The original 20 minute video in the article makes it clear he’s talking about job roles, and mentions writers a few times (admittedly not close enough to draw an 100% certain link). I don’t think it’s enough to discredit this just based on the assumption that he’s talking about actors or that there isn’t enough context. Obviously it’s vague enough that we can’t draw any solid conclusions, so I agree with you there.

The main reason I think this is bullshit is that the guy’s testimony isn’t credible for two main reasons:

• The guy was recently passed up for promotion, and blames it on being white and male
• The interviewer is posing as a romantically interested date and asking plenty of leading questions, the guy is at least partially telling her what she wants to hear

These two points, regardless of how true his story is, give him an ulterior motive for embellishing the story and exaggerating facts, which ultimately means we can’t trust this.

I’d like to see a full investigation, as with any accusation of discrimination. But we all know that when nothing turns up, it wouldn’t shut the right wingers up

I’m a strong atheist, but you’re kinda pick and choosing the facts. Skepticism isn’t about replacing one dogma with another.

China had a whole thing with persecuting those with religious beliefs. It’s certainly the minority, but state enforced atheism has created great horrors. Anything can be warped and disfigured into a horrific belief system used to justify anything.

Those who are religious should be held to the same level of scientific scrutiny as everyone else. There’s no evidence to show that Andrew Wakefield was Christian, and look at the shit show that caused

Being charitable, he’s saying that he’s going to massively help cooperations, and that any exec should do the morally bankrupt thing and vote for him because he (thinks) that he’ll make line go up much more than Biden.

Although the more I think about it, it’s hard not to see it as a not so subtle call for ideological purity. It’s certainly going to rally some people

You literally used the example of a doctor to disagree with someone saying it’s clinical, I just thought it was funny so made a joke.

And why so serious? Reply to the other person who was actually making a serious point if you want that

I also couldn’t think of a more clinical setting than a doctor’s clinic

I’m the healer and my partner is a dps. Healers and Tanks seem so criminally underplayed that I alone massively skew the queue times.

Healer and Tank combo must be borderline instant

Have you seen Alex Jones? You are on Lemmy, so you’re going to find a lot more demonisation of the right on here, than say Truth Social. Go over there and you’ll find plenty of posts about lefties eating babies and Biden draining the blood of the young to sustain his life

quality of life increases overall fertility rates decrease

Look at Elon Musk, Boris Johnson, or a whole host of incredibly wealthy people with stupid amounts of children. Quality of life increase is also linked to higher economic power. This is linked to higher human capital investments, meaning that it’s now disproportionately more expensive to raise a child to be successful in the new economy with the higher quality of life. Quality of life increase generally correlates to life being disproportionately more expensive.

Solve the cost of raising children and you solve fertility rates

Lemmy in particular seems to have a high percentage of reasonable people. As in people who can be reasoned with, but might just be stuck in a ideological rabbit hole. I’ve found that by dropping hostility and acknowledging common ground I can quickly turn an argument into a productive discussion, where both sides learn something. This happens with people who are on the left or right of myself. So it’d be shame to overly ban one side and lose that.

It equally must suck for the mods, because I’ve seen some very very vitriolic comments here, again, on both sides. Removing these comments helps cool people’s heads, but unequal enforcement may be an issue. I’m also generally against censorship, I just absolutely hate the platform when some stupid toxic divisive topic/meme gets posted everywhere for like a month. I really don’t know where I stand on removing comments or banning people, seems like a fine line to walk

Thank you for the calmer reply, I’ve upvoted you, and appreciate your response. I’m 100% with you on improving access to education, and the issues women and minorities face in university courses. My end goal is the same as yours, I want to see equality in the workplace and elsewhere, I’m just trying to address what I think are legitimate concerns that the previous commentator raised.

I get that senior hiring is a thing, the problem is that as you’ve mentioned, historical discrimination has made it very difficult for women and minorities to get the appropriate credentials and skills required to adequately perform in senior roles. Not saying they’re incapable, of course not, just that this is an issue we’re still suffering from.

