CharonY

DEI caused bird flu and high egg prices. But the highly competent folks decided to stop testing/reporting and the numbers go down. That's meritocracy at work.

I think there will be a power struggle, after all the whole university system would be at peril if they acquiesced en masse. But who knows. We are pretty much in a one step forward and half a dozen steps backwards situation.

In addition I will note again the failure to provide specifics or any evidence that the provided assertions are true and caused by DEI. It is not explained how the situation in LA is linked to DEI, for example. There are issues with DEI policies, no doubt. This is true for virtually all policies. However, if one keeps harping on merit, it is pretty clear that no discussion in good faith can be had. Event he link provided to seemingly support their position does not mention merit a single time. Rather it is more talking about whether DEI measures actually contribute to diversity. Let's make things rather clear as the provided gish gallop clearly shows that there is no meaningful discussion to be had with that poster. There is a huge body of literature showing that in many cases, meritocracy is mostly a myth in many respects- selection parameters of successful candidates in job searches for example do not necessarily predict ability reliably. Even worse, there are many non-performance parameters which strongly influence hiring preferences. Especially in low-diversity environments conformity is such a parameter, i.e. having a similar look, accent and mannerism as the majority becomes very important. Meritocracy is then used as an excuse to solidify such a status quo. We often trick ourselves into thinking that our selection is objective by assigning scores to various parameters, but as everyone involved in hiring will tell you (if they are honest) this really just hides the underlying subjectivity. It does not mean that merit has no, ehm merit. But it means that we often have biased and imperfect rubrics to measure merit. If one really want to create a system that is based on merit, it needs to be flexible enough to identify positive characteristics, even if folks look or behave differently, as long as it does not affect the core mission. A secondary goal is to increase diversity in the group to avoid this type of groupthink where folks start to believe that having a beard and polo shirt is a sign of intelligence, because they all look like that and are clearly the most intelligent folks in the bunch. Ironically, one very valid criticism of DEI is not that they start hiring unsuitable folks, this only happens if the hiring committee or manager themselves are incompetent (i.e. they are unable to spot suitable candidates regardless of measures present). What is more likely to happen is that DEI policies amount to little more than window dressing (the link provided hinted at that). I.e., in many cases it is not really effective at breaking the mold as it does not address the actual barriers present. But again, bringing out merit in context of DEI is just a mildly veiled suggestion that minorities are fundamentally less capable, as obviously fully merit-based systems for some reason keep on benefiting white (and orange) men. An older but easy-to-follow read is here Lawton, Anne. "The meritocracy myth and the illusion of equal employment opportunity." Minn. L. Rev. 85 (2000): 587. Another well-cited article using an empirical approach using personnel data is here https://doi.org/10.1086/588738 This article describes the illusion of objectivity and how it can lead to discrimination https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.07.001

So this is not entirely new, but the scope is quite a bit larger. During the Harper era in Canada, there was a worry that the government would make climate and related data inaccessible. I vaguely remember that US researchers, and as well as folks from NASA and EPA were involved in preserving (open) Canadian data. In 2016 the role were almost exactly reversed, and many folks I knew in the EPA were more or less suddenly gone.This goes deeper as instead of just running to the ground, they also want to set it on fire. And they are emboldened by the fact that even folks who could benefit from the information, including farmers have to a large degree hopped on the MAGA train. If folks blame the Libs for forest fires, they do not need to worry about accountability for uncontrolled fires anymore. If they believe that climate change is a hoax, they can stop spending monitoring its impact on resources, diseases and so on. Some more here https://www.theverge.com/news/604484/donald-trumps-data-purge-has-begun I consider it unlikely. There will be folks that take a stance and get fired, the majority likely will continue and keep their heads down. We see already that despite the vague directives, most agencies are overreacting and are erring on the side of caution for scrubbing information and resources. Unfortunately, the threat is very effective and lasts even after it is removed. Again during Harper there were repercussions for scientists in federal agency if they were not toeing the line. After Trudeau got into power, new contracts added a clause allowing most federal scientists to be able to communicate openly. However, even then the uptake on that was limited, in large part because folks realized that their job security might depend on not rocking the boat too much. There is, unfortunately also a bit of a similar development in universities, despite the tenure systems, but that is probably another discussion.

I will note that yet again you failed to describe what you think DEI actually means. You basically just described what you think are DEI failures without linking the mechanism (how DEI works in practice) to the actual outcome. So again the question, how do you think DEI works, say in hiring processes?

That is part of it, for sure. But don't underestimate the bias and preconception some folks have regarding certain types of the population. I think quite a few would consider certain folks undeserving of support, regardless in which form.

If I am not mistaken, at least some of the images display examples of chiaroscuro, a baroque/renaissance technique building on stark contrasts between light and dark. Usually dark backgrounds with characters or part of them exhibiting illumination as mentioned by exchemist.

