And I’m showing you, with sources, that you are wrong on both your points.

It can be reliably and reproducibly measured that diversity is more profitable. It’s as “always” as tylenol helps against headaches, trains for travel, google for searches, gravity for keeping you on the ground. Yes, there technically are times these don’t work, but it works more often than not, and typically there’s other factors when it doesn’t.

And similarly, yes you might not always pick the best candidate, but applying robustly provable best practices will lead you to doing it more often.

Do you go through anything else in life in this manner? That if you can’t do it perfectly, you’d rather not try? I’d wager not, as trying gets you closer to your goals, even when not meeting them immediately.

It seems evident you’re not giving an informed opinion.

The Trump administration has deemed presentations of employed women and poc as part of DEI.

I find it hard to see that describing your employee diversity is discriminatory. And the law is quite settled on this not being discriminatory. Changes are being forced by executive order, many of which have been illegal under the current administration.

Diversity has repeatedly been shown to be more profitable than homogeneity, in both academic and gray literature. Besides being good for societal cohesion, fairness, stability, happiness, and moral virtue.

The best candidate is indeed best, but there are too narrow and outdated ideas on how to identify the best candidate, and humans have a bias to choose/hire for safety and similarity over actually relevant criteria, which is why we have the problem in the first place.

Please provide proof that this is in use at the PSF.

Quotas for minorities are a very outdated practice and were used to break the most entrenched norms (women in C-suites).

More modern practices include preferring diversity between equally qualified candidates, ad retargeting and messaging efforts, and inclusive norms at workplaces.

Also, diversity is profitable, it increases both innovativeness and productivity. It seems uniquely stupid to kneecap the economy to benefit your cronies. Then again, maybe that’s the whole point of the GOPedo platform: rob the commons.

That’s a YouTube problem, they block VPN connections for not logged in users

Try pipepipe, haven’t had it blocked ever for the couple years I’ve used it

I’m trying to read your argument generously, and it comes off as: a minority has to work with the enemy to have a chance at achieving some of its goals.

Please correct me, as that doesn’t seem right?

The GOPedo with Trump are still in the popular minority of votes, they haven’t been neither popular majority nor willing to compromise for 50 years.

White Christians aren’t a US minority group, or do you mean that the GOPedo has negotiated with them for the current policies? (With minorities I refer to political minority powers, not necessarily demographics)

Or is it the plurality of voters that should accept working with Trump over Biden to get some of their policy? It would seem that Biden would be the compromise candidate, as Trump doesn’t seem to be pursuing any voter driven policy (health care, jobs, lower inflation, lower cost of living, legalising drugs, etc.), besides perhaps those of further US minorities (Heritage foundation, oligarchs, Saudi Arabia, Russia).

Would you please clarify what you’re arguing for with your picked examples?

Good thing he got replaced, the next one would never do that right?

Oh, he did as well? Well, at least you voted him out when you found out.

Wait, you elected him back? Despite him having done so before just last time, and openly promising to do so again? And the alternative not having done so, nor promising to?

How much could you really care if you’re repeatedly and knowingly going against it?

In point 2. you equate your criticism for liberal democracy with that for the scientific method. Your latest argument doesn’t factually or logically hold true for the scientific method.

Thus I must conclude that a. your arguments for point 1. and 2. are different, and b. your statements are uncorrelated even though they partially argue the same point.

I mean, I guessed as much, but taking them as logically connected made for an entertainingly surprising take, and I thought I’d share it with you and the class.

Read together, it looks like you’re preferring people’s democracy because liberal democracy handles too much nuance.

Hadn’t heard that take before!

Selling my organs, or testing risky medical procedures.

I often recommend Spain for US emigrants, quality of life and cultural norms are similar, and Spanish is easier to pick up when you’ve heard it as much as you do from US media.

Netherlands and Scandies have a great reputation, but there’s significant culture shock and you risk feeling more alienated for longer.

deleted by creator

Observing groups is a very useful skill, in minutes you can tell who’s where in the hierarchy, what the cliques are, how well they coordinate, how information flows, and where influence springs from.

This let’s you not only insert yourself at the right moment, peg, and place for maximum efficacy, but also informs you of barriers, challenges to overcome, and next steps for the group to act better together.

Hobby/skill/interest in Group dynamics, useful for coaching, creating community, project organisation, and group coaching.

Head zaps are only meant to be around for the first 2-6 weeks, if it sticks around longer you should consult your doctor.

That’s also about the same time it’s supposed to take for you to feel some relief, and through that be able to actually improve your situation and learn resilience and strategies to manage your symptoms.

Make sure you take your dosage as prescribed for the whole period, it takes time to build up the ssri levels in your body, and the sooner they get up to par, the sooner the zaps stop, and you can get started getting better.

You are right that things would still look like we’re accelerating away from us, even if we were actually contracting.

Interesting hypothesis! How do we investigate?

What could we expect from a large central gravitational point? We should have other signs of the gravity well:

We would expect a point that we contract towards (and that seems ill fitting, as we see the expansion moves as the observer (including earth) moves), we would expect some kind of mass or similar effect, which would also have a size to fit it in (we know that gravity works different when you’re inside the mass, and we would be able to see it, much like black holes or dark matter), we would expect things to orbit the gravity well (which we know that at least our galaxy doesn’t orbit us).

You might want to actually check on these things to make sure they apply and are true, but at least at first glance it seems the expansion is better explained without a central gravity.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

But the question is not what is simplest for the company. Arguably it would be even simpler for the company not to pay Bob, or anyone for that matter, they could also simplify a lot with not bothering with doing anything beside extracting money from people, slavery and robbery are very simple.

If we change the viewpoint from people living to serve companies, we might arrive at different conclusions, and maybe even a society better suited for humans, rather than companies.

Why? Bob has higher costs and longer preparation time for work.

In economic theory, the job is worth less to Bob, and he should be compensated more for taking it.

Is it fair that Bob should subsidise the company’s labor costs?

Bob’s labor also incurs greater costs on the communal infrastructure (roads, pollution, gas, etc), why should the company not also have a higher burden (higher tax) to compensate the commons for that?

But in several countries it is legally abuse to withhold emotional safety from a dependant, including withholding the right to privacy.

I know, as I teach this to youth organisations who have a reporting duty against that law.

As for the health benefits, I’d urge you to read a basic textbook on child developmental psychology. The keywords used in most models are autonomy, privacy and keeping secrets, as important parts of social (and cognitive) development from about the second year, and only get more important with age.