I'm guessing you're more than welcome linking the data you're looking for, or if it's not readily available, compiling it and posting your own infographic.
You come off quite entitled demanding the op also provide any data you could conceivably want to compare it to.
The rain makes it look like the air domain is trying to join the water world, the fish are just offering a hand for the transition, they're trying to help, and there you are, taking advantage of their kindness. Ripping the fish from home, life and family, to suffocate in terror, or hope for a quick strike to the neck and the eternal quiet beyond.
Similar data have outed people's pregnancies, relationships and locations, which has been used to let people be stalked and even murdered.
Car data can be sold and amalgamated to create a very precise profile of you, available to be purchased by anyone. Anyone with about $100 can purchase access to your daily/weekly schedule, including physical locations, and can easily steal your identity, if not rob or murder you.
Also, foreign propaganda can similarly profile you and hyper target influence campaigns.
Well with objective universalism, killing is good, as unlife is the most common state of existence, it can never be immoral to unalive something.
If the universe has intent, it clearly is moving all things towards low entropy unlife, and as such unaliving is to carry out a moral good, and always moral, no?
The highest wages are indeed lower, but disposable income is higher (due to lower CoL), higher QoL, more stability, less need for emergency fund (due to robust healthcare, unemployment support, worker's rights, less guns, etc.) and cheaper accommodation.
You can buy a good house with a yard from $20-30 k in famously expensive Sweden (although you'll need a car then as well at another $2-12 k). In the IG reel I saw it also included a couple hectares of industrial forest you can farm to offset costs.
And I'm showing you, with sources, that you are wrong on both your points.
It can be reliably and reproducibly measured that diversity is more profitable. It's as "always" as tylenol helps against headaches, trains for travel, google for searches, gravity for keeping you on the ground. Yes, there technically are times these don't work, but it works more often than not, and typically there's other factors when it doesn't.
And similarly, yes you might not always pick the best candidate, but applying robustly provable best practices will lead you to doing it more often.
Do you go through anything else in life in this manner? That if you can't do it perfectly, you'd rather not try?
I'd wager not, as trying gets you closer to your goals, even when not meeting them immediately.
I find it hard to see that describing your employee diversity is discriminatory. And the law is quite settled on this not being discriminatory. Changes are being forced by executive order, many of which have been illegal under the current administration.
Diversity has repeatedlybeenshown to be more profitable than homogeneity, in both academic and gray literature. Besides being good for societal cohesion, fairness, stability, happiness, and moral virtue.
The best candidate is indeed best, but there are too narrow and outdated ideas on how to identify the best candidate, and humans have a bias to choose/hire for safety and similarity over actually relevant criteria, which is why we have the problem in the first place.
Please provide proof that this is in use at the PSF.
Quotas for minorities are a very outdated practice and were used to break the most entrenched norms (women in C-suites).
More modern practices include preferring diversity between equally qualified candidates, ad retargeting and messaging efforts, and inclusive norms at workplaces.
Also, diversity is profitable, it increases both innovativeness and productivity. It seems uniquely stupid to kneecap the economy to benefit your cronies. Then again, maybe that's the whole point of the GOPedo platform: rob the commons.
I'm trying to read your argument generously, and it comes off as: a minority has to work with the enemy to have a chance at achieving some of its goals.
Please correct me, as that doesn't seem right?
The GOPedo with Trump are still in the popular minority of votes, they haven't been neither popular majority nor willing to compromise for 50 years.
White Christians aren't a US minority group, or do you mean that the GOPedo has negotiated with them for the current policies? (With minorities I refer to political minority powers, not necessarily demographics)
Or is it the plurality of voters that should accept working with Trump over Biden to get some of their policy? It would seem that Biden would be the compromise candidate, as Trump doesn't seem to be pursuing any voter driven policy (health care, jobs, lower inflation, lower cost of living, legalising drugs, etc.), besides perhaps those of further US minorities (Heritage foundation, oligarchs, Saudi Arabia, Russia).
Would you please clarify what you're arguing for with your picked examples?
Good thing he got replaced, the next one would never do that right?
Oh, he did as well?
Well, at least you voted him out when you found out.
Wait, you elected him back? Despite him having done so before just last time, and openly promising to do so again? And the alternative not having done so, nor promising to?
How much could you really care if you're repeatedly and knowingly going against it?
This seems a shallow take to me, couldn't you just as well go:
In the US people adress eachother by (Mr/Mrs) family name, putting the family above individuality.
Which ofc is less prominent in the US than in more communal cultures like those in Japan or China.