It's a factor, but not a big one, and will usually make you have a bigger chance at getting in, but rarely will it decrease your chances. Harvard accepted ~17% Asian people, while the people who are suing them say it should be closer to 40%, like the UC system, which is race blind. They dont consider that more asians live in California, and thus more apply to the UCs. Yes, being black, Hispanic, or native American can often give you a boost in the admissions process, but I think it's a good thing, colleges are trying to correct how tough it was historically for certain ethnic groups. I would say that college admissions are for the most part pretty fair. Of course theres a couple kids who get in because of donors, connections, etc., but these are very small minorities.
Hm I think your argument of considering historic context isn’t that great. When Asians first started coming to the US, lots of them were railroad workers treated like slaves, even now days Asians face a lot of racial discrimination (ever seen how they portrait an asian man on TV?). America is the land of opportunities, people should work for what they get. Handout will only make people look bad in the long term (how do minorities feel knowing that they might have been less qualified when getting in?)
>I just don't think you can, at the same time, claim to be for diversity in admissions and allow legacy admissions and preferential treatment for donors.
Why can't they do that. Of course they can do that, most Universities in the US do that.
>To the asian issue I wonder if it isn't even a negative treatment, just that other racial minorities get a tip and many whites make it through legacy and donoring.
No, they are specifically discriminated against, read the linked article.
I recognize that in a literal sense you can claim to support diversity and also have legacy admissions. What GP meant is that you shouldn't, because it makes the claim a lie. Legacy admissions promote exactly the opposite of diversity.
For the sake of simplicity, let's assume all legacy admissions are white males, and that the diversity they claim to promote is racial and gender diversity.
> Legacy admissions promote exactly the opposite of diversity
That's only true if the number of white males that would be admitted in a fully diverse class is not large enough to accommodate all the legacy admissions. I suspect that this is not the case, and so legacy admissions are essentially orthogonal to diversity considerations.
Dropping the assumptions stated in the first paragraph, the above argument remains correct as long as each category considered for diversity analysis has more admissions than the number of legacy admissions in that category.
I am not sure where you're even going with this. It's like you're trying to have a different argument about privilege. Harvard-educated people don't have more male children.
Making sure that Harvard students keep coming from the same families is, quite directly, the opposite of diversity. You don't have to count white males to see that Harvard keeps being shaped by the same group of people.
This is classism, in particular. Of course class is correlated with race, but even if it weren't, this would be fucked up.
Usually when organizations have diversity programs and goals, it is racial or pseudo-racial diversity they are talking about, or gender diversity, or both of those.
To achieve such goals, for every 1000 students a school should have about 127 black students, 178 Hispanic students, 613 white non-Hispanic students, 48 Asians, and 34 others.
About 290 of every 1000 Harvard students are legacy admissions. Legacy admissions are overwhelmingly white.
My point was that Harvard can admit those 290 legacy students without affecting its racial diversity easily, because fully diverse Harvard would have 613 non-Hispanic white students per 1000 students. They could arrange that every legacy admission who would not have made it but for being legacy displaces another non-Hispanic white student, so had no affect on racial diversity.
I would not be at all surprised if among the white applicants Harvard has enough from each income level that they could even make it so each legacy admission that would not have made it if not legacy is displacing a non-legacy who is white and in the same income range.
Additionally, if a school admits an increasingly diverse mix over time, this should should impact the legacy admissions to become more diverse over time.
The heat capacity of dry air is lower though, which I suspect is more important than the conductivity. Lower pressure also lowers heat capacity; you'll see a lot of electronics equipment with a specified maximum operating altitude of 10,000 feet for that reason. Incidentally, South Pole is around the same elevation, with local weather conditions varying the pressure over that range at times...
The bigger problems with keeping ICL (the IceCube Lab - where the computers on top of the detector live, also the biggest datacenter on the continent) are somewhat more mundane though:
* If memory serves, there's one air handler that brings in outside air. Like anything else, it occasionally breaks or needs maintenance, sometimes in the middle of winter.
* Anything that has to operate in outside-ish conditions there, like the air intake for example, needs to be simple and robust. I think that early on in ICL's life, they had problems with frost clogging up the intake louvers, but that was before my time with the project.
* South Pole Station gets Cold, and so you need to be careful with mixing a little bit of outside air with much warmer inside air, to keep the heat evenly distributed and temperature from fluctuating too much.
* The station's HVAC is controlled by a DDC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_digital_control) system, which is reputedly a pain to work on, and sometimes people get ideas about ways to improve it, which of course leads to new and interesting quirks in the system...
Dry air also increases the probability of static damage. They probably can't use outside air exchange to cool the server room.
I imagine just circulating your nice toasty air into a larger area filled with moist humans who want to be warmer would work, but it depends on your building layout.
Static damage? Where I was raised, winter temps regularly reached -40. That cold, outside air already had most of the moisture 'wrung out of it'. Now let that cold dry air into the house and warm it: the relative humidity plummets.
Now walk across a carpet in leather-soled shoes. Do NOT even touch metal doorknobs, let alone metal faucets!
That's a specious question - there are minimum standards for wrking conditions. What people upset at Amazon really want is to change those standards, which is a completely fair standpoint. Let's not muddy the waters by papering over 100 years of accomplishemnts of US labor...
I was just questioning the ideology of the person I replied to, not making a statement on the current situation. I'm trying to get people to see that the current situation is the result of organized labor, not some natural condition we happen to find ourselves in.
To the degree that workers are not your slaves or property, yes. They should be free to decide who to work for, and employers cannot treat people as their property. But as long as there's informed consent, most things are pretty fair.
