People who tell the prince things he doesn't want to hear... well, let's just say their life expectancy isn't particularly long.

-embrace-extend-extinguish

That you don't self-identify as a racist, doesn't mean that you're not one. You insist that members of a certain race should have benefits above others, for no reason relevant to the people concerned.

- market is a collection of all people involved, who is better suited to decide on what the value is other than all of the people as a collective vote?

- they are removing the money from the gullible, which may be argued is a better way to redistribute the money (all done willingly even though misguidedly).

- the market has already decided that the parents of heirs were productive enough, that even their heirs can now enjoy the fruits of the labor of the people who made the money.

- dangerous by what measure?

That algorithm certainly hasn't failed ME, at least.

So they make a gimped product that nobody buys, and then they think it's the product class that is the problem, rather than their gimpy execution.

Sounds about right.

Or:

"Every HRIS software solution is a rats nest of shit and garbage, cemented together with used chewing gum and toxic industrial sealant that gives you headaches just for looking at it, running on top of archaic and deeply outdated vendor lock-in 'enterprise solutions.' Thus you need more humans to get done what needs doing. See: Oracle HMS, Workday, ADP, BambooHR, etc."

Yes, I can't wait for them to get even more picky about what Visa cards they take, rather than only being picky about Visa-only.

That won't get annoying at all.

Or, here's an idea: don't build large facilities that can't be powered up in geographical areas that can't provide the resources you need to operate the large facility.

What critical need is served by building these things in Santa Clara rather than somewhere with a bit more infrastructure to handle it, other than proximity to HQ?

Science? Really? There's a lot of soft-brained, unscientific and technophilic pseudo-religion in the article.

Let's work with the argument's load-bearing phrase, "exploration is an intrinsic part of the human spirit."

There are so many things to criticise in that single statement of bias. Suffice it to say there's a good case to be made that "provincial domesticity and tribalism are prevalent inherited traits in humans", without emotional appeals to a "spirit" not in evidence.

THIS SHALL NOT STAND

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marching_Morons

Or Costco.

They're about to launch a fundraising campaign.

DEI is advertised by its proponents as "anti-racism". And as such, it's to racism as antimatter is to matter: weighs the same, behaves the same, looks the same, has some colors flipped, acts violently when in contact with its counterpart -- but as long as all of the flipped "colors" remain flipped, indistinguishable from it.

So here's a math exercise: assuming a normal distribution (which is incredibly "infectious" as long as the scores have multiple different causes), generate a population of scores for group A and for group B, with group B having the average lower by X points. Now select the best candidates, using any of the following strategies:
* quotas: reserve A/(A+B) spots for group A, B/(A+B) spots for group B
* Affirmative Action: give every candidate from B X extra points, pick from the global population
* meritocracy: pick from the global population based only on the scores, completely blind to race/gender/zodiac sign/odd-or-even date of birth/etc
* penalty for the "inferior" group: subtract X points from every candidate from B, pick globally
* traditional racism: pick from only group A
Now compare the total score of candidates you picked for every strategy.

It doesn't matter if groups A vs B differ by race, gender, etc -- the mechanism is the same.