It's neither anecdote nor data, it's a fact.

You said it was impossible to enforce. The facts are that is is not impossible, because people do succeed in claiming compensation for such discrimination.

This isn't about what you think I implied, it's about the wrong thing that you actually said.

Wrong again. There's a couple of obvious ways of finding evidence of this. One is that you make the same application under different names, only varying the one characteristic that you think is being discriminated against. That's strong evidence if the applications are treated differently.

The second, where the is a larger company that has a significant number of people in similar roles, is simply to loon at the demographics of who is employed, and compare with applications.

There may well be other ways, depending on the case.

Again, this established law (depending on jurisdiction) and has been successfully actioned on. The weak no-true scotsman argument makes no odds.

Conspiracy theory now? Idiot.

It's not an anecdote. I'm not telling you about something I experienced, but the fact of actual applicants claiming successfully against discriminatory employers. Now you're talking about percentage of times, and the fact that you don't know how often the law is broken. Yet that applies to all law.

I know you hate workers rights, and that's why you are arguing. But the fact is you are wrong about it being impossible to police.

You're asking why a flamebait answer got modded flamebait?

It often happens that more sensible moderation comes along later, as grown ups are often working, and not reading Slashdot right through the day.

Or indeed any other work related attribute of the individual. That's not discrimination, that's perfectly legitimate candidate selection.

Bigotry, and indeed illegal discrimination, are all about things that are accidents of birth, and wouldn't necessarily affect job performance. Gender, color, race, age.

And generally where those things do actually affect whether a person can do a job there are explicit exceptions in the law. e.g. It's perfectly legal and indeed normal to select actors by gender or race.

"Yes, we are aware that these do not apply for each individual. However when you need to hire somebody, you want the least risk. The experience we have is that it costs us less with men."

"Yes, we are aware that these do not apply for each individual. However when you need to hire somebody, you want the least risk. The experience we have is that it costs us less with white people."

Sorry, but no, your prejudiced ideas are both immoral, and depending on where you are, illegal.

Well in my country employers are found liable under this legislation reasonably often, so I don't know where you get the idea it's impossible to enforce.

Not only that it seems to be having an effect with older people often employed in jobs which used to go to young people.

Bullshit generalisations that are exactly the reason for age discrimination laws (where they exist). Some old people are hard to train, some young people are. Some old people are set in their ways, some young people are.

Go ask any college professor, they'll tell you that as often as not the mature students are the best learners.

Again, the law exists to combat prejudice exactly like that.

I'm afraid that's you also being ageist. You can't generalise, any more than you can generalise by gender or race. People have all sorts of personalities, and they develop in all sorts of different directions through their lives.

He did. But nobody could every remember the name of the command.

That's another thing you're wrong about then. Dangerous means exactly what I think it does. Cars can and do kill people. Cars have design defects that can and do kill people. Autonomous cars are new technology that is very likely to have design defects.

And to the level that new innovations have safety implications they should be and are regulated.

You have an irrational belief that companies will do the right thing in the absence of regulations. History shows you are wrong. Regulations came about, despite plenty of resistance, because businesses kept on killing people unnecessarily. For example the Bradford Poisoner case, where where due to padding out foodstuffs with cheap filler (in an analogous way to how drugs are cut) and bad working practice at a pharmacy, 21 people were killed by eating humbugs (a type of candy). It's because of such cases that businesses are regulated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

It is broadly applied, and the works are not seized. Therefore you are wrong.

Right. You talking out of your ass is bound to be more reliable than actually testing the scenarios out.

Idiot.

That's an American solution, not a British one.

Your libertarian beliefs are at the full on insane level. They have long since parted with any resemblance to reality.

Good governance on dangerous new technology is precautionary. You don't wait till people are killed to create regulations. You regulate first, then ease off the regulations as safety is demonstrated.

I think mythbusters busted that one. The expanding bag pushes your hands/arms harmlessly to the side, no matter what position on the wheel they are.

It's just the usual fear of the new. Future generations will have no fear of airbags.