sfteus

Nearly every market worldwide was dropping in 2020 due to the pandemic.

IIRC, the drops in 2022 correlated with federal interest rate hikes and other federal policies designed to help ease inflation, with the expectation that markets would rapidly cool but avoid a larger overall crash.

Simply put, a 10% drop isn't in itself concerning if correlated with shifting market conditions. It is when those in charge are foot-gunning the market with their policies, and then threatening to double down in the face of the 10% drop they caused.

> If you have 95% female applicants for a position I would expect that roughly 95% of hires are going to be female and vice versa.

I would disagree for the most part. As mentioned above, there are roles where you'll see gender bias that may not be addressable. In the OB/GYN example, I understand some women would only be comfortable with a doctor that is also a woman. That's not necessarily addressable by shoe-horning in male doctors. But again, that can be accounted for in DEI programs.

It's also more understandable to non-remote jobs. Some areas have staggeringly different demographics that could only really be changed by relocating candidates, which isn't feasible for all business. Mentioning this specifically as my company is fully remote.

Otherwise, in my opinion, a candidate pool that is 95% some demographic shows a severe deficiency in the ability to attract candidates.

> These are not good assumptions. 80% of pediatricians are women. Why would a hospital expect to hire 50% male pediatricians when only 20% of pediatricians are men? If you saw a hospital that had 50% male pediatricians, that means they're hiring male pediatricians at 4x the rate of women. That's pretty strong evidence that female candidates aren't being given equal employment opportunity.

We track these, but don't establish guardrails on that fine grained of data.

In your example, it would be balanced by a likely over-representation in urology by male doctors. But when looking at doctors overall, the demographics tend to balance out, with the understanding that various factors may affect specific practices.

To give you a more solid answer, in our data we see that men are a bit overrepresented in our platform engineering roles, while women are within our data science and ML roles. General backend/frontend roles are fairly balanced. Overall engineering metrics roughly fit out guardrails. We look at the same for management, leadership, sales, and customer support.

I don't have direct data on the recruitment -> interview process on hand. I work on the interviewing side though, and can tell you anecdotally that I've run dozens of interviews and overall haven't noticed a discrepancy in the candidates I've seen. I can also say that of those dozens, I think I've only advanced 2 candidates to the hiring committee. So we seem to err on sending a candidate to interview vs trying to prematurely prune the pool down.

My company's DEI program effectively does this. The main tenets are:

- Cast a wide recruiting net to attract a diverse candidate pool

- Don't collect demographic data on applications

- Separate the recruiting / interview process from the hiring committee

- The hiring committee only sees qualifications and interview results; all identifying info is stripped

- Our guardrail is the assumption that our hiring process is blind, and our workforce demographics should closely mirror general population demographics as a result

- If our demographics start to diverge, we re-eval our process to look for bias or see if we can do better at recruiting

The separation allows candidates to request special accommodations from the interview team if needed, without that being a factor to the committee making the final decision.

Overall, our workforce is much more skilled and diverse than anywhere else I've worked.

I think the idea is you let the dog grow to full size, then begin this treatment after they have finished growing.

Definitely sounds like a bad PM experience, especially with the repeated insistence about handing control of the company over to the PM.

Maybe I just have good experiences with PMs? At my company they're there to figure out what customers want and what the product should deliver, and then with our EMs to balance that with what's technically feasible and what we have capacity to implement. If an EM says "there's no way we can do that on this timeline" the PM works out some alternative plan for the product.

Anecdotally as someone with ADHD, one of my favorite features in Jetbrains IDEs is that I can double click on the tab / filename to hide everything irrelevant to what I'm looking at, and repeat to bring it all back when needed in the same state that it was in previously.

When I'm doing like a root cause sort of search by using the find window (via Ctrl/Cmd + Enter) and pulling up individual results, and using other tools such as the explorer / git history / terminal / whatever else. If I need to focus on the code I can temporarily hide everything, then bring it back up when I'm ready to move to the next result.

This isn't anti-vaccine propaganda. This is a real issue that specifically affects cats, and is extremely well documented.

