> You know, like trying to find biases in die rolls - if 6 comes up more than 1, you might have a bias. This is a false analogy, it robs people of their agency

> You know, like trying to find biases in die rolls - if 6 comes up more than 1, you might have a bias. This is a false analogy, it robs people of their agency. Humans do not act with some uniform distribution. It could be cultural, social, environmental, class - any number of factors. People are different and these differences should be celebrated, not squashed and ironed out. > people who see others in the same category as them doing a thing, will be more likely to do the thing themselves > people who exist in a status quo will tend to make decisions preserving the status quo > complex feedback systems sometimes need sub-optimal input to eventually converge optimally Sure, but at what point have we biased the input enough? At what point do we except the result? Bare in mind for example, women were among the first programmers (computers). If we achieve equal numbers of men and women in programming roles, what makes you believe the situation won't once again become biased? What concerns me is that equal outcome is a goal without any real measurement of success or plan to revert back to equal opportunity once the input has been 'corrected'.