this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2025
44 points (97.8% liked)
Apple
18079 readers
116 users here now
Welcome
to the largest Apple community on Lemmy. This is the place where we talk about everything Apple, from iOS to the exciting upcoming Apple Vision Pro. Feel free to join the discussion!
Rules:
- No NSFW Content
- No Hate Speech or Personal Attacks
- No Ads / Spamming
Self promotion is only allowed in the pinned monthly thread
Communities of Interest:
Apple Hardware
Apple TV
Apple Watch
iPad
iPhone
Mac
Vintage Apple
Apple Software
iOS
iPadOS
macOS
tvOS
watchOS
Shortcuts
Xcode
Community banner courtesy of u/Antsomnia.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
like where? according to Cook they do not have 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.
That was about the anecdote about Napoleon and French newspapers in 1815.
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.
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.
utter garbage.
you don’t understand shit.
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.
Using Latin words doesn't make you intelligent, and saying something is irrelevant doesn't make it so.
Anyway, you haven't even started noticing what I actually wrote. I have executive function problems and argue in the interwebs too much, so - fool blocked.