In addition, this paper investigates alternative injection sites that reduce occurence while still providing the benefits of vaccination, not avoiding vaccination entirely.

It would be extremely bad anti-vaccine propaganda if that was the intent.

Anecdotally, my wife was diagnosed in the US with sleep apnea about 2 years ago. This included multiple GP visits to even get an at-home sleep study that came up negative, us having to purchase an additional at-home sleep study out of pocket that came up positive, and an overnight sleep study. The overnight results gave a diagnosis of severe sleep apnea. The entire process from start to finish took at least 3 months.

Her insurance fought every step of the way, despite having half-decent insurance as a hospital employee. They claimed that her BMI was not high enough to have sleep apnea, and ignored the family history (both parents, 3 grand parents, one sibling, three cousins).

Also worth noting that many of those improvements were originally made only for 4.x, but some of the contributors backported them back to 3.x. It wasn't like 3.x only got minor updates while the majority of focus was on 4.x.

In 2020, John F. Ring was the chairman, joined by William Emanuel and Marvin Kaplan. All Republicans, save for lone dissenter Lauren McFerran.

McFerran is now the chairman, and Kaplan is still on the board. Ring and Emmanuel were replaced by David Prouty and Gwynne Wilcox, respectively. Both have union backgrounds.

I can't seem to find the original case to see the board make up then.

> Slack replaces in-person conversations, which have the same deficits, and many of the same benefits.

Agreed. Reading this, a lot seems to come down to culture problems that would exist whether that given office uses Slack or not, especially regarding interruptions.

I personally have felt way less interrupted from Slack/Teams in my 8+ years of remote work than I did in an office. All of my employers have understood that if I have Slack notifications disabled, I'm either "out of office" or focusing on something, and have also understood that Slack should be treated as a "something that could go a few hours without a response."

In-person, I'd just have people walk into my office and start talking without seeing if I was busy. I had multiple times where I had the door shut and lights off, and had someone pound on the door because "they could hear my keyboard and thought I just didn't hear them knocking."

Slack just lets the people who are going to interrupt you regardless do so with way less effort.

From a union supporter who's spent some time reading about anti-union sentiment here, I've found it generally boils down to a few things:

1) A large portion of users on this site are entrepreneurs or in higher-level tech. For the former, unions can be seen as getting in the way of the startup lifecycle; for the latter, many believe that the value they provide makes them untouchable, or believe that the supply of high-level tech workers will never meet demand so they will simply be able to move to another company if needed without much friction.

2) Many people believe that unions spend too much time protecting "low-performers," and that a union enacting barriers to protect employees from quick firing for performance will hurt the overall team/company.

3) Many people also believe that both paying union dues, and a union negotiating for the "average" worker will lead to them making significantly less money. IE, say your company was split 75% junior/25% senior devs, and paid junior devs $75k and senior devs $300k. If the union put pressure on the employer to raise the minimum salary to $100k, then they believe that money will come out of the senior devs salaries (reducing it to ~$225k).

I can say in my experience, the first point is at least somewhat true right now (I had no issues moving to a more senior and better paid job after my last company sold out). I personally think the sentiment of point #2 is interesting; I generally don't view this as "protecting" those who should be fired, and more view it as a public defender ensuring everyone receives legal representation, even if they are clearly guilty.

I'd also just note that even I'm not blanket pro-union; Police unions are a prime example of what happens when unions consolidate too much power because they went decades without any pushback. I'd consider that an extreme outlier though.

It's been a while since I've looked at the ins-and-outs of the immune system, but doesn't this basically not hold up to scrutiny? Again, correct me if I'm wrong:

A) The general method of action of the vaccines is that the mRNA enters a cell (generally dendritic cells), the cell transcribes it into the spike protein, then the cell detects something off about the proteins and presents them on their cell wall for the immune system to respond to. The proteins aren't just "free floating" unless your immune response is

B) The likelihood of an immune response to an active infection never doing the same thing with cells that contain partially constructed virons / viron components, or achieving the same effect by breaking down full virons, is basically zero. So it's almost certain that an active infection would have "free-floating" proteins in some capacity as well.