Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GNOME Publishes Draft Of Five-Year Strategic Plan

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Panix View Post
    You're an idiot if you think the DEI and wokeness is 'caring about people.' Either stupid or woefully naiive and oblivious.


    DEI and Wokeness are different things.

    DEI the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion is something a project like Gnome need for accessibility support, translations and so on. Like a able body person cannot really review if a interface suite a blind person perfectly. Things like blind person being able to understand text to speech at higher speeds and so on yes side effects of not having vision so having more brain processing area for sound items.

    The sad reality is wokeness is behavior is normally that the person normally results in ignoring DEI requirement of Equity.

    DEI programs that have gone wrong also have a problem that they have disregarded Equity.

    If you DEI system does not have Equity you have problem. Yes Equity being "fair and impartial​". Yes DEI Equity does mean you can end up with a room full of programmers who are all race and all the same wage because they are all qualified to-do the job.

    Its also the original "affirmative action" was inline with proper DEI. But once it came quotes and the like this is no longer Equity.

    Now here a good one "oppressors and the oppressed" you see DEI person doing this split they are not obeying Equity why are you labeling a group. Strict rule of you are following DEI as it designed is there are no groups of people to be the oppressors or the oppressed just individuals who should be treated fairly and impartially.

    DEI should be caring about people fairly if implemented correctly.

    Wokeness on the other hand this is problem. Wokeness is normally fancy name for racism/bigotry person. Why because they are like this group/race of people need special treatment this is not DEI in the strict letter of it meaning..

    Good question to throw to most woke people and show their racism in most cases "White male who grew up in a poor home with garbage access to education because parents were drug addicts should this person get special treatment in employment process?" Yes this is a disadvantaged person DEI says you really should ignore that the person is a white male and be assessed fairly. Like the individual might have a high provable IQ so suitable for training. Yes providing tests for those from a disadvantaged background to work out if they should be helped or not is being fair. Yes that white male should get special treatment in the employment process because they are a disadvantaged person. Please note being disadvantaged under correct DEI does not mean being able to get a job that requires qualifications for everyone else but chance to enter on a lower pay grade and get skilled(apprenticeship/trainee-ship....) basically giving the person a fair chance.

    Yes please note change "white male" bit in the question to other races and groups and the person who is not racist/bigoted should be answer the same that the person is disadvantaged and should get special treatment because of being disadvantaged. But that special treatment should not equal unfair treatment.

    Racist and bigot logic means you cannot correctly implement DEI. Yes USA attempts to-do DEI is littered with racism and bigotry. Yes DEI started to counter racism and bigotry yet those with racism and bigotry actions have been allowed to infect DEI.

    The idea that DEI is at the "detriment and expense" of those who are better off is also wrong if DEI is done right. The Equity bit again. Equity the fairness requirement means the person being given assistance due to DEI should not be getting the same wage as a person who is not getting assistance that wage difference.

    DEI that coming at the expense of others be they better off or worse off is not DEI implemented correctly. Equity of treatment is something you want when applying for a job. Yes that Equity in DEI also equals you cannot just go I will not employ you just because you attended the wrong university.​

    There are very few places that do DEI right. DEI done right would in reality be beneficial to all. DEI tainted with racist/bigot ideas is harmful for all.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by oiaohm View Post



      DEI and Wokeness are different things.

      DEI the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion is something a project like Gnome need for accessibility support, translations and so on. Like a able body person cannot really review if a interface suite a blind person perfectly. Things like blind person being able to understand text to speech at higher speeds and so on yes side effects of not having vision so having more brain processing area for sound items.

      The sad reality is wokeness is behavior is normally that the person normally results in ignoring DEI requirement of Equity.

      DEI programs that have gone wrong also have a problem that they have disregarded Equity.

      If you DEI system does not have Equity you have problem. Yes Equity being "fair and impartial​". Yes DEI Equity does mean you can end up with a room full of programmers who are all race and all the same wage because they are all qualified to-do the job.

      Its also the original "affirmative action" was inline with proper DEI. But once it came quotes and the like this is no longer Equity.

      Now here a good one "oppressors and the oppressed" you see DEI person doing this split they are not obeying Equity why are you labeling a group. Strict rule of you are following DEI as it designed is there are no groups of people to be the oppressors or the oppressed just individuals who should be treated fairly and impartially.

      DEI should be caring about people fairly if implemented correctly.

      Wokeness on the other hand this is problem. Wokeness is normally fancy name for racism/bigotry person. Why because they are like this group/race of people need special treatment this is not DEI in the strict letter of it meaning..

      Good question to throw to most woke people and show their racism in most cases "White male who grew up in a poor home with garbage access to education because parents were drug addicts should this person get special treatment in employment process?" Yes this is a disadvantaged person DEI says you really should ignore that the person is a white male and be assessed fairly. Like the individual might have a high provable IQ so suitable for training. Yes providing tests for those from a disadvantaged background to work out if they should be helped or not is being fair. Yes that white male should get special treatment in the employment process because they are a disadvantaged person. Please note being disadvantaged under correct DEI does not mean being able to get a job that requires qualifications for everyone else but chance to enter on a lower pay grade and get skilled(apprenticeship/trainee-ship....) basically giving the person a fair chance.

