I would be very interested to see what class that 10% belongs to. I don't have firm data in front of me, but it sure feels like it would be people who have lower income. Is that a success? "We priced out people which reduced traffic congestion?"

A Methuselah rookie card!

I mean, fuck Apple, but I would definitely love something like this through a non-Apple company.

Possible that they may have a specialized cable, like the GameCube and Wii component cables.

This is Trump doing the right thing for the wrong reason. I'll still celebrate it, but can recognize that the reason for the pardon is completely ridiculous.

There's a massive difference in discrimination when it comes to personal tastes and discrimination regarding organizations and companies.

This is where it gets kind of subjective. In the US, Asians are a minority group. But in college attendance, they are not.

I'll have to disagree. Is a lot of what DEI is made out to be overhyped and exaggerated? Sure. Is it purely just "don't discriminate when hiring or promoting"? I would disagree.

Also disagree about your second sentence. Probably because I feel like I have been discriminated against. I was senior lead, but was laid off while a sexual minority and a racial minority got to keep their jobs. No shade against them, but it does feel like they were kept while I was not because it looks good when trying to tout "diversity".

Again, not necessarily true. Let's see the numbers for who is applying, what the demographic stats of the area looks like, etc. Just because black people are 1/8th of the US population doesn't mean you will see 1/8th representation at every single, or even most, companies, or 1/8 representation in management, etc.

The far left is listened to way more than that. I've known these people IRL. One of my long-time friends went from being a "let's empower woman" feminist to "men are awful" feminist. They're around.

DEI has become a bit of a four-letter word.

Making sure that people aren't discriminated against, overlooked for promotions, not hired, etc. on the basis of immutable characteristics like race, gender, sex, etc. isn't bad, and needs to be encouraged.

But the general feel of what DEI is is that it's supposed to encourage/promote people that belong to minority groups, and that can come at the expense of someone from a majority group.

If you're considering factors such as race, gender, sex, etc. when hiring or promoting, you're already engaging in some sort of discrimination. Now, some people do have bias, and sometimes (not always) that bias may be unconscious. But I don't think the answer to is to focus so hard on minority groups that you give the perception that you're discriminating against majority groups.

We've unfortunately let the extremes from both sides set the tone (far-left and DEI, far-right and discriminating against minorities). I say this as someone on the left, but I do blame a bit of this on the left listening to the far-left; Equal Employment Opportunities should be enough, but it wasn't for them; it had to go further.

And because of that, you're now seeing this backlash, and I have concerns on where exactly this will lead.

To further complicate it, things like "DEI" are defined and treated differently by different people; there doesn't really seem to be a standard on what it is. Are you just not discriminating or are you discriminating to help someone that has been part of a historically marginalized group? Because there's a difference.

Eh. Musk is a chode and took his mask off to reveal himself as a MAGA asshole. I don't have any desire to use any products associated with him, and while I do use AI products, I don't think I'll be using Grok.

On the other hand, I'm not exactly thrilled about the guardrails and biases on the major AI platforms. Most of the current "reckless and irresponsible" comments are about just that; lack of guardrails and biases. I know I'm in the minority, a lot of people really want those things, but I sure don't.

I look forward to using an AI product without these guardrails and biases, but it won't be Grok.

Yep.

I find it humorous (in a bad way) when people think the US Constitution is the grandest law of the land, enshrined, never to be broken. Ha. Civil forfeiture is a blatant violation of the 4th Amendment, but it goes on and will continue to go on (maybe not at airports, but this doesn't stop local police).

It is. But there are a few different groups of people that I can think of that think otherwise (there may be more than just this though).

1) People in positions of power that rely on labor. The more people that you have to pick from, the more competition there will be for those jobs, and that means you can pay less per-person. Even skilled labor. Overpopulation affects these people less (at least on a local scale) since they can usually afford to weather whatever increasing burdens overpopulation causes. Doesn't matter that they won't really see the benefits of that expanded pool of labor.

2) Quiverfull/god-warriors. Every single person is a potential warrior for god's army, another soul for god. Those are the people who take the "be fruitful and multiply" way, way too seriously. It doesn't matter if their existence is lessened because of overpopulation; this earthly existence doesn't matter, it's the existence that happens when you die that matters.

3) The "previous generation pays into taking care of the older generation" people. I've heard lots of scare-mongering that if we don't have more and more people paying into programs like social security, it won't be sustainable which will lead to a collapse of said benefits, or that there won't be enough people to provide care to the old and disabled. They basically describe benefits like social security as a pyramid scheme; it doesn't work unless you sign up at least two people, and those two people each sign up two more people, and on.

4) Those with the "Genghis Kahn" complex (see Elon Musk). They think their DNA is super valuable and super beneficial to the world, and that the more they can seed their DNA into the human race, the better it will be (not that they'll ever see those results, it just strokes their ego while they're still alive).

Customers: Apple, customers won't like a power button on the bottom of their Mac Mini.

Apple Execs: Apple customers will like what I tell them to like!

It just feels like they want to remove community interaction and negativity from their platform. I wouldn't be surprised if they simplified the UI to just thumbnails of videos with no further information. Instead of being able to make thoughtful decisions on what you watch, they want to Fisher-Price it so you don't think about it.

Companies like YouTube and Netflix want to tell you what you want to watch. I miss when platforms like these would help you find what you want to watch. It feels like we're going backwards. Hopefully someone at these companies will wake up, or another company will step in to fill that role.

Inflation happens because business owners know you can inflate prices. So there would probably need to be price controls to offset.

And that will have to happen at some point. Unless we blow ourselves up, someday we'll automate a lot of jobs away (menial and higher-end). And then what?