> What is helping people most in need other then giving more to one side at the expense of other? That's a great question and a lot more philosophical than I'm

> What is helping people most in need other then giving more to one side at the expense of other? That's a great question and a lot more philosophical than I'm going to get into in HN comments. I was trying to emphasize how framing is important - focusing on reducing privilege is much different than helping those who are starving. Making LeBron James wear ankle weights will further equity in the NBA, but I don't think anyone wants that. > The other word for it is fairness Fairness in opportunity, or fairness in outcome? Neither is possible with the randomness of the world. The only way to reduce the effect of randomness is to make us all exactly equivalent - I can't think of any good ways to do that. > We have many rules that are obviously stacked for some group or another Life is inherently stacked for some group or another. Even if we manage to make perfectly "fair" rules (which I don't believe is possible), there will still be disparities between however you want to define groups. > Genetics are often relatively weak compared to these rules Depending on the implementation of the rule, I somewhat agree. I don't think our science is advanced enough on the genetic side to determine how much of an impact these rules have.