What is the problem you spoke of. Why do you think that the issue is unrelated to racism. What do genocides have to do with DEI? You are making wide speculations on various unrelated topics and you keep failing to tie anything to DEI. Potentially these things are tied together in your head somehow, but so far you have not really explained it in a way that someone other than yourself could understand what you mean. Perhaps to lay some groundwork, could you explain precisely what you think DEI is and what it tries to address? Without any excursions to dooms day, genocide, wars etc. please. Just the basic definitions first.

Most likely. But I have been (undercover) among drunk theoretical physicists and, well things got weird (though to be fair, maybe I just wasn't drunk and educated enough to follow). But yes, if we talk about even somewhat realistic/practical hypotheses, and especially working from an area of partial rather than no evidence, you are certainly correct.

Most likely. It could veer a bit into semantics here. I think the most general definition is that abiogenesis assumes life is originating from non-living matter. So the only way would be for biological matter to arise while skipping non-biological matter. This, of course is not really plausible, though the other part of semantics if of course defining what is precisely living vs non-living matter, where the borderline is probably a little bit fluid (as in most things biological, and mimics the delineation between chemistry and biology). Much of the attention has shifted towards replicating polymers and related activities, for example.

I mean, clearly the prices are going down, as they decided it was going down. The chart is clearly a product of DEI.

I requested specifics related to the DEI comment. This is another random assortment of unformed thoughts on completely other matters. Again, specifics are needed. A discussion needs to be understandable and engage with the reader. It shouldn't be like a caterpillar on an exhaust pipe that draws upon the ignorance of the fading liquid that evaporates into mist.

These sentences do not make much sense to me. Can you put out specifics?

I am referring to this not some abstract input/output scenario: https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/meta-knew-it-used-pirated-books-train-ai-authors-say-2025-01-09/

I think that would be true for the most part. Especially form a biological and chemical perspective. I suspect that in some of the more abstract physics there might be an alternative way of thinking about it, but I honestly don't know and have never heard of an example of such thinking. However, this is not such not such an example as it just stipulates something without even explaining how that could be.

I do not know which post you are referring to, but that does not support your assertion that it: As you refer to research, I assume you mean the scientific community. And your evidence is a post on an anonymous forum. This not a matter of expressing yourself, it is a matter of you assuming things. To put it differently, currently we do not have viable alternatives to abiogenesis (that I am aware of) but we have plenty of competing hypotheses within. And in the scientific community none of them are considered to be demonstrated.

Well, doesn't change the legal aspect that they accessed for-pay literature from pirate sites.

Do you mean published 500 papers? Even so, it does not really matter, as it depends on their precise area of research. That again depends. If you write papers, you have to do things before you publish them (unless he just wrote reviews, which would not be ideal). So again, credibility depends a lot on what work the person has done. Scholars who understand the literature are usually folks who contributed to it, not those that just read it. They had already taken a stab on it and we have seen what happened. They managed to cripple the folks who knew (at least somewhat) what they were doing and as a results the US under Trump had the highest death rates among Western nations. I vividly remember the op-ed they wrote how they did not dismantle the pandemic preparedness group, but just made it leaner and more efficient. Which obviously turned out to be a lie. Now, they are kicking out those who might be able to contribute knowledge. So we are left with morons and it is clear that health care will suffer. There are no two questions about it. Also, it is almost inevitable that health care cost will increase. Vaccination and similar efforts are the most cost-effective medical intervention there is. Reducing it by even few points, and couple it with crippling information gathering and communication by the CDC means more stress on the system. And this is only based what they are doing right now. They do have more plans according to their playbook. Now the criticism regarding lack of transparency form the Chinese seems more ironic than ever.

Except again, you are wrong. It is not widely accepted as a demonstrably fact, but at this juncture it is considered to be the most likely explanation. So far, there have been no real alternatives with better evidence. This is a very important distinction and it is unfortunately the first time that you are just assuming things as basis for your arguments. This is commonly referred to as strawman argument.

In addition, Meta also apparently used pirated literature.

Who cheated to be the smartest kid in the first place. It is cheaters and billionaires all the way down...

That seems like just being partially misinformed but not entirely surprising. During the first presidency I was wondering how much of an impact having an idiot as a leader would have in the first place. I.e., how resilient the system is as a whole. While there were cruelties against certain groups, which in itself could be considered a failure, the system mostly kept chugging on. Some folks got the short end of the stick, for sure, but it wasn't as if lack of leadership made the system collapse. The real weaknesses for everyone came (in my mind) during unexpected crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, for which system did not exist or were dismantled. It seems to me that the folks missed the latter part plus the fact that they now have a plan to dismantle the system itself, based on Project 2025. I.e., they only remembered the first part of the presidency.

Argh. I cannot tell if it is satire or a memo from the administration.

Apparently the order has been rescinded after a temporary block by a judge. But they have vowed to purge spending on "woke" agenda. Fits right into authoritarian playbook. Eliminate knowledge not aligned with ones ideology.

The ways I am aware of add garlic (or garlic oil) at the end.