asabjorn

56 ms·

481.
by asabjorn 9y ago
My exact point is that in these cases it seems like the employer in question announced that they believed the accuser before looking into both sides and the evidence. How do you think this does not illustrate that? How is one supposed to co
482.
by asabjorn 9y ago
> segregate them into specific majority-minority teams Again, you mischaracterize what I said: "I believe this can be done by hiring competent minorities into teams [2], where although they are a minority in general they will not be
483.
by asabjorn 9y ago
Some prominent examples of the lack of due process and mob-like behavior below, and this is just the top of the iceberg. Edit: My exact point is that in these cases it seems like the employer in question announced that they believed the acc
484.
by asabjorn 9y ago
Read my comment again; in no way this is a ghetto for minorities as the teams are not entirely comprised of minorities and this team structure is supported by research that shows that it feels socially isolating to be the sole representativ
485.
by asabjorn 9y ago
> Do you have any alternative that isn't isomorphic to affirmative action? Possible alternative: We need to embrace that all decisions we make are emotional, even the rational ones [1], and create a process that facilitates the des
486.
by asabjorn 9y ago
I agree with you that attributing this view to a whole group is likely to be neither accurate nor particularly interesting. Plenty of feminists and others seem to be waking up to the conclusions made by this piece. As much as I believe you
487.
by asabjorn 9y ago
Don't you think its a bit odd to try to compensate for implicit bias with explicit bias? To me it seems unlikely that bigotry, sexism and racism will be fixed by more of the same.
488.
by asabjorn 9y ago
I don't think you can have it both ways. You can't teach your kid to walk without risking that they occasionally fall and hurt themselves, and as we grow further these kind of small falls is a natural byproduct of taking risks tha
489.
by asabjorn 9y ago
I think its more about the balkanization of American discourse rather than any particular group doing this on their own. There is an excellent comment by @stupidcar outlining this as part of this thread. Its worth a read.
490.
by asabjorn 9y ago
My personal anecdotal experience is that people that say they are social justice warriors, including my cousin, tend to not engage well in the conversations that facilitates equality by building mutual empathy. It is very hard to meet the p
491.
by asabjorn 9y ago
The New York times had an interesting take on this in [1]. It argues that what we are seeing now is a resurgence of a victorian view of women as fragile beings that need to be sheltered from any possible harmful situation. This is bullshit;
492.
by asabjorn 9y ago
> It's state government trying to override local economic (zoning) decisions. It's the very definition of a centrally planned economy. You are mischaracterizing the law and what zoning is. Zoning does not produce any housing an
493.
by asabjorn 9y ago
It is not that simple. When a city builds offices without providing housing they are effectively forcing housing as well as infrastructure onto neighboring cities, while keeping the revenue from the office buildings. In my opinion this demo
494.
by asabjorn 9y ago
> Within limits of course--people shouldn't be able to exclude based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. California statistics indicates that artificially constraining housing supply has created housing costs that in effect
495.
by asabjorn 9y ago
In that case the opponents have to be explicit in why they fight against any kind of dense transit-near development, which would be an improvement over the current situation where in my opinion many opponents are not honest about why they o
496.
by asabjorn 9y ago
> > This bill is saying that cities can’t take state money to build transit and then sabotage it with sparse housing and cars. > And, that's a fine general idea; the specific implementation is a bit different than that. How is
497.
by asabjorn 9y ago
> ... It's a state power-grab for supply side controls -- planned economy thinking -- justified by Adam Smith rhetoric, because some folks in San Francisco have decided that they know what's wrong with the local planning of eve
498.
by asabjorn 9y ago
Housing externalities of cities decisions to for instance build offices while not adding sufficient housing is not limited to that city, essentially pushing those externalities onto surrounding cities and having them pay the housing as well
499.
by asabjorn 9y ago
Lack of housing supply is the major contributor to our high cost of living, not tech, and this started before tech was a thing in San Francisco. Without our excessive ways to hamper new housing tech would have provided good grounds to fund
500.
by asabjorn 9y ago
So do you have a different proposal that is better? At least to me the current solution does not seem like much of a solution, it is expensive and leaves most undersupported at best, and any rehabilitated social client would have to contend
501.
by asabjorn 9y ago
Similar to the Utah model you provide social services that help rehabilitate. We can also structure it similarly to theirs. The goal is to free people from the cycle of homelessness. As you can see in the article there is very little that w
502.
by asabjorn 9y ago
It is not for the lack of money spent. San Francisco spent $300 million on housing homeless people in 2017. That’s $40k per homeless person in the city. I think benioffs solution of spending by relocating homeless and vulnerable families ou
503.
by asabjorn 9y ago
As far as I know prop 13 suppress property taxes of old buildings, not new ones. New buildings should therefore have an outsized impact on the ability to create infrastructure.
504.
by asabjorn 9y ago
If developers build out suburban neighborhoods creating an integrated plan like this make sense, but what developers are building now is individual infill properties. nimbys that ask for infill developers to should infrastructure costs for
505.
by asabjorn 9y ago
We need every single leader that agrees to stand up for our democracy and inclusiveness in Silicon Valley. Currently the opposite side is way louder.
506.
by asabjorn 9y ago
Yes, that is my point. Technology acts as a large amplifier to extend reach and increase effectiveness. Previously you could at best expect to impose on a relatively small geographic area around you, and it was much harder to organize and n
507.
by asabjorn 9y ago
I think it’s quote extraordinary the way opinions are currently imposed at large scale by mob rule, enabled by social media and other technology that made this much more feasible. It’s tech that is used to identify, research, shame, coercin
508.
by asabjorn 9y ago
This quote seem to talk about a group controlling the judicial process, which is unlike the situation Tim Ferris describe where people are punished in an extrajudicial manner without due process.
509.
by asabjorn 9y ago
What benefit do you think it would have to bring up what he dissents on if he is correct? Assuming he is correct that would risk proving his point in a way that distracts from the debate he is trying to start.
510.
by asabjorn 9y ago
He is on point. The common way to approach any questioning of the common way of thinking is to always deny, never admit to anything and make counter accusations. The questions are never answered, and the counter accusations are aggressive c

More ›