I was looking to create a little database to keep track of spending, put things in categories... and then wanted a useable GUI and having to create that sure sounds dreadful... that, and the rest calls for each table and every possible operation, aaaa.
>To those that say, "Hey, it's just time for white males to find out what it has been like for women and ethnic minorities"
The only people saying that are bitter idiots.
Reading all these anecdotes of disinterested people of color just confirms to me people want to strawman this issue, as they always do.
Nobody is talking about forced hiring of disinterested people. The problematic situation is when several candidates who are perfectly confident, able and willing are not hired, because the hiring manager for some reason just liked that white person better. Every single time. Just... a gut feeling, since they were all pretty much equal.
That practice, where the person hiring always defaults to the white person, even in a mixed group of people with equal skill, is what's problematic, and what needs to be tackled.
Yet people have already begun imagining the most extreme fantasy scenario possible... bad thing is that when you start imagining that, some people actually start doing it because they think they have to. Repeat a lie enough, and people will start thinking it's the truth.
From a more long term point of view, it's also important to increase diversity. Simple from the argument that the more groups you get interested and comfortable with joining a certain industry, the more skill and competition will eventually come around.
Giving more people starter positions and the chance to learn, is exactly how you robustly increase a workforce. But more importantly: having strict rules against abuse.
Here's my time for anecdotal evidence: known several people, perfectly skilled, who just left tech companies because of the casual racism and sexism that HR just decided to ignore.
And when only 1 or 2 people are involved, you can keep the larger workforce thinking there's nothing bad going on. And so when people see a thread like that, they go "I've never seen that". Well yeah, it's being kept out of sight...
> That practice, where the person hiring always defaults to the white person, even in a mixed group of people with equal skill, is what's problematic, and what needs to be tackled.
Yes, I agree this needs to be tackled (an understatement I know). We need to stamp out the racism that non-white people routinely face. As far as hiring goes, I feel a lot of progress has been made on this front, but I don't have any idea if that feeling is correct.
> Yet people have already begun imagining the most extreme fantasy scenario possible... bad thing is that when you start imagining that, some people actually start doing it because they think they have to. Repeat a lie enough, and people will start thinking it's the truth.
I'm not certain exactly what you are referring to here. I was going to comment on it but then realised maybe I have completely misunderstood. What fantasy scenario and lie are you referring to here? And what is it that people start actually doing?
By fantasy scenario I refer to those people who comment one thing and one thing only: the idea that the government wants to force bad hires, as some kind of attack against white people.
While in reality, all that's being asked is to recognize that there's something systemic going on here.
But enough people comment this, some people pick it up and actually start doing it...
Commercially backed mortgages. The reason it doesn't work the way you're describing.
Supply and demand do not exist in a vacuum.
There's no _immediate_ response to people not being willing to pay a certain amount.
Owners, and especially individuals or companies that own large amounts of housing, will refuse to lower prices, regardless of demand dropping. Be it actual demand, or people staying away because the price is too high.
Where store spaces have not been rented out for sometimes a decade, because owners consistently refuse to lower prices. Just refusing to lower rent, for years on end, and being empty that entire time.
And if you ask why, the answer is: commercially backed mortgages.
It's simply: you take a loan with a bank for, say, 10 million USD. You're required to pay this loan back over a period of 10+ years. The bank, meanwhile, sells this as an investment product. The bank uses their own funds to guarantee the profit this loan is going to generate, and attracts investors to take a part of it. Thus gaining them a % increase after X years.
However, this means that you can't ever lower the amount you have to pay back, if the value of the physical good your property is based on, drops.
Price isn't dynamic in a pure sense. There's a person on the controls and if they refuse to move them, even if you think it's illogical to do so, they're not going to budge.
Because they have a loan to pay back. Over a finite amount of years. And lowering rent means longer time to pay back the loan, meaning breach of contract.
There are far more systems in place than many are even willing to consider. For it assaults their idealized worldview.
Be it shop or regular housing, this is a system that artificially stops prices from dropping.
Yes and no. Yes, property investment and speculation and inflate prices beyond their consumptive utility.
But no in the sense that commercial real estate investors are a small chunk of the global RE market. The vast majority of residential property are owned by the tenants. We have turned housing into the largest retirement fund and don't have a way of undoing that. And we have exacerbated this by deciding to push interests rates artificially low so that all sorts of people who otherwise would be priced out of home ownership, are now part of the demand curve competing against the same supply curve.
>Because they have a loan to pay back. Over a finite amount of years. And lowering rent means longer time to pay back the loan, meaning breach of contract.
I don't get it. Refusing to rent out the property means even longer time to pay back the loan, doesn't it? It can't be the reason.
In this entire text, the most important questions are missing:
1/ Why does a person start to use drugs?
2/ Why does a person use so much drugs it kills them?
The entire article is talking about symptoms, not causes.
That's not to say all drug use is bad.
What's bad is living a life that's so full of stress and pain that you feel you have no way out other than to distract yourself with these drugs. Eventually leading to death by overuse.
It's not looking at the causes, only at the symptoms, and wondering how we can work within that limit.
And it is exactly that limit that prevents us from seeing the cause.
