Equality: starting out at the same position, for example we have equal rights under the law
Equity: winding up at the same position, for example when everybody in a race wins the same medal, regardless of how hard they trained or how talented they are.
The extent to which equality of outcome is pursued and for which groups are traditionally factors, but the overarching idea is in pursuit of equality of outcome.
I think we're talking about different things then.
Nobody is asking for equal result. Equity means sharing the rewards of productivity, instead of allowing a group of people who do nothing get rich off of other people's hard work. That's fair.
> Nobody is asking for equal result. Equity means sharing the rewards of productivity, instead of allowing a group of people who do nothing get rich off of other people's hard work.
Social equality is focused around equality of opportunity. Social equity is about pursuing equality of outcome, generally by allocating resources and services unequally to give groups perceived as having historical disadvantages an extra boost.
Oh I see. I guess that's one way of looking at it. I tend to favor appropriation because it simplifies the accounting. You don't need equal outcomes exactly, you just ensure that everyone has their basic needs met and the ability to improve themselves. Historical context matters, but the issue tends to boil down social instability due to repeated displacement (redlining, gentrification). Allow people get rooted into a place and they'll build whatever they need to flourish.
equity as written. Ownership. Thus fairness means all have a share in responsibility for success and rewards for that success. Yeah, I agree. Note that I include responsibility as the core part of ownership. I think our society could have more of that.
equality (assumes you made a typo). Do you mean equality of opportunity or equality of outcome? These require different things to remedy.
For context, states within 100mi of Salt Lake City are:
- Wyoming
- Idaho
100mi doesn't get you into the population center of either state. the western US is BIG, really you're talking like 1k miles to get anywhere that's meaningfully different from utah. Depending on where you live in utah, that might not get you out of the state either.
Colorado is 150 miles away as the crow flies, and Nevada is 120 miles.
It's true that both cases will get you to parts of the state that are probably more conservative than Salt Lake City, or in Nevada's case, have literally nothing there. But Boulder is about an 8 hour drive from Salt Lake City, and has a dramatically different culture and political climate. If you look at past instances of people fleeing political repression, most of them would be thrilled to be able to drive a day without crossing a national border and live in a completely different situation.
Also, how high are the chances that these two states will never pass similar laws?
As far as I can tell for similar laws (e.g. age verification), once one state moves ahead on some controversial issue and gets away with it at the Supreme Court level, others follow suit very quickly, and then your odds quickly go to 50:50 when you thought you were picking out the best of 50.
everyone is different, even if I'm biking/walking everywhere and working outside, I still need to work myself to exhaustion if I want to get any sleep. I currently train muay thai, but even when I was young and doing yard work for a living I still trained with my friends and played sports. heck, growing up my life was american football training during the day and after school, regular football a couple of times a week with friends, running around for fun, and then doing heavy yard work at home and at neighbor's houses on weekends.
Not that your's isn't valid, some people (like me) have a big surplus of energy that needs to go somewhere and sometimes the best available outlet is lifting weights.
Really paying taxes is fine, we have representation issues to fix, but we all gotta pay our fair share.
imo the problem is the special treatment of rich people and the way it encourages middle income people to act like temporarily embarrassed oligarchs instead of citizens of a republic.
Tax loopholes which result in a lower effective tax rate. Lesser accountability for crimes. Ability to break any law which is penalized only with fines.
Do you really not know what rich people can get away with in the US?
I agree 100%, we all should be, but in today's America, the most "specially treated" are not rich, so if you are to hate people for being special under law, it is not the rich you should be hating first.
Well, if “specially treated” also includes “especially poorly treated”, then sure, there’s plenty of non-rich being “specially treated”. Take your pick from the non-rich subsets of immigrants, trans, kinda-Mexican-looking, pregnant-and-crossing-state-lines...
Like I said, there are representation issues because money is speech which gives the rich extra say in policy. So it's not exactly that simple, because of the anti-democratic pro-rich bias in our legislative system, but we'll get there.
I dug a little into this because I was curious who was more correct here.
From wikipedia, which links to what seems like a relatively reliable source:
> The Singapore Department of Statistics broadly defines "Chinese" as a "race" or "ethnic group", in conjunction with "Malay, Indian and Others" under the CMIO model.[10] They consist of "persons of Chinese origin" such as the Hokkiens, Teochews, Hainanese, Cantonese, Hakka, Henghuas, Hokchias/Foochows, Shanghainese and Northern Chinese, etc."[11]
So I would, on the balance of things, think that kccqzy meant what they said, and was pretty correct about it.
They're moving to Azure and had to fix up Azure first to be stable enough for GH to even consider moving.
I'm guessing its a combo of Azure still not being stable enough and a byproduct of trying to move an entire company's operations from a physical DC into a cloud while its running.
Speculation from afar: clouds are not commensurate, and high-volume cloud services are going to anchor key architectural decisions around technical benefits/realities of the cloud environment they target. Moving GitHub isn’t a tech decision, and it’s broadly a Dumb Idea.
I think GitHub is well past the complexity threshold where the reflective architecting that happens during cloud development can’t be separated from product. If the Engineers were begging for Azure it’d be one thing, but otherwise this is destabilizing churn.
I agree Azure needed a lift to even handle the job, and see the that gap as indicative of a more fundamental challenge. That change is kinda like a skeleton transplant… managements feelings and post-surgery desires don’t necessarily account for the impact and essential difficulty.
reply