More it finishes first and starts the second/third but also looks to be getting ready to leap off into its own thing. Iirc.

Overall enjoyed it though.

Lineham leaves/not asked to come back for the second series, and Kevin gets to be less of the butt monkey as a result.

Winning tie breaks is a solid advantage.

UK job applications have the requirements, essential and ideal, written out beforehand so the hirers can’t just add their choice of extra ideal qualities later - does the US generally let firms have such leeway and lack of paperwork with hiring?
(I know that in practice, especially with internal hires, the specification can be written with a candidate in mind to make it much easier for the individual in mind to get the job, but I think that’s a different problem overall.)

Your idea of allowing different organisations and spaces to experiment and see what works is probably the best way to do it.
Giving smaller groups freedom to try things and then studying and itetating is much better than top down intervention, provided while we exist under governments that their is a gov. backstop to stop that freedom being used to impose more discriminatory practice.

Thank you for the time, effort, and thought out replies.

Thanks for sharing.

I’m now a little less ignorant on Pacific islander culture/language!

And you’d prefer inscruitable, programmed to be non-introspective and un-selfaware code do that than humans who have capacity to be reasoned with and chosen and changed?

Sedna I’d assume, Ceres has been known about for about 400 years, and is the real planet demotion superstar.

Our solar system had 13 planets back in the 1700s.

And yes, I am sore about this with all the Pluto-stans ignoring Ceres (and Makemake, and Eris, and Hamuhea, and Palas, and many more!).

P.S. Also, what is your first language, as I’m intrigued by no fixed spelling rules.

Moderators can be chosen by the people, and changed more easily.

Machine algorithms are a black box of uncertainty, and the ineffectiveness and mess that things like the YouTube moderation algorithm are hardly an endorsement of them.

What’s wrong with having moderators?

Status aware… I don’t like that. Protected groups… Even worse. Minority groups… Feels odd applying that to women, and various intersections…

Statistically Disadvantaged/discriminated identities?

Ehh, it is hard. I think that’s why govs haven’t managed to do a good job with naming it.

On the main point, I agree that there is often a perception/“PR” problem for these policies.
But then, in the UK where the policy was just “when deciding between two equally qualified candidates, choose the under represented one” still got done in the right wing media as “law mandating hiring on unqualified individuals”, so I don’t think that adjusting would do a huge amount of work.

I think the contention is that I think that colouring hiring policies have been shown to not work, because it’s very hard to implement in practice. At least collecting identity data would stave off the level of head-in-the-sand France reached.
If the hiring process has an interview stage, how to make it identity-blind?
How to deal with the perception of people, especially women, in a management position?

I do agree that the main thing is hitting the underlying perception issues, but how to do that without creating a world where they’re visibly untrue is trickier. But if it was an easy problem there’d probably be less division on how to tackle it.

First, maybe this will help fill in as a starter on the French situation.

Secondly, I do agree that targets and statistics inevitably distort and pervert any goals. So it will tend towards failure, but that’s government. It never really works, and since I assume we’re talking about the system we’re in rather than a new one I don’t think it’s a deal-breaker.

Thirdly, and most pertinently: due to systemic racism/prejudices there is a barrier to various arbitrary socially constructed groups that other arbitrary socially constructed groups do not need to deal with.

By ignoring that there is a barrier to some in the form of systemic prejudice you don’t actually help those more discriminated against groups. You just help the arbitrary groups that are less discriminated against. Maybe you have less inequality overall because the discriminated against group is a minority, but I don’t think either of us think that that makes it “better”.

This is in fact where France has gotten to in its starting to analyse it’s own colourblindness.

Replying to this one because newer. Have read and taken the other reply of yours into account too.

I agree that we’re off on a vibes and feels thing here because we don’t have the data, and obviously it will vary between workplaces and individuals (even if to put systemic issues as individual choice/responsibility just covers for those systemic issues).

We do have data from France showing that their entirely colourblind governance has not helped, despite targeting on socio economic or geographic bounds.

When surely, if colourblind policies would do better at undoing systemic racism, wouldn’t France have had better outcomes from them?

OK, we agree on that.

To what extent do you think that implicit or unconscious bias cause visible minority groups to need to have to work harder and be more exceptional to get a position, role, or responsiblity, or a n on-category specified grant, assistance, or similar?

I think we may be operating on different suppositions, so addressing that rather than wasting time clarifying details about France’s choice to never record demographic stats for things would be best.

Do you think systemic racism exists and is a large problem in the USA or France?

Good resources and sharing.

I appreciate what you’ve done in the comments of this post.

France has always been officially colour blind, and they’re the most racist and racially i equal country in Western Europe.

Colourblind policies don’t help as people in authority’s implicit biases get freer reign.

But is that a quality of the open source?

Would the destructive tech be more, less, or equally ethical if it was closed source?

And is one group having access to weapons of a more destructive type than other groups better for the world? Or just better for the better armed group? And is their use of the superior weaponry more moral in any way?

open source is not the only ethical form of technology

and

that open source is always ethical tech

are not the same supposition. Or are you maintaining both are correct?

Also, I think the idea here is that any of the new ways if using the pre-existing data are doing nothing new or useful, and are in fact - evil.

Most sci-fi authors who can’t write women don’t make them the symbolism laden protagonist of their trilogy’s conclusion.

Not sure if I should give him points for effort there or not.

Despite my complaints, I do think it worth a read.

“Discount”, as in not to include, not used in your variety of English? That’s kinda neat.

Where are you from?

East Anglia, UK here and we do use it that way.

Seems like a good question for Randall Monroe, if he hasn’t already done something similar.

Space is militarised, sadly.

Think about the devastation shooting/dropping a m³ of heatproof metal from a high orbit satellite at a target on Earth.

And how we can already do that.