IBM PCjr. Not exactly a regret. It was a family computer when I was a tween. They made the best decision they could based on the information available at the time. But it was not a great product.
If the population of gifted kids is statistically over-represented by white kids, then one of these must be true:
• The test doesn't measure giftedness, but rather level of education. So we would expect kids from worse schools to perform worse. This is institutional racism. The opportunity is not equal.
• Gifted kids from minority communities don't have equal access to the test or the classes. This is institutional racism. The opportunity is not equal.
• White kids are smarter. They all took the same test, white kids came out on top. This is a racist belief with a millennia of discredited science to back it up.
> They all took the same test, white kids came out on top. This is a racist belief
I am not even white, but something there in your rationale does not make sense. If they all took the same test and white kids were on top, how is this a belief?
Is there a word missing somewhere? Is the implication that the test was rigged? It is an honest question, I couldn't follow the rationale there.
The third prong is a bit badly posed: descriptively, white kids test better than black kids, and each of the three prongs offers an explanation. The third prong points to a discredited belief of genetic inferiority; by positioning the three prongs as exhaustive, the author structures the argument such that if you don't accept either of the first two prongs, then you must be a racist.
Perhaps. I didn’t really read that much into GGP’s comment. I just wanted to point out that the comment does (minimally) rebut scientific racism. And by selectively omitting that rebuttal in the quote, GP makes it appear as if the denial of scientific racism is just a claim of faith.
But you mentioned that a test was taken. Is the test somehow unscientific? Is it rigged to favor white kids? Are you speaking of a hypothetical test that doesn't exist and was never applied?
If a test was actually taken, and it is not rigged, how can it not be a sort of scientific evidence?
> This is institutional racism. The opportunity is not equal.
The test is not a form of racism, institutional or otherwise. It's doubling as a proxy measure for the socioeconomic disadvantage the students have experienced up to that point.
You can't get rid of socioeconomic disadvantage by refusing to measure it, no more than you can cure COVID by refusing to test for it.
> It's doubling as a proxy measure for the socioeconomic disadvantage the students have experienced up to that point.
A socioeconomic disadvantage which in the case of California - and almost certainly elsewhere - is caused in significant part by historical racist policies (i.e. redlining).
Agreed, but interpreting the results of tests without considering the effect that policies like redlining have on such results furthers the lie that the the variation in test results between groups represents innate differences in abilities of those groups instead of the effects of systemic and multigenerational discrimination.
And looking at actual outcomes in the US it’s easy to see that the truth is different. It’s not even white kids that come up on top, it’s mostly Asian kids (and before that Ashkinazi kids). It’s not because they have some institutional privilege. It’s because culture matters and valuing smarts and education is important not just for test taking but also for benefiting the society long term.
I worked for an international company with more than 100,000 employees. They basically never stopped doing layoffs. It was just background noise all the time. I got laid off after 5+ years, but I was ready to go.
Before that, I was laid off from a company that was rapidly going out of business, no surprise and I was ready to go.
As a data point, I've had 5 software development jobs in 25 years and have been laid off twice.
Sounds like you've had some bad luck, but I suspect things are getting worse.
My experience with over 25 years as a software developer is that the best way to optimize for salary is to switch companies every 3-7 years. There are risks. You either accept the risks or accept that you're not making as much as you could be.
I once worked for a company that had hired mostly people straight out of college. When the company faltered, they started looking for new jobs and were shocked at how much they were underpaid for their positions. But the company had a cool culture so it never occurred to them to test the market.
I almost never switch jobs for money, and for much of my career I've been underpaid. Which is OK. I have other priorities and accept it.
Even so, I'm on my 5th job in 25 years and my current position is the one I've held for the longest.
Both of my adult children have foregone career paths for menial jobs (retail worker and admin stuff). So far, they are both really happy. Living their lives without stress or overtime.
Blue collar work wears out the body. Are you going to be welding at 50? Working as a guide at 60? Tile workers in my family all stopped in their 40s because they could no longer do it.
I could quit my programming job and live on a lot less, as I have savings and already own most of the stuff I need, but health insurance is a problem. (And I like having money).
They did not announce they were working on affordable cars, or at least not a new model that would be more affordable than the models they have now.
Musk pushed all questions about new models to the Robotaxi event in August and the media filled in the blanks and ran with "new, cheaper model" putting words into Musk's mouth.
He did say they weren't going to build a new production line.
I am an iOS developer and I haven't used ObjC in over five years. There probably isn't any reason to start a new app or library with anything other than Swift. So it's just going to depend on the legacy code base.
I agree there's no good reason to write new (iOS) stuff in ObjC now days, but you're likely to still encounter plenty of ObjC if you're maintaining old projects.
Interoperability between Swift and ObjC works really well for the most part, so I tend to write any new files/modules in Swift, and older apps end up being a hybrid of both. I rarely see justification in rewriting existing ObjC code in Swift unless the code needs a rewrite anyway.
Since Swift UI is iOS-first, when the apps get ported to MacOS, they bring a lot of mobile-isms: the views and animations are often wrong, the controls are often wrong (like even the Apple's own settings app breaks a lot of established platform conventions and Apple's own HIGs), integration with system services is often incomplete (like proper keyboard shortcuts, I can't set a shortcut for Conversations->Delete in Messages anymore) etc.
Because of that I've seen people discuss that they have to reach for AppKit and/or ditch SwiftUI and got all in with AppKit, and that is easier to do from Obj-C.
Also AppKit works perfectly well in swift. People just probably remember the ObjC versions of things better since that’s where this all started. But the naming is pretty standard if you remember the old calls.
These numbers include upward revisions for past months.
You make a good point about these types of numbers. It's hard to get accurate and timely data in the field of economics, and headlines will never show the revisions, so the information we see will usually be the least accurate (assuming accuracy grows with time).
That said, these are good numbers and there's no reason to suspect they're not real.