My worry is that this historical discrimination will force companies to over hire women and minorities in starting roles, and be unable to hire women in senior roles, if we pursue short term demographic equality. This leaves young men, particularly poor young men, at a disadvantage, and does nothing to fix the historical oppression women have suffered from.

I chose law in particular, because it’s fairly even in graduates today, even in women’s favour, and there’s way more graduates than jobs, which means that if we wanted immediate demographic equality the industry as a whole could experience the same issue as the hypothetical company above, but obviously not as dramatic. Which is why I take issue with the short term goal being equal demographics. The short term goal should be equal hiring, with the long term goal being equal demographics as the older generations filter out.

In many metro areas young women already earn more than young men.

It’s not fair that women and minorities have been held back, but I’m worried that going too hard too fast is going to cause more long term problems

Firstly, I’m a different person. I’m just interested on what your solution is. No need to be so hostile. I’ve likely just misunderstood you.

My critique is specifically on the bit I quoted. You need to divide it by generation. The hiring, especially for starting roles, is heavily biased towards the young. These people are just coming out of college.

Giving your example of 50% women in the population, and a law firm is 100 people, 90 of which are men. That firm now needs to hire 90 women and 10 men to reach that 50% goal. But now you’ve also influxed a tonne of women into that workforce, meaning now you’ll need to hire disproportionately more men next generation after the original 90 men have retired. It creates a cycle of discrimination. Obviously that’s oversimplified, and there’s additional factors you could add to the example e.g. staff turnover.

I don’t disagree with setting hiring goals 50/50 men/women if that’s what your advocating for? It doesn’t immediately change workplace demographics, but it should even out over time. And there are still issues stemming from the amount of male vs female degree holders in certain subjects that are heavily gender biased, like engineering, vetinary practice, and IT.

I’m also totally for raising funding for public services and education to ensure everyone gets the best start on life they can. No disagreement there. It’d be ideal if we could encourage young men/women to more evenly participate in different subjects.

Again I’m sorry if I misunderstood your point, it wasn’t clear to me

when the imbalance is so bad, there is a point where, on a large sale, you need to hire a higher number of women / Black people / handicapped people to catch up, because you’ve shut them down the whole time; and that basically makes it your own fault if you think they’re less competent than educated competent men, because they didn’t get the opportunity, because they didn’t get the training, because… they didn’t get the opportunity.

Aren’t you also talking about diversity hires? I’m assuming you think there’s an imbalance that needs fixing, and your way of fixing it seems to be to hire minorities at a much greater proportion than how they’re represented in the population? Shouldn’t your solution be more class based?

Well you have to actually setup the boilerplate, plus copilot is generally more intelligent and context aware, especially for small snippets when you’re already coding

Other than the currently dying Tory party (and even sort of them), every single major UK political party is for green energy and against climate change to varying degrees. And I mean on a policy level, not just words.

I’m not too familiar with other governments, but Europe seems to be going well on that front too. And as much as China bad, they seem open to green policies, and the US democrats seem pretty okay on climate, especially as carbon capture helps out fossil fuel companies.

I know that’s not a massive ringing endorsement, but considering the cost of 4% energy expenditure for a single year, it seems like a no brainer. If you spread it over 20 years that’s 0.2% of energy, less than AI or crypto uses by far

Agreed, using LLMs for code requires you to be an experienced dev who can understand what it pukes out. And for those very specific and disciplined people it’s a net positive.

However, generally, I agree it’s more risk than it’s worth

That’s honestly pretty good, I can see world leaders coming together and just doing that. There must be other technical challenges to this other than raw power usage

Browser history also holds significantly less information than a screenshot of you using your computer taken every 3 seconds

You’re right, it’s fantastical, but it’s still worth talking about.

It’s worth talking about as it solidifies the argument more than just assuming your opponent is acting poorly. The argument of “Even if Microsoft is a saint, it’s still a bad idea. But we know Microsoft also has a history of data collection, spying, anti-patterns etc.” is a much stronger argument than the latter half on its own

Using Copilot as a copilot, like generating boilerplate and then code reviewing it is still “babysitting” it. It’s still significantly less effort than just doing it yourself though

Ah yes, sow class division among the poor and disenfranchised. That’ll show them billionaires what’s what