      Yes please note change "white male" bit in the question to other races and groups and the person who is not racist/bigoted should be answer the same that the person is disadvantaged and should get special treatment because of being disadvantaged. But that special treatment should not equal unfair treatment.

      Racist and bigot logic means you cannot correctly implement DEI. Yes USA attempts to-do DEI is littered with racism and bigotry. Yes DEI started to counter racism and bigotry yet those with racism and bigotry actions have been allowed to infect DEI.

      The idea that DEI is at the "detriment and expense" of those who are better off is also wrong if DEI is done right. The Equity bit again. Equity the fairness requirement means the person being given assistance due to DEI should not be getting the same wage as a person who is not getting assistance that wage difference.

      DEI that coming at the expense of others be they better off or worse off is not DEI implemented correctly. Equity of treatment is something you want when applying for a job. Yes that Equity in DEI also equals you cannot just go I will not employ you just because you attended the wrong university.​

      There are very few places that do DEI right. DEI done right would in reality be beneficial to all. DEI tainted with racist/bigot ideas is harmful for all.
      Yes, that's the problem! You explained it quite properly.

      Most organizations (whether for-profit or non-profit) that engage in fake DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) propaganda practice "positive discrimination" in very perverse ways instead of promoting true equity. They attract deceitful individuals who seek to benefit from the system without providing any positive outcomes.

      This is not only useless but also a waste of time and resources. It promotes racism against those who don't benefit from it and serves as a political strategy to distract the population from the real issues and the true culprits.

      GNOME, Mozilla and tons NPOs follow that perverse agenda​.

      I had been into many nonprofit and social movements.

      I had to deal with numerous social workers and similar professionals. Many of them start out as naive young individuals with a hero complex. Once they become aware of how fake everything is, they often become cynical, and some even turn to drugs. Most are corrupt. Those who are well-intentioned often leave their careers due to burnout. Many are involved in social movements and other causes, but only a few genuinely want to make a difference.

      I'm very aware of such crap.
      Last edited by timofonic; 25 May 2024, 02:31 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by timofonic View Post
        This is not only useless but also a waste of time and resources. It promotes racism against those who don't benefit from it and serves as a political strategy to distract the population from the real issues and the true culprits.
        The thing people get wrong here is that not only does it promote racism against those who don't benefit it also promotes racism against those who do benefit. There is no party who is not going to have a racism problem from fake DEI.

        Yes some of the Trump MAGA follows are a good examples of this how fake DEI can make people racist.

        DEI tainted with racist/bigot ideas is harmful for all.

        I wrote this for a reason. What you call fake DEI is harmful to all in the long term. "positive discrimination" is absolutely not valid DEI. You see someone being positive discriminated for by race and you are not that race you now have a higher risk of being racist against the "positive discrimination race". Yes racist because of positive discrimination happens in horrible ways that a person has worked hard in their job and done a great job just because they are a "positive discrimination race" when they apply for a job their successes are classed as not as important because the person doing the placement has a racist bias due to the "positive discrimination" the person may have got even in cases the person did not get the help.

        Reality if it was only a waste of resources this would be one thing. Increase the risk that particular races could get attacked in the street and so on happens because of fake DEI. So fake DEI harmful to the point of being possible being lethal to particular individuals.

        Equity part of DEI is very important without Equity you don't have DEI and you are just making mess that going to backfire causing harmful events to happen that some are going to result in death. Diversity and Inclusion without Equity is path to failure and dead humans.

        Basically we should want DEI done strictly to what it defines this include getting Equity right. We should hate all the fake forms of DEI because long term they will bring harm to you with no exception.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by kpedersen View Post

          Creating a C API ontop of C++ or Rust is a poorer solution. You would need to make extern "C" wrapper functions for every single class method or equivalent.
          Thats a non issue

          Comment


          • I feel like hanging with KDE folks is the right place for me 😂

            Comment


            • Originally posted by guzz46 View Post
              I think its worse than that, they want to prioritise those people over others, so for example if there's a white man applying for a job and a black man applying for the same job job, they will pick the black man because of the colour of his skin, even if the white man is better qualified, so they're discriminating against people based on skin colour, or gender, or sexual preference, that's messed up.
              It helps to understand how arrived at this point.

              For many years, decades, hundreds of years, women, black people and homosexuals were actively discriminated against, in many cases with laws that legitimized discrimination and police actions that targeted members of those groups.

              At some point, we as a society said this needs to end, and we repealed legislation that codified discrimination but that wasn't enough. Many people still acted as if laws were still the same.

              We get to the point where affirmative action is introduced and initially this was supposed to be that if a white man and a black man went for the same job and had the exact same qualifications, preference would be given to the black man in order to reverse a historical injustice where a black man would never have been considered for the job regardless of their qualifications.