If their next best option to working at an Amazon warehouse is starvation, then it's a pretty good thing for them that Amazon has a warehouse there. That said, I strongly suspect they have better "next best" options.
Funnily enough, we have enough food and shelter in the U.K. that this shouldn’t need to be a choice people have to make - the issue is one of inefficient resource allocation. Instead of noticing this and solving the problem, our Government have decided that if you desire any sense of dignity, you deserve to die.
Not against them. I'm against them being required by law. (Some safety standards should definitely be part of the law). But if the law limits hours then it hurts some people more--if they didn't have to pay overtime, you might be able to work twice as many hours. For many programmers, working 1.5x as many hours might be worth 1.5x the salary. But if the company is required to pay for overtime by law, it may be more economical to just hire new workers. In that case, the guy who wants to work overtime is at a disadvantage. This is similar to what happens in part time jobs where people want to work more hours but it's cheaper for the company to hire someone else. The long-term effect is that people have to work 3 part time jobs to get by rather than 1 full time job where there's more opportunity for growth/raises.
With health and safety standards, there's always going to be some really shitty jobs. For example, in terms of health and safety mining coal is pretty undesirable. But if nobody is doing the job, the demand still stays there and the position is available for much higher pay. If you could earn $500k a year doing a job that's destructive to your body it can still be very much worth it. Of course, most of these workers either have few choices for work or are not totally aware of all the health issues associated with their jobs. This is obviously of concern, but I don't think banning the job outright is the right way to go.
Can I say "yes" without being down-voted? I'd like the government not to limit free association of moral agents. Two people should be free to work together under whatever arrangement they voluntarily enter into.
All our current system of labour and union law has accomplished is the offshoring of suffering. We've not gotten rid of the existence of, nor our reliance on abhorrent working conditions. We've just moved them elsewhere, in the process wasting tremendous amounts of energy (not to mention the associated destruction of the environment) shipping things to and from more lenient jurisdictions.
I propose that if the working conditions we rely on were present under our noses, we would do more to try to actually mediate our dependence their production.
I understand that viewpoint,and even agree with it mostly on a person to person level, but if the government didn't have these laws why would it be any better. When people tried to negotiate with companies without the states involvement, the companies used violence to try and get their way.
Corporations aren't moral agents and can't be treated as such
the companies used violence to try and get their way
And that's exactly where we need the state, in order to protect us from violence. I'd just like there to be limits on the scope of its authority. Corporations are just groups of people.
Corporations may be groups of people but they don't get treated like people. There's no corporate death penalty for companies that end up killing people. There's no corporate jail to remove companies that can't behave out of society for a set amount of time. There's fines that seem to never be greater than the profit the companies earn from breaking the law and it just becomes a cost of business.
If they're going to be treated like people then go all the way, but until then they need to be regulated to prevent the worst of their excesses that have been played out again and again
Corporations may be groups of people but they don't get treated like people
They don't have to be. All we have to do is hold individuals accountable for their actions. If a person in a corporation orders violent suppression of a labour dispute, then they are personally accountable. A corporation is a legal fiction. It can't be held accountable because it doesn't do anything, the people who run it do.
As I replied to the parent, the laundry list of items is a little odd, since, in the US at least, the only thing there that's protected by law are the workplace health and safety standards.
And... I guess I must not be as optimistic as you are. If we didn't have things like OSHA, I do not expect that most workplaces would act in the best interests of their workers' health and safety. Look at countries where there aren't OSHA-like laws and see how well they do there. (Hint: not well.)
Look at countries where there aren't OSHA-like laws and see how well they do there
That's exactly my point though isn't it? We still rely on goods produced in those places, we just don't have any visibility into the conditions they are produced in. We've just offshored the suffering, not alleviated it.
I'm fully agreed with this. The question is then what are the ways we can improve the working/living conditions of people around the world. The way workers around the world have fought for better conditions is by using their ability to withhold labor and collectively bargain with the capitalist class.
And they should continue to do that. In fact this works quite well without government interference (labour/union law) or even in spite of it (See the Indian independence movement). I'm suggesting we need the government to protect us from violence when negotiations go awry, not to interfere in said negotiations between free private entities.
all things that exist without the government and which vary wildly amongst professions. i work far more than 40 hours and don't take most weekends - as I am entitled to.
> If the workers don't like it they can work elsewhere
Note that the submitted article is from the UK, where the workers might not be able to work elsewhere, and where they may have had some element of compulsion through the current benefit system to apply for and take jobs at Amazon.
No, it's accounting for the large numbers of people involved.
For clarity: people claiming Universal Credit will have been compelled to apply for work at Amazon, and will have had their benefits cut if they had refused to apply. And, once employed, people face a minimum 6 week wait before they can apply for benefits if they leave Amazon, and that time is extended if they chose to leave or were fired.
It's not hedging, it's being industrious. Imaging working on your passion just 2-4 hours a day seven days a week? You get really good, FAST!
My day day job was at Nuance, (I quit the end of January) and I was UI designer there. "Plan A" is doing fine art and I got really good at it for I was always doing something art related 10-12 hours a day. http://www.gkaustin.com/
Any evidence that your food is healthier? Or even any explanation as to why it would be.
>Our recipes are curated from people in the community
What community? Every recipie comes from someone in a community.
>All existing pre-packaged authentic Indian foods are only available in Indian stores
Not where I live. Walmart even sells pre-packaged desi style food.
>Ours is made completely from scratch
What does that even mean in the context of selling a pre-made food product.