want them, which is why these bad perceptions are able to spread so much.

Sounds like a white person wanting to protect their white privilege they don't realize they have.

Yeah, this right here is why so many people don't take these issues seriously. Because surprise, people don't tend to listen to people insulting them, if not outright lash out against what they are saying.

So you're ready to wait centuries before making the hiring process fair to non white CIS gender hereto men because that's how long it's gonna take to fix all socioeconomic inequalities that need to be fixed in order to guarantee that no matter who you're born at, you have access to the same opportunities to build your CV in order to apply for a job for a blind process that only tries to determine who is the most qualified candidate.

I don't believe it would take more than 40 years to fix most of them, if there was enough political will to fix them. And my whole point is that the bad perceptions around DEI sap away the political will for solving the systemic issues in exchange for short term relief with little long term benefit.

I'll give you an example, white vs white. Quebec families don't have as much wealth accumulated in general compared to Ontario families because until the 1960s the Catholic Church was omnipresent in people's lives and forced them to have more kids and to pay to build churches and to keep doing manual labor under English management. To this day it still has an impact on their average level of education and on the kind of life they can afford to live.

An amazing example of one of the many inequalities, that pretty much every DEI policy I have ever seen completely ignores.