Here's how you fix hiring... Have them demonstrate competency.
It's really easy to screen out people when you say "Hey - login to this VM and show me how to import raw data into postgres and run a report."
Or do whatever you're going to do.
My favorite story is from a particular sean who had a candidate that said they'd been using VM for 20 years, and when he went into a document the candidate hit j 200 times to go line 200.
You could make the same argument for why any kind of prejudice should be allowed since, for example, racism provides an advantage that functions in the real world. This seems like a bad defence for legacy admissions.
There are hundreds of colleges, many of which have high acceptance rates and perfectly fine instruction. Are these applicants or the people in this thread then displaying preference or prejudice in the institutions they apply? And if so, what makes it different than the institutions do the same?
Where's the special admission program for lottery-winners, con-artists and pickpockets? Those also function in "the real world" - so why not at Stanford?
In the real world, individuals can't do much. It's only through the collective cooperation and the trust behind such cooperation that allows things to happen. Social Elites come with a wealth of trust from the legacies of families and connections that slowly built them up over hundreds of years. And such bonds survive even without the state, predate it and ultimately build it.
That is the "real world". Everything else is just an abstraction, propped up by a system that has only existed for a definite period of time and will not exist outside of that.
I can't help but notice the contrast in the tone (and content) of this HN discussion, compared to the one on the ruling that ended affirmative action[0] for university admissions. Then, the majority of commenters were on the side of meritocracy. HN is consistently pro-elite, perhaps because a good chunk of folk here see themselves as intellectual elites.
The same chunk of population "should" (??) think that the Israeli ancestors killed Jesus, and that the Jews will go to hell if they don't accept Jesus as their savior - so - people are weird.
Surprisingly, it's internally consistent. Evangelical Christians don't support Israel because they like the people who live there. Instead, they support Israel because, based on their interpretation of Revelation 20, they believe that Israel must be rebuilt or restored as part of God's plan for the end times.
This story does not end well for Israel or the people who live there.
They do; they have other theological reasons for supporting the State of Israel, despite often not being very well inclined toward the Jewish people or Judaism as a religion.
I am not no expert on the American evangelical version of Christianity so happy to hear better explanations, but not all evangelicals believe the same things so I do not think there is a reason to say they "should" believe those things. The argument that God's covenant with the Jews is still in effect implies the opposite, if anything.
Well in that case they "should" also believe that Jesus was Jewish just like the Israelis of today, no?
If Israelis are blamed for killing him they should also be praised for creating him.
I’d say the leader of the executive branch who is unconstitutionally restricting (without an act of Congress) money that Congress lawfully appropriated, thereby seizing most of the power of the purse.
The dictator is still in the oven, but it's nearly ready. Just needs a topping of constitutional crisis and a suspension of elections and it'll be done.
Yeah, I was going to say that the most likely thing is "making the voting process more secure and reliable to make sure elections are fair" by setting up voting machines and counting processes run entirely by loyalists, but that's less punchy and didn't fit the metaphor.
The constitutional crisis was Trump's pardon of Joe Arpaio's contempt of court.
If the president can pardon contempt, then the president has the power to exempt a person from the obligation to show up in court, admit guilt, or experience consequences for their crime.
That was the moment of structural executive supremacy and an actual constitutional crisis -- when the law contradicts itself calling the laws themselves into question.