              Fine, I can understand the logic behind this reasoning.

              But like most things in life, the road to hell is paved with good intentions and the power this moral high ground gave to those that espoused it proved to be too much to resist and they changed it to let's prefer less qualified black men for certain positions, but at the same time there was a glass ceiling where they could only achieve a certain position.

              The gay community saw how successful the affirmative action initiatives were and they pushed for similar preferential treatment.

              Here where it gets insidious.

              These groups realized that legislative changes and lawsuits were not enough, so they started infiltrating academia, so they could brainwash young people in their formative years and manipulate their viewpoints. It's similar to what the Allies did with the German population after WW2.

              This is not about doing what's right or wrong any longer, it's about power to control your fellow man's thoughts.

              There was a medical school professor recently that apologized for saying pregnant woman.

              There's a mental illness revolving around so-called transgenderism that is very hard to combat because cowardly politicians and judges have passed and enforced "bias" crime laws that in many cases make it illegal to call out the absurdity of someone changing their sex.

              I have asked liberals if they can accept a man waking up on day and claiming they are a woman and demanding to be treated as such, if they can accept a white man waking up on day and demanding to be treated as a black woman?

              If you can be transgender, then why not trans-racial? Why not trans-species? There are examples of people that have claimed these last two?

              I'm a live and let live type of guy, if you want to believe that you can change your sex, race or species, who am I to point out how stupid you are?

              But what I can't stand is when these people demand that everyone else on the planet accept their delusion and treat it as if it is in fact real, and worse the people that not only support those demands but actively promote them.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by spicfoo View Post
                No, they don't. They mean equity opportunities, not outcomes. Let's give you a specific example. I have sight issues. Equality involves treating everyone the same which doesn't allow me to work. Equity in this case requires employers have special accommodations to address my accessibility concerns and it also happens to be a legal requirement in some countries. That doesn't guarantee any kind of outcomes equivalent to the best programmers nor is it expected. It merely allows me the opportunity to do so.
                You have a disability that is outside your control and are simply requesting that accommodations be made to allow you to work,

                This is similar to someone that is in a wheelchair or someone that just breaks their leg.

                That's very different than someone that wakes up one day, puts on a dress and changes his name to Lisa and demands that he be promoted because he is trans.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by oleid View Post
                  The goal is not that everybody is able to win the Superbowl. Like you said, that's unrealistic. They should be archivable by a large percentage of the population (or the group of people under consideration). And like you said, in reality not everybody will yield the same outcome. This is a theoretical construct after all and people are not machines. The idea is that people should individually supported to enable them to reach the goal. I.e. if the goal is that people should travel from A to B in a city "by foot", the proper support for disabled people could be e.g. wheelchair ramps and accoustic signals at cross-roads (depending on the kind of disability). Support for elder people could be park benches so that they can sit down on the way... Something like that. The idea is that people have the same opportunity to attain the goal. Nothing more, nothing less.
                  The key difference is that a physical disability is vastly different than mental one or an issue that arises because of a person's identity.

                  For instance, as you said, someone in a wheelchair should have the ability to be able to go across town by himself.

                  This is very different from having a law that says everyone should be equally likely to get any given job.

                  For instance, the same guy in a wheelchair, do you want him to be a cop? Or a firefighter? Or a paramedic?

                  How about someone that has William's Syndrome and Epilepsy, should they be allowed to be a Secret Service agent?

                  But this ignores the fact that disabilities are different than sexual identity, and while making accommodations in the interest of compassion for a disabled person is morally commendable doing so for someone rebelling against their chromosomes is not.,

                  Comment


                  • Does GNOME have Wireguard GUI now? Because at a time KDE had and GNOME had non official extension that was simply switching services that you had to configure with good old cli interface. I'm not against cli but it kind of defeats the purpose of desktop environment especially when another one(KDE) had it first(if GNOME even has it now).

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by sophisticles View Post

                      The key difference is that a physical disability is vastly different than mental one or an issue that arises because of a person's identity.

                      For instance, as you said, someone in a wheelchair should have the ability to be able to go across town by himself.

                      This is very different from having a law that says everyone should be equally likely to get any given job.
                      Where does such a law exist?


                      Originally posted by sophisticles View Post
                      For instance, the same guy in a wheelchair, do you want him to be a cop? Or a firefighter? Or a paramedic?
                      Why not? As long as they can perform their tasks.

                      Originally posted by sophisticles View Post
                      How about someone that has William's Syndrome and Epilepsy, should they be allowed to be a Secret Service agent?
                      Why not, same as above.

                      The secret service writes:

                      Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) is a fundamental right of all employees and applicants for employment to compete on a fair and level playing field for career advancement and other professional development opportunities—without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, gender, age (40 or older), disability (physical or mental), gender identity, protected genetic information, or parental status
                      So as you can see, this is not about "everyone should be equally likely to get any given job.". It's about fair competition.

                      https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2021-10/TAD%20Special%20Agent%20Brochure_%20Digital_10.1.2 1.pdf


                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X