Would it be possible to construct a building that has four sides of apartments surrounding a central spiraling stairwell, but the stairwell is also adjacent to a conventional emergency stairwell that can be entered from every floor of the central stairwell? You would have to shrink all the apartments on one side of a building to make room for it, but I can see the layout in my head. Furthermore, you could connect another tower of apartments to the same emergency stairwell.
This just reads like a bipolar person recounting their various episodes, presenting themselves as the victim when others get tired of them being obnoxiously confrontational and blaming everyone but themselves despite all the drama they somehow attract, as if by magnetism.
Unfortunately that is the same thing I’ve noticed. Someone who clearly has potential and talent but that can’t avoid attracting trouble.
Yeah, if you want to preach some kind of socialist ideals in the biggest company in America it is not going to be well received. Even some employees definitely are not interested in salary transparency. But she cant help it and can’t understand that she has a lot more agency in her troubles than she realizes.
But the sad part is that she won’t get real help, she won’t seek help, people will keep on enabling her delusions and helping her dig an ever deeper hole. It is all fucking tragic.
This is a pattern with certain kinds of mental illness, only surrounding yourself with people that validate your behavior because alienation develops between you and the people who don’t. In other words there is often a social component to these conditions where the condition fosters an environment that tends to perpetuate the condition.
You do have to judge the credibility of the narrator. The most egregious thing in the story was the use and possession of illegally acquired, dangerous drugs while caring for a young child.
It is illegal without a proper doctor's prescription and if it's obtained illicitly (Fentanyl that looks like Percoset being a thing the Mexican cartels do[1]).
If you’ve ever spent a significant amount of time in the orbit of someone near that cluster of symptoms you start to develop similar doubts about the narratives put forward by them. It is rarely so cut and dry that such people should be casually dismissed, but there is often something to doubt.
The difficult truth is that the situation will be two sided. Someone’s behavior and actions will go beyond what is reasonable (or legally defensible) and the reaction will likewise go beyond what is reasonable (or legally defensible). It is a complicated grey area where nobody looks good and people take sides according to their biases rooting for one side to “win” instead of being motivated to fix problems.
Her entire story could have been reduced to "I had a shit upbringing like many, sorted myself out, got a job at Apple, and then fucked it up cause I wanted to push some activist bullshit".
It was a poor attempt at grabbing the sympathy of anyone reading. I'll say if you fell for it, it's not because you have empathy and we don't, it's because you're being emotionally manipulated and we can see through the ramblings of a strung out person.
It says that he/she is bold enough to say what's on their mind, even if it runs the risk of being against the grain.
If there's one thing I've learned in life it's that your best bet is to keep your head down, do good work, and don't get in the way of others who are trying to do the same thing.
Hate that sentiment all you want, but even you probably benefit wildly from all the people surrounding you who are dealing with difficult shit but don't put it on you, or let it affect the workplace. It's standard etiquette and we're all better for it.
I think jurisdiction and the choice of prosecutor and judge do more to explain the incredible discrepancies we see in the mess that is the American justice system. You have to be very careful when contrasting different cases in different areas—there are so many cases and so many outcomes that it's very easy to cherrypick any two to make any point you want. Two examples:
The son of multimillionaire entrepreneur James Khuri killed a woman while speedracing his Lamborghini through Los Angeles. He was sentenced to serve a pathetic seven to nine months not in prison but in a youth camp and home detention.
On the other hand, Cameron Herrin killed a mother and her baby while speedracing his Mustang through the streets of Tampa—he was sentenced to twenty-four years in prison.
They're the same age. They're both rich. They're both white boys. They were both speedracing. And yet their sentences could not be more different. Frankly, it sounds like California is just soft-on-crime when it comes to vehicular offenses.
In the case of the Cuban truck driver, he was railroaded by local sentencing laws that forced the judge to sentence him to consecutive terms for each individual victim. Even the prosecutor in that case is now filing motions to get his sentence reduced.
>Intel joined other prominent U.S. companies Monday pledging to do more to address systemic racism in the wake of the killing of an African-American man, George Floyd, by a police officer in Minneapolis.
>“Black lives matter. Period,” CEO Bob Swan wrote in a memo to employees Monday, embracing the rallying cry of contemporary civil rights activists. “While racism can look very different around the world, one thing that does not look different is that racism of any kind will not be tolerated here at Intel or in our communities.”
We've banned this account for repeatedly and egregiously breaking the site guidelines.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
What is wrong with clavicat's comment? He is pointing out the hypocrisy of Intel claiming not to tolerate any form of racist. Genocide is by definition racist.
It is the same as when Western branches of various multinational corporations redesign their logos in rainbow colors for the Pride month, but their Middle Eastern branches do not ... offending Islam or the CCP comes with enough downsides to make them think twice.
I think the best default way how to view corporations is "perfectly immoral psychopathic beings always heeding the current Zeitgeist for maximum profit and cheap P.R. points among the class that locally matters".
I am happy to change my mind about some of them if they prove otherwise (e.g. by turning down a massive contract for ethical reasons, or standing up to a Twitter mob sicced on by influential people), but this is my default view in absence of other evidence.
The worse part, at least to me, is that that these shallow gestures presumably work, that somehow empty posturing on progressive-cause-du-jour actually does buy them goodwill in the western world.
It's either that, or this entire thing as a corporate strategy is run by some HR echo chamber with minimal forethought, and any downside is farmed out to external PR crisis management teams.
I'm starting to think it's the latter, given the amount of backpedalling and policy changes as of late (think google employee walkouts, publishers dealing with wrongthink books, netflix employees trying to scuttle the company's IP etc)
What you're seeing is a tiny peak of issues that pop into public consciousness essentially randomly, sometimes because you did a gesture and other times because you didn't do a gesture. Shallow gestures are common because, the vast majority of the time, the only response is some people saying "oh that's nice".
If you think that Germans are capable of making multiple terrible political decisions in the space of a century, then why do you trust them to operate and regulate nuclear reactors and safely store their waste for thousands of years?
I do feel like we're reliving the seventies in more than one—among them, crime, inflation, the end of an unpopular war, the rise of social and racial movements, and the Nixonian backlash against them. Biden makes for a very credible Carter, and who is Trump if not Nixon? But while the seventies saw a backlash against the sixties, it was not a defeat for the forces of the new social movements. They regrouped and consolidated their victories in many other ways. They organized minorities and fought for their rights through the courts, they graduated and became the educators of future generations, they staffed the philanthropic foundations, and they entered the culture industry. They accomplished all this despite how much the majorities that gave Nixon and Reagan their overwhelming victories never wanted any of it.
We may have seen the end of the most noisy and obnoxious phase of wokeness, but its aims may very well survive in a more mature and effective form.
So, are societies allowed to maintain any standards at all if it can be argued that the maintenance of standards has disparate impacts on racialized bodies?
It’s a strange way of looking at things. Probably what they should be doing is using the data to identify groups that may need extra support to meet the standard and make that support available to them.
Eliminating the standard completely is rather odd.
