While there's some truth to that, you probably weren't still making black powder as an adult. I understand that some people may still do so for legitimate reasons (e.g., manufacturing their own ammunition), but there's a whole host of behavior that society is far more willing to tolerate in children than they will in adults. It sounds as though some of the stuff this guy was playing with shouldn't have been done in a residential area at all.
Part of being an adult is learning to take appropriate precautions and implementing safety measures. It sounds as though you had a reasonable grasp of that even as a kid, but this guy should have known better.
Yeah, I haven't been in one for almost two decades, but my experience was similar to yours. It felt more like a set of a David Lynch movie with all of the underlying sense of dread that place was giving off. I don't have any memories of going to one as a young child though, so I can't be sure if it's just nostalgia through a rose-colored lens or if there was a time when it was wonderful in reality as in memory.
It seems as though most of what's actually news comes via the Associated Press, so what you're asking for doesn't seem unreasonable. What you get from a magazine or paper just seems to be local stories or editorial content.
I think it has less to do with that and more to do with them being unwilling to be worked like dogs as you see more often with the fresh batch of college graduates that will line up for a 60+ hour weekly grind.
I think that ShanghaiBill has the right of it. Give most people some power and they'll invariably turn into giant plonkers of some sort.
However, if we don't work Facebook into the story, we can't really push forward with censoring the internet so that bad things like this don't happen at home.
I generally get close to 36 mpg, but I can easily see 25 if I'm in heavy traffic a good deal of the trip or driving around downtown. However, Google lists the current average price of fuel in the U.S. as only about $2.50, so for a lot of people in ideal situations it probably breaks out close to even.
However, to be fair you can probably use your home electricity in a lot of cases and outside of Hawaii, no one pays $0.24/kWh in the U.S. It's typically closer to half that much in most states.
esla said that it aimed to still make the cost of Supercharging cheaper than gasoline and that it doesn't aim to make its Supercharger network a profit center. Instead, they want to use the money to keep growing the network