Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)DU
Posts
0
Comments
144
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Are you implying "anti racist discrimination" is justified by your quote? I agree with your quote, but it is not supportive of Kendi's quote in the slightest. To discriminate is to "unjustly treat categories of people", so if someone is acting racist and you don't tolerate them, that is not discrimination at all because you are judging them for their actions, not their looks.

  • I'm guessing not all hypotheses receive the same interest or funding to begin with. Definitely seems to be a selection bias on what actually gets funded/studied. Even worse, when they withhold results they don't like from being published.

  • Im not saying that didn't happen but it's very surprising, I never experienced that in Seattle. In Seattle academia/institutions, theu usually doubled down on diversity rhetoric, and I've yet to see anyone push back on it.

  • QA could use some unionizing across the software/game industry imo.

    It's amazing how buggy websites of billion dollar companies are. They either don't have a QA team or don't prioritize any of the bugs they file. If I were still in that field I'd probably team up with some litigious ADA lawyers.

  • Harvards cs50 I believe has"the missing lecture" that talks about deployments and other activities surrounding programming.

    If you want to learn how to make web apps you want to make sure the course includes deployments. Or get a specific course on the cloud platform you want to learn.

  • Sms has been god awful since the beginning, both the standard and the business implementation. Remember bullshit pricing models for texts? 10center per text over your limit. Even today, the standard hasn't kept up with modern times.

  • This isn't a rebuttal, I don't have one, but some nuance I hope is appreciated.

    I looked at the studies a while back and read some discussions on the validity of them. I'll summarize what I recall. many people were misrepresenting them quite a bit. The people quoting this number often aim to shed cops in a bad light and will do so intentionally.

    If I recall, 40% is the domestic violence coming from either member in the household. Not just the police officer.

    Another thing was what the offers reported as violence. if I recall correctly "violence" could be defined as raising your voice to behaving violently. So I suppose that leaves room for some interpretation. But when the numbers are brought up, the claim is generally "40% of cops are wife beaters".

    Lastly, these were studies from the 90s and the researcherd generally did their studies on a single urban police departments. So old data and not representative sample.

    I don't trust the number at all with the data we have. The actual rate could be higher or lower, we need better data.

    My memory could also be way off.