merouan

Sounds cynical. Sure, people are not organized. They lack strategy and insight. It takes time to get there.

Sure, there is definitely a performative thing out there, and maybe this is that.

My point is this - now is a time when we need more collective action, not less. So, rather than taking up space putting down someone who may simply not know what the next step is, why not give the world the energy that it so desperately needs? Now is a time to encourage people. What you (yes, you) put out in the world matters.

Your point being? There are multiple levers we can pull, sometimes this one, sometimes that one. That is no surprise.

Governments are pushed to do things to protect people by the people. Seat belts were not a thing (i.e., required by law) until there was sufficient public pressure to make them so. Heard of Ralph Nader? Food is made in unsafe conditions and governments are fine with it until there is pressure - have you ever heard of "The Jungle"?

Hmm, this doesn't track with history. Boycotts, and more generally collective economic action (strikes, etc), are an incredibly powerful form of protest. People have shaped the world through refusing to buy from oppressive forces - case in point, the boycotts of South Africa during apartheid successfully pressured South Africa out of apartheid. We got our collective rights as workers (40 hour work days, etc) through strikes, boycotts, and more.

It's not easy, but if you're serious about it is best done in community, with support and strategy. So, the opposite of main character syndrome, I would say.

It's also very odd that you take an analysis that is fundamentally systemic and translate it into purchasing from an individual psychopath - under what assumptions is that a valid comparison, one with any merit? It's not like corporations exist in a vacuum, only to emerge from the void to casually sell a single pen, the money with which they use to buy a single bullet. We as individuals, as communities, exist in feedback with the systems that we are a part of, including (surprise) corporations. So, yes, we have power to shape them, though (again) not easily.

Here’s the thing: actually, we need the behavior of a _very small_ number of humans to change: the rich. Not only is their personal CO2 consumption the majority of personal CO2 consumption, but the capital they control drives the behavior and policy of everything else. This is a far easier problem to solve. I’ll leave the solution to your imagination.

True, for clean data. You can’t clean data without looking at it (a lot), though.

Typically such contributions come from the PR budget.

Not the parent, but your characterization of the stated perspective reveals quite well that you aren’t taking it seriously! This is a complex issue, so let’s treat it that way.

The micro-aggression, as I understand it, is having to ask yourself whether the term ‘master’ _did_ originate from slavery (in the context of git, IIRC it didn’t, but master-slave replication is the stronger example). The context and plan fact is that programming, as a broad culture, to date, _has_ been excluding Black people and others. So it is not hard to imagine some folks desiring to make a symbolic change to make the culture more inclusive.

I appreciate the sentiment and agree on an individual level but it’s not reproducible across the entire workforce. There is a certain degree of privilege required to even feel comfortable adopting this policy. As software engineers some of us have that privilege but few other workers do.

I think you're misunderstanding the intent: obviously they are aware of that. Hearings commonly involve asking basic questions

It's hard to apply cultural analysis like this uniformly. I also feel that there is a general trend towards anti-intellectualism in America. I think both things can be true: that 'we' value excellence academically (because it confers greater and greater economic benefit) and yet are less open to ideas that are outside our worldview.

On the other hand, the article suggests that the more intelligent are more likely to be oblivious of their own biases and flaws (and where is that more likely than in politics), so on its own terms is not necessarily contradictory :)