The company management is pointing the finger at workers, and they're right to, just as long as they point the finger at themselves too.

These kinds of problems start at the top. If management demands workers do the impossible (or at least the wildly implausible), they know that reports of success are going to be fraudulent. The question is, are they goign to get away with it?

Yes, exactly. This matches my impression of what went wrong with Boeing.

I must disagree that it is self-correcting.

It may *eventually* self correct but it can remain rotten for a decade.

And it *can* impact quality by hiring people who simply meet DEI quotas but lack the proper experience and skills. And (a bit speculative) I think they have a higher percentage of people who feel "entitled and above the rules".

However, I'm unaware of *any* DEI issues at Boeing. My impression was the company merged with mcDonnell Douglass that had a lower culture of quality and Boeing was successfully gutted and lost it's culture of quality.

And... bluntly from a business perspective... it's suicidal to change a popular straight male character to a lesbian character. Because 3.5% of the population are lesbians. And even some of those lesbians were fans of the straight male version of the character.

If you want an LGBT character then you make one up from scratch like Captain Jack Harkness. Bisexual, dashing, charming, funny, new. He was well liked by both straight and lgbtq audiences.

However, changing an existing character usually irritates existing customers and doesn't attract new ones.

One notable exception was Battle Star Galactica. Kati Sackoff did a good job and attracted new fans as Starbuck.

I really think the main argument *for* carbon offsets is that it *potentially* can harness free market mechamism to *efficiently* reduce emissions. This would be in contrast to a pure government mandate that everyone cut their emissions by some percent. The problem is that the marginal costs for industry X might be prohibitive; on the other hand industry Y could easily cut more. So why not have X pay Y to cut more than required? This *internalizes* the external benefits of extra reductions for Y.

Of course, it's very easy to screw this up, starting with letting people get away with fraud. But if you allow fraud in *any* market, that undermines the efficiency of the market. If you are going to get the entire economy to reduce emissions by some set goal, you need some mechanism to distribute those reductions so they're made where it's most efficient, and financial efficiency is one thing the free market excels at.

Parts of the 2nd and 3rd seasons were good. Just skip anything with time travel.

But season 4... oh my. They knew they were being cancelled and they actually started writing the star trek show they should have done all along.

True to Canon, with lots of references to and setup for "future" TOS episodes. Highly recommended.

Like the others, I also left after a few episodes of Enterprise. It didn't feel like Star Trek to me. And I went in *really* wanting to like it. I was a fan of several of the actors on the show and liked the ones I didn't know. I don't think it was the writing. I think it was the contractual obligations between CBS and Paramount to be noticeably different than TOS and I think one of the producers (Kurzwell?) had a vision for star trek that differed from Roddenberry's. And he wanted to stamp his mark on the series. He should have made his *own* science fiction series instead of ruining Roddenberry's.

Aquaman 2 is not marvel. And it had Amber Heard (dumb move on their part).

The increase in DEI hiring has lead to products that only a DEI audience would pay for* .
The issue being the *mass audience* doesn't have a DEI demographic profile.

It would be like requiring movie actors, production staff, and writers to be 50% Leprecauns and then wondering why they don't appeal to the mass audience.

So let me get this straight. If there were *real* carbon offset credits, that would in your view be *just as dishonest* as fraudulent ones?

how?

Italy and Japan have shrinking populations. We would too, if it weren't for immigration. However our population growth rate is still low, and if it were any lower we'd be facing serious economic and social challenges. Sure, a shrinking population would drop housing prices, but we are far from having so many people there isn't space to fit them. Our real problem is seventy years of public policy aimed at the elimination of "slums" and the prevention of their reemergence.

If you think about it, "slum" is just a derogatory word for a neighborhood with a high concentration of very affordable housing. Basically policy has by design eliminated the most affordable tier of housing, which eliminates downward price pressure on higher tiers of housing. Today in my city a median studio apartment cost $2800; by the old 1/5 of income rule that means you'd need an income of $168k. Of course the rule now is 30% of income, so to afford a studio apartment you need "only" 112k of income. So essentially there is no affordable housing at all in the city, even for young middle class workers. There is, however a glut of *luxury* housing.

In a way, this is what we set out to accomplish: a city where the only concentrations of people allowed are wealthy people. We didn't really think it through; we acted as if poor to middle income people would just disappear. In reality two things happened. First they got pushed further and further into the suburbs, sparking backlash by residents concerned with property values. And a lot of people, even middle-class young people, end up in illegal off-the-book apartments in spaces like old warehouses and industrial spaces.

There's a lot of mythology around who Trump voters are. Part of it is that statistics can be confusing, especially if you're prone to jump to conclusions. Yes Trump wins the voters without a college degree, and people without college degrees tend to make less money, but we can't leap to the conculsion that Trump voters are poor. In fact, data shows Trump lost the $50k and under income group solidly in both 2016 and 2020. In 2016 he won every income group greater than $50k, although only *strongly* in the $50k -$99k group. In 2020 he solidly lost every income group betlow $100k, but but won the over $100k group by an enormous 12 point margin.

Putting it all together, Trump's core voter group are people with limited educational attainment who are economically comfortable of (good for them) well off without having a college degree. However he doesn't own any particular socioeconomic group; really elections are determined by changes in turnout in key swing states. There was strong turnout among Trump's *share* of $50-$99 ke voters in 2016; I don't think many of those voters changed their mind, but their compatriots who sat 2016 out came out to vote in 2020.

Just because the cigarette industry pictured doctors recommending smoking in its advertising didn't mean that *all* doctors, or even most thought smoking was healthy for you. This was largely in the 30s and 40s when they took advantage of a positive attitude toward science and particular medical science. They began to pull back from this after 1950 when evidence was mounting for the link between smoking and cancer, for fear of pushback from the medical community.

What does this have to do with lab grown meat?

There is but one audio emoji and it is typed as Control G.

Unless you're on a real VT100 (not an emulator) in which case there is also ESC [145q (which would turn on the 145th keyboard LED but instead does something else, as there are only two keyboard LEDs).