well if a 14 year old has 10 years of (real) experience building software in an enterprise setting, of course they should be considered for a senior role
What about 10 years of experience building software translates to the director position being talked about? Would a 14 year old who has 10 years of (real) experience working on the family farm be equally suitable or is there something about software specifically that primes people for being directors?
So you echo that until you find a 14 year old who has managed a large team for at least 10 years you haven’t tried hard enough? I don’t want to rest on my biases, but…
No, it is obvious that there are not any qualified 14 year olds, and it is also obvious that there are qualified minorities - if you can't find qualified minorities, you should look more closely at your recruitment pipelines.
It might be obvious based on your criteria, but remember that you invented that criteria based your arbitrary biases. Those with 10 years of real experience are statistically more likely to be qualified for the job, that is hard to disagree with, but being a white male also makes you statistically more likely to be qualified for the job in question. That is why the bias spoken of exists! But the point made at the business told about earlier is that statistical likelihood does not preclude outliers who deserve equal consideration.
Your original comment suggests you come from the software industry, in which case you know full well that there are programmers who have been at it for a few years who can program circles around those who have been doing it for 10. Not everyone progresses at the same rate. Years of experience across a wide population will provide positive correlation, but is not anywhere close to being an accurate measuring device and says nothing down at the individual level. To discount someone with less years of experience than your arbitrarily chosen number before you have even talked to them is the very same lack of inclusion being talked about.
I would love any citation for "This shit has a direct and measurable impact on birth rates", since there's good reason to believe it has a greater than negligible increase in safety
The idea is that you can only fit two car seats in the backseat and upgrading to a larger car that could fit three is enough of an expense/hassle that it discourages having a third child
I’d read that as saying the data are insufficient to prove either way. Likely because there are so many fewer deaths and only 10% of the children used booster seats, so the error bars are too big.
19% seems to be a big number, until you figure out that the absolute number is not that big. Individually, it may make sense to mandate it, societally, probably no.
Surely any sophisticated ad buyer would understand how "audience" is calculated, and know to account for people who download but don't listen, right? Like isn't part of the reason to have per-podcast promo codes is to figure this out?
There's a ton of extra space in the United States. Germany's population density is >600/sq mile. That's more than all but five states. It's not a new problem - it's one that's been solved by many other countries.
I know this is a common talking point, but what are you suggesting, specifically? Are you accounting for temporarily vacant homes due to finding new tenants? Or homes that are up for sale? Or whether people actually want to live in the places these homes exist? eg are you suggesting struggling tenants in San Francisco should move to Detroit? What about vacation homes, are you suggesting policies to make it harder to own a second home?
Things I'd suggest: literally any approach that doesn't divert funding to mega-developers who use the "housing crisis" narrative to drive the problems everyone's complaining about in the first place, and an excellent place to start would be dismantling the hyperconcentration of capital around a handful of major metro areas. How best to accomplish that is left as an exercise, but understand there is no housing crisis. The real crisis centers around the lack of opportunity outside of major metro areas. Folks wouldn't clump this tight if other options were available.
Not necessarily - if you're a hedge fund and you think you have an algorithm that can predict gains just a tiny bit better than the call option's seller, then 99 times out of 100 you lose $x but that last 1 in 100 you might gain $x*150, and on average make money.
>Sooner or later some airlines will spin out their rewards business into a separate company to get the maximum valuation from it.
Isn't this effectively what we have with Chase, Amex, Capital One, and Citi? Each earns points that can be used directly or transferred to airlines and hotels.
And then as further evidence, Avios points can already be used across several airlines (BA, Iberia, Aer Lingus, Qatar, and soon Finnair). Not to mention the ability to book flights on different airlines with miles sometimes (eg booking Delta from KLM).
>Isn't this effectively what we have with Chase, Amex, Capital One, and Citi? Each earns points that can be used directly or transferred to airlines and hotels.
Not really. Those companies aren't sellers of points, they horse trade the interchange fee. They're basically giving away a portion of their revenue just to stay competitive.
If I have the monopoly of buying miles from airlines at 1c/mile and then sell them to co-branded credit card companies for 1.3-1.5c, what I have is a fucking license to print money.
While it would certainly be difficult or impossible to find a jury of people who’ve never heard of Trump, I think it’s easy for us online news-followers to underestimate the number of people who don’t really follow news or politics. Sure Trump was a controversial president, but so was Obama and Bush and Clinton and etc - if you only follow the vague shape of the news and not the specifics.
reply