- cross-posted to:
- news
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- news
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Someone should ask Tim if they’ll start firing gay executives since they probably only got the job because they were a DEI hire, right?
No, we voted against that. And DEI is better for Apple in the long run. Be a leader, Tim.
“His comments came just minutes after a majority of shareholders rejected a proposal calling on the tech giant to consider ending its diversity policies, such as the use of race and sex in hiring decisions.”
such as the use of race and sex in hiring decisions.”
this is such a misunderstanding of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and it’s a shame to see BBC frame it in this way. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policies are there to REDUCE the “use of race and sex” in hiring decisions by reducing bias towards majority demographics. There may be policies to promote race/sex in the PRE-hiring process to ensure you have diverse candidates to consider, but it is NOT demographic quotas that override hiring based on merit.
Reminiscent of that historical anecdote about Napoleon (which appears to not be historical in content, but definitely historical due to being very old), of that progression from “Corsican monster lands …” to “… the Emperor enters his faithful Paris”.
May not always work like this, but sometimes it does.
but it is NOT demographic quotas that override hiring based on merit.
That claim would imply that you know exactly the amount of initial bias and how to correct it.
But you don’t, you have a set of protected groups, some suggested bias by very approximate aggregated stats (obviously more general than the specific situation), and you “correct it” when choosing among specific people with names and personalities.
Your set of protected groups likely doesn’t include neurodivergence, for example ; even if it formally does, it might not in practice - a lot of people sincerely think masking is normal for autistics and not a torture completely unnecessary other than protection from their ape instincts, also called “people skills”.
Your level of bias and the needed correction, as I’ve already said, might be taken from a larger area and applied to a smaller area with a different situation.
Also yes, what you described is similar to quotas, unless HR’s and people doing tech interviews don’t have endless time resources.
May not always work like this, but sometimes it does.
like where? according to Cook they do not have quotas.
Also yes, what you described is similar to quotas,
no, it literally is not.
anyway, we are missing the forest for the trees. i will restate the main point i was trying to get across in my original comment. Hiring processes have ALWAYS used sex/race/etc in hiring, it is not a new thing invented by woke lefties. DEI policies are there to REDUCE it.
like where? according to Cook they do not have quotas.
That was about the anecdote about Napoleon and French newspapers in 1815.
no, it literally is not.
You said it’s “promotion” in pre-hiring process, but not in the hiring process. Logically this means multiplication, that is, that this works as a quota. Mathematically it does, and, of course, I can’t for the life of me care what they call it in socialspeak.
Hiring processes have ALWAYS used sex/race/etc in hiring, it is not a new thing invented by woke lefties. DEI policies are there to REDUCE it.
Yes, I understand both these statements.
The former is present when needed for business, policies or not, and the latter can help or not. Or it may help one problem and hurt another. Say, if some mechanism for “promotion” exists, the border between “eligible” and “not eligible” for it becomes a corruption (not necessarily bribes, also acquaintances, personal sympathies, ideological alignment of those hiring and those applying) opening, and also the priority between those eligible is a bit easier to use as such than outside of that mechanism.
Anyway, half of my previous comment in this thread described it so much better than I’m trying to do now that I’ll stop. Read that please first.
I’ll also add that the hardest part in building any mechanism is designing it properly, not voting for it and not being so proud how you voted once for the right party, voting doesn’t involve thinking, it involves putting a mark on a paper. And the reason various freaks and jerks are now in charge of your country is because of poorly designed mechanisms aimed at various noble goals failing again and again.
You said it’s “promotion” in pre-hiring process, but not in the hiring process. Logically this means multiplication, that is, that this works as a quota. Mathematically it does, and, of course, I can’t for the life of me care what they call it in socialspeak.
utter garbage.
Yes, I understand both these statements.
The former is present when needed for business,
you don’t understand shit.
I’ll also add that the hardest part in building any mechanism is designing it properly, not voting for it and not being so proud how you voted once for the right party, voting doesn’t involve thinking, it involves putting a mark on a paper. And the reason various freaks and jerks are now in charge of your country is because of poorly designed mechanisms aimed at various noble goals failing again and again.
what the fuck does this have to do with anything?
Well, you might spend an hour or two thinking on what I wrote instead of being rude to people better than you.
right back at you, genius.
anyway, there is literally no point in thinking on anything you say if you honestly believe this:
Me: “Hiring processes have ALWAYS used sex/race/etc in hiring, it is not a new thing invented by woke lefties. DEI policies are there to REDUCE it.”
You: “The former is present when needed for business”
All the non sequiturs and irrelevant historical quotes are just burying this very clear statement that you’re racist.
As the legal landscape around this issue evolves, we may need to make some changes to comply, but our north star of dignity and respect for everyone and our work to that end will never waver
Sounds like the goal is to keep pushing for diversity, equity, and inclusion, but they might change tactics to comply with state or federal regulations.
Sounds like they’ll give lip service to DEI in the name of appeasing the shareholders but push to limit it and suck trumpian cock as much as possible
Tim needs to hurry up and retire.
Well, I guess tim apple sucks more dick than we thought :(
As the legal landscape around this issue evolves, we may need to make some changes to comply, but our north star of dignity and respect for everyone and our work to that end will never waver
What issue, Tim? Being inclusive, and supportive of different people, has apparently turned into an issue.
All the two-faced snakes are showing their true nature, now that there’s nothing reason to hide
It’s not that it’s an issue, it’s that they are doing what’s profitable for them. They never were inclusive and supportive, I think there were mechanisms making DEI stuff a factor in their tax cuts or something.
