Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | theorique's comments login

In Japan, sometimes it is.

If I'm going to give a lousy, insincere public apology, I prefer it to be "sorry you chose to take offense at my actions. I didn't mean for that to happen". Might as well go all in if I'm not actually sorry and don't intend to apologize.

The rich Arab nations like Saudi and Qatar aren't accepting any refugees. (Wonder why not...)

They prefer that such migrants should travel to Europe, who are naively taking those migrants in.

Of course they are not accepting refugees: IS is their baby, they fund it and do business with it, they have no interest in fixing anything. How are you going to pressure them into accepting refugees, if you can't even pressure them into not starting fires all over the place?

Meanwhile, people die.


This is at least in part due to their bad habit of depending on the partisan SPLC for "hate group" data. SPLC is in the business of making so-called "hate groups" into terrible bogeymen, because SPLC reaps significant financial rewards through scare-tactics fundraising the depends on the threat of such groups.

If we're going to blame the employers, can someone show me that there's a disproportionately large number of unemployed minority engineers that are seeking work but not getting it?

Makes sense, but I'd say it should be a disproportionately large per-capita fraction of minority engineers with similar degrees, experience, geographic location, etc, relative to white engineers with the same characteristics.

For example, if minority engineers with Stanford degrees with 7-10 years experience and living in zip codes [A, B, C, ...] are 10% unemployed and their white classmates have a 5% unemployment rate, that could be evidence of deliberate discrimination. It's important to compare like to like, otherwise you can wind up with all sorts of weird conclusions.


A good reference on this phenomenon: http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-adv-asian-race...


What is wrong with the statement "We won't lower the bar"?

It is the legacy of the famous Griggs vs Duke Power case.

Requiring IQ tests to filter employees was found to have "disparate impact" with respect to different identifiable groups.

Silicon Valley does a lot of different IQ test proxies in order to filter their prospective employees in a hopefully-not-racist way: programming tests, seeking college degrees, etc.



The consequences of Griggs v. Duke more complicated than that: the problem with IQ tests is that they are slippery. An employer can say "we want the best and brightest." And they can decide that a degree from Stanford meets that criteria, even if the impact is disparate.

But if they use an IQ test, suddenly there's a slippery slope: Why is the cutoff 130? The error range on IQ tests is non-zero, so what if a black candidate with 129 comes in? How do you defend that disparate impact in court? You can't.


There's probably a language factor involved as well. An otherwise brilliant programmer can scrape by with spotty English, but it's a lot harder for a founder or an executive.


What is the problem with saying that cultures with differing levels of technological and social complexity present different sets of cognitive challenges to their members? If the word "primitive" bothers you, substitute "lower levels of technological complexity" to get the same endpoint.


They don't need to outbreed us - they are just sending us their displaced population, costing €700K per head in social services for "integration". And of those refugees "integrated" at vast expense, how many are already ISIS operatives? How many will be radicalized and return with full bellies and full bank accounts to fight for jihad in Syria and Iraq?

Europe is doing the wrong thing.



Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact