Member
Hiring diversity in the federal government may have been an addition to criteria, but it was subsuming competence on the backend. No one gets selected for a government position without someone going "This one? Put their name on the shortlist."
All they changed was going from "this guy is solid" to "they check the most boxes on the demographics spreadsheet."
Member
Member
Completely agree. Except for the arbitrary part.Originally Posted by Robert Santana
With the FDA, nothing is arbitrary.
Member
Diverse means a given selection has a range of individual values or objects. Eg the fruit store has a diverse range of apples.
The intersectional, or woke definition of diverse is anyone who isn't a White Male.
What do you mean by those groups innate interest in a specific field of work? You don't account for what people are interested in. Some people like Monster trucks, some don't. It just is.
Member
Typing in "John Kennedy senate hearings " into YouTube, is a good starting point to prove that above statement, has no basis in reality.
Yes, there are Caucasians who play a starring role too, but less than you would expect.
Or look at the Vice President or the newest Supreme Court Justice.
Member
For about a decade, we’ve been seeing solicitations come through, usually via cold calls, for outsourcing of CAD services to overseas startups, usually located on the subcontinent. A couple of jobs ago, we decided to use them simply because our volume was too high to handle exclusively in our domestic office. It didn’t work. The amount of revision that needed to be done locally outstripped the benefit of the reduced cost. There were a lot of small, but important things, that got left out that could only be known by someone who had on-site knowledge of the given site. We used them sparingly to set things up, but never for final work product, and eventually stopped. I used to get calls even more recently, but told them I wasn’t interested.
mkm5 this is very much true, but not equal across all disciplines. The dirty engineers are still hiring local because of the regional variances; the details matter.
As for DIE practices, I haven’t weighed in recently in this thread. I have yet to see blatant diversity hiring. Perhaps I don’t run in those circles, but the kind of work I do can’t afford it, yet.
Member
I have. While doing workshare for another office, a so called 'senior' process engineer that worked for a major dutch company before us sent me (the mechanical engineering guy) a datasheet with two wildly different suction pressures that would affect the head this pump made to the tune of 20%; not acceptable in detail design engineering. Also looks silly to contradict yourself right there on your own page to vendors. Quizzing further as I pointed this out, this person was a grand total of 3 years out of school and was bestowed that title due to three little letters, phd. This person then admitted they copied the values without basic checking of other people's work. In this industry you better have a decade in the tank before you throw around the "S" word, minium, unless you need a diversity hire and stretch the definition because pdh, apparently.
The MORE scary thing is that no one in that organization saw a problem with this up until I went to the VP, and even he thought 'it wasn't a huge deal even though you are right.'
and yes, I'm sniffing around for other opportunities.
Member
Market makers don't boost their revenue with it. They don't have to. They're market makers. The companies they invest in get more money by scoring higher for ESG ratings. Larry Fink at Blackrock is patient zero for this phenomenon, a man who aspired to get into politics, but only made it in finance, and decided to use his success in that to make his mark on politics. But I'm sure you have a brush-off excuse for that already prepared. When it comes to large publicly traded companies, the emphasis is always much heavier on securing investment than pleasing consumers. You can absolutely put out a lousy product but get investor funds coming in and use that to stay in business.
Member
My solutions always go back to people, not authoritarian government styles. The teen is loitering for a reason - one the nearby community is probably aware of - lack of a parent, addiction - some problem that is better addressed by those around him and doesn't require jail. (Usually.) The answer to the murdered child should be obvious. As of now, if we put these people in jail we let the other inmates do the dirty work the trial won't. Which isn't a very honest answer in my view.
Sloppy people does equate to breakdown. Eventually those sloppy, ambitionless people outnumber us and we don't have enough competent people to land planes and keep power lines working. The sloppy, uneducated, pride-less and lacking in ambition is being coddled and even rewarded and promoted. You want the onesie-chick doing your brain surgery when you get an aneurysm?
My point is that it's a TV show. There's no use pretending that the people on the show in your example are actually what they say they are because it's a TV show. You mention a chainsaw - in the production of the show it's likely easier to film a segment taking a tree down with a chainsaw than it would be if they actually did it a slower way - it would make for boring TV. I'm also not sure that your premise that if anyone uses previously established tech or tools that they can't be living "off grid". A chainsaw is not society - I get your purist assertion that if they use any of the tools of society they are using society, but that's an intentional goalpost-move meant to bolster your argument rather than an actual assessment of how homesteaders and other individualists live their lives. Maybe get to know some of those type of people and hear how they live and then make that assessment.
I have no issue with that theory and if that were happening it would fall under the "not my preference but it seems to be working for most folks so I'll shut up" category. As you seem to get though, it's not working like that. People are watching their assailants go free and even be empowered while others who have done very little to deserve it are experiencing the wrong end of that government initiated violence. That's been the case in small segments for a while but those small segments have increased to the majority of examples.
It's a significant and important difference! Private action and government action are very different. Charity is very different from a welfare state. People doing things on their own in their own sphere is voluntary, government rules always come with the threat of violence as enforcement, even for the smallest infraction.
Even worse, he seems to be of the mind that the obedience is a worthy price to pay for the getting more done. Whereas, I think the obedience, the domestication, has really altered who we are, how we think, what we're capable of, and how healthy we are. I think the obedience will bring very hard times because it has created very soft people. Unfortunately, the argument over degradation will continue until the degradation is no longer deniable and then we're really in the hole.
Also, can it be called "cooperation" if it's forced with the threat of escalating punishments?
So why are you stuck on insisting that others join you in the Great Cooperation? See, my way gives choice. If you and yours want to group together to get things done you can. Free association of individuals and all. Get to it! But your team (for lack of a better word) wants the situation enforced. They are cooperating so everyone should. Instead of choice it's deciding that this way is better so everyone must participate. That's what we're really arguing here. The tools that ya'll want to use to get "more done" mostly don't belong to you. The labor, the patents, the innovation, often the money - they have to be taken from someone who may or may not have wanted to cooperate given a choice. Why are you demanding advancement, ease, and peace on the backs of those who don't necessarily want to give it? If it works so well why has it got to be enforced at gun point?
Member
A lot of H1B hires have goosed up resumes from working similar jobs that were outsourced to their countries. American kid has "I just gotta get outta college" while H1B has "I worked this tech job in my country for X years". Doesn't matter how well H1B guy actually peformed that job or what actual experience they he got. The whole system has really fucked homegrown skilled labor, in most STEM type fields.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote