They only have 2 real options, it’s either more of the same or the guy who’s promising to tear down the system. There’s really no nine dimensional chess, it’s pretty clear cut to me.
To think otherwise is, once more, a failure to learn the lesson.
Tips if you will. Which will not pay taxes soon.
Isn’t that how fascism always works though? It’s a populist movement.
Sooooo… what will they do with the $200 million dollars?
Interesting read, thanks for taking the time to make the research.
I don’t want to get behind this type of thinking. I get it, I really do. I would also like to shake sense into people. But as you’ve seen that doesn’t work.
I believe that all people should question authority and they should inform themselves using the proper sources without taking what anyone says at face value. Authorities will more often than not simplify and remove all nuance when communicating information to the masses and this is the root of the increased mistrust in vaccines with Covid came from. Authorities stated as facts things that they did not know were facts and overstated the effectiveness of the vaccines and then tried to silence the fact that in a small number of people the vaccine did cause cardiovascular issues. The government should have been upfront about that and explained why the trade off was worth it, but they didn’t because they erred on the side of thinking that people are complete morons. They may be, but we need to give them the benefit of the doubt.
IMO, and this is maybe off topic but official authorities should have open and long panels in podcast format discussing why they take the decisions they take and explaining the people the benefits and risks, inviting dissenters and proponents so that people can make the most informed decision. Not for every decision of course, but at least for those health related decisions that affect everyone we should.
I know many or even most will not do the right thing and inform themselves properly. But I also cannot stop believing that people are capable of finding good information and making the best decisions with the evidence available if we make that information easily accessible with all possible considerations. Because if I believe that people cannot make good decisions, then I necessarily also have to believe that we should limit the participation in our democratic society to only those who demonstrate this aptitude and I really really don’t want to believe that.
Did you read what I wrote? I said I hope, which means yes I am basing myself off of vague feelings because I can’t read the man’s mind nor Trump’s. But I can’t just dismiss RFK because he has a few bad takes, since I tend to agree with most of what he says outside of the vaccine stuff. Or do you disagree that Americans are over reliant on medications, that drugs shouldn’t be advertised, and that our food supply is horrible and toxic for the most part? Because these are not opinions, these are facts. For evidence look to countries that actually care about the well being of their citizens and you’ll find that their regulations are on the side of RFK.
My expectation is that he won’t be allowed to do anything and will be fired 6 months into the job because he really wants to shake things up and that threatens the profit of a lot of corporations.
My hope is that he will at least be able to remove drug advertising from TV, that nutrition labels will adopt a standardized serving size and that he limits the use high fructose corn syrup, additives and dyes in our food supply. If he fucks with vaccines well it’s only 4 years, we can fix it then. But I am almost certain he won’t ban vaccines and Trump wouldn’t allow it anyways, so the worse he can do is dissuade about their use. People can make decisions by themselves at that point, or so I have to think.
I mean I would still think it’s a non trivial amount of revenue for companies. Haven’t really looked that deeply into it.
Im conflicted on RFK. He’s right on his takes about nutrition and over reliance of Americans on prescription drugs, and he may be right about flouride (which we have always known had risks). He also wants to ban drug advertising which is 100% necessary. Yet his takes on vaccines are so so bad that it counters all the good he could do if he was really able to clean the food toxic food environment of the US and curb the power of big pharma.
I’m gonna hope for the best here. Vaccines are big business, so Trump might not let him make too many changes there. But so is food so who knows?
You’re still talking about DEI as a concept, which I’m in favor of. But you understand that in corporate settings things need to be quantifiable and diversity as a concept is nebulous, so in order to make it quantifiable corporations turn it into checklists and quotas. I know DEI as a concept doesn’t say that you HAVE to hire minorities and women over more qualified candidates. But I do know that corporations in order to quantify how diverse they are, and to be able to say they are diverse under whatever criteria someone at the top is using to judge said diversity will put policies in place like: we aim for 40% of our workforce to be minorities and women. And now the hiring managers have a very specific number of how many people in their team should be minorities.
I do not have any extreme beliefs about DEI, I just know that many orgs implemented DEI in this way and when you do, the incentive becomes to meet the quota rather than hiring the best person for the job.
Also you can’t just imply that I’m a bigot simply because I’m criticizing a fundamentally flawed implementation of an idea. That’s just being intelectually dishonest. I can be against DEI programs (because they are badly implemented most of the time, at least in my experience: anecdotal I know) and still be in favor of diversity.
That doesn’t answer what I asked at all, you only answered once more what DEI is in theory. I’m also not an edgelord though you are welcome to think that. I understand exactly how diversity is good and how it helps, being non white myself.
But I’ll repeat my question. How did organizations implement DEI hiring policies? How did they put what they supposedly learned in those classes in practice?
Could you explain how DEI works in practice. Not in theory or what it is supposed to do, but rather how companies implemented it and carried it out.
I would argue that Apple has actually done more to increase the quality of working conditions in China than any other company. Is it still a horrible environment, yes, but without Apple I’m not sure that it would have been better.
I don’t find a problem with exploiting tax loopholes because 9/10 times the loopholes are there by design, this is something to take up with the IRS and the government, because corporations HAVE to take advantage of said loopholes to stay competitive.
But to address directly your comment, I didn’t say that them retaining DEI was a moral choice. I believe it was a business decision, which is why I framed it as them historically beating the market while these firms don’t. Apple has clearly seen the value of DEI in their revenue and operations, otherwise they would be cutting the program real quick.
Tim is a very pragmatic man, and like any CEO he’s not an ideologue so he paid the bribe. It’s the cost of doing business under the corrupt Trump administration. Is he a coward for doing so? Maybe. But if he didn’t pay it and Trump acted against Apple the blame would fall on Tim and he would be replaced with someone friendlier towards Trump. Maybe Tim figured it was better he stayed in charge to minimize damage, as gay man who has no doubt faced his fair share of persecution and prejudice.
Then again Peter Thiel is also gay and he’s the puppet master behind Silicon Valley’s sudden heel turn. So is Sam Altman who is also donating.
Yet that’s how many orgs implemented it which is why so many people are against it. It’s not that DEI is bad, it’s that badly implemented DEI is worse than no DEI at all. But the pendulum ever swings and always with more momentum towards progress.
Man they really botched his last update.
You know who hasn’t abolished DEI efforts yet and asked shareholders to vote against abandoning them? Apple. And historically Apple tends to beat the market. So imma go ahead and make a the wild statement that these companies will eat a bag of dicks in 10 years and end up adopting DEI under another name while Apple stays the course.
I do think that badly implemented DEI is worse than no DEI and many orgs implemented it badly so this could be a net positive in the end.
Through the discussion I’ve had here I can see that I should have been more specific and defined what kind of algorithm is the problem. But that was the point of making the post in the first place, to understand why the narrative is not moving in that direction and now I can see why, it’s nuanced discussion. But I think it’s well worth it to steer it in that direction.
Exactly my point. In lemmy I can still see all the posts, Meta’s algorithm will remove stuff from the feeds and push others and even hide comments. It is literally a reality warping engine.
Yes, but it’s different. Do you really not understand how simple the calculus is for people who are not politically and or philosophically engaged?