Without downvotes, you get Twitter where even obvious rage bait drowns out everything. Downvotes aren’t perfect, but they’re much better than not having them.

No one says it about Andor though. Star Wars really is bad now. Your meme is saying that Star Wars is just as good as it ever was and we’re wrong for pointing out that it’s bad. But it is bad. And it didn’t used to be.

In the book, I remember that sookie says that someone “had her engine running like the pace car at the indie 500”or something like it.

And god help you if you forget those 3 lines somewhere and you silently have database failures or something else.

They’re basically fashion victims.

My favorite is “Java is slow” said by someone advocating for a language that’s at least 10 times slower.

Everyone who works on making software is a developer, even people who don’t program at all. people who make art for software work in software development. A “coder” only writes code. It’s more of a task than a job. A software engineer does technical design and probably also codes.

That it’s a religion. Except for a few groups, which I find kind of strange, being an atheist is the lack of religion and belief in a god. It’s not a religion or anything like a religion and so often I see atheism discussed by the religious in religious terms l, as a monolith, and other ways that just totally miss the mark.

If you ignore the actual usage of words then you’re speaking your own language and talking only with your own in-group bubble.

This was not a conversation about the political science term “liberal”. It is about lies told to everyone. We’re obviously discussing common usage.

That’s only true if you use the international definition of “liberal”. In America, “liberal” means “left wing”. And we’re talking about American politics.

“Democrats are liberal/progressive”

In reality, they’re pretty conservative.

Sorry, that was a big typo in my comment. That’s what I meant. I don’t want mastadon to only have true believers. I want more of everyone and Facebook will use EEE strategies to bootstrap threads off of mastadon and then harvest everyone but the true believers away.

Threads user numbers are misleading because of how easy it is to make an account and be counted as a user due to all of the instagram tie-in.

You keep saying that people must not “trust” threads users if they think Facebook could EEE and I don’t really get what that means. I don’t honestly want mastadon to only be for true believers. It’s more interesting if a wider range of people are on there.

What is considered bigotry often is a difference of opinion though.

I’m sure this will fall on deaf ears, but here. Threads is lacking in content. Threads gets fediverse content. Instagram promotes that content, getting people to sign up and actually use it. This includes big name content creators and celebrities, authors, journalists. People on mastodon and the fediverse get used to that content. Threads starts supporting some new features or longer length or who knows what in threads. These posts are either omitted from the fediverse or are degraded to be fediverse-compatible. This annoys fediverse users who have gotten used to all the content they are now missing or seeing degraded. A significant number of them move to threads.

And on the content creator side. Threads gains a huge market share. Content creators on mastodon get used to all the threads viewers threads decides to add enhanced security or formatting requirements or some other nonsense that regularly stops mastadon creators’ content from being seen or interacted by threads users. Or threads starts heavily deprioritizing mastadon content. Either way, the mastadon creators decide to go where the audience they got used to is o threads leaving mastadon behind.

Or something more clever than either of those. Because we know meta would want to EEE if they can and there are people who will be cleaver at doing it.

If you don’t cringe at some of your behaviors 10 years ago, then you’re either a a teenager or somehow stopped maturing.

He destroyed the Death Star and rescued a princess. Those seem notable.

I would hope that the person hired to address discrimination would assume the report of coninued discrimination is correct.

They should assume it’s true for the purpose of more investigation. Then decide if the facts support or disprove the claim. That’s much different than hearing it from one person, and then concluding that it’s true.

Did you read the rest of the article? It talks about how she talked with others in the company about this, someone above her took it very personally as suggesting he was racist, and her prompt firing. It also highlights how bungie was exposed for both racial and gender bias by reporting just a few months before she was hired, indicating that these exposed problems likely still existed.

Yes. Her superiors disagreed that the supervisor needed diversity training just because that one person who received a bad review said he was being racially targeted. The article doesn’t say that she made any attempt to talk to that Black employee’s immediately coworkers. She just talked to him and decided the supervisor needed diversity training. So it’s not surprising that her supervisors reacted critically.

I don’t mean any harm when I say this, but why would you jump to the defense of a company in the first place, dismissing claims of racism or other forms of bigotry? The world is incredibly biased, and regular large-scale studies on company culture (and social culture) reveal widespread bigotry in our world. Simply assuming the status quo absent enough evidence on either side to clearly paint a picture is more often than not correct. What purpose does trying to discredit her accomplish here? How do you think it makes black people feel to see the only reply in a thread is an attempt at discrediting her?

I’m not siding with the company. I’m siding with the employee who was treated like a racist because one person who may have been underperforming said he was without any further investigation. That’s ridiculous.

Just a few months into her employment, she says she was instructed to investigate the performance of a particular employee, referred to as “James Smith.” But when she sat down to speak with Smith, he allegedly pointed out that he was the only Black employee on a team of 50 individuals, and expressed that he felt he was being singled out and racially targeted by his supervisor.

Alm goes on to say that she shared this information with her supervisor and recommended that Smith’s supervisor receive diversity training, but alleges that her recommendation was met with “hostility and denial.”

So she just took the allegedly under performing employees word and recommended diversity training without any further investigation? I hope the article is leaving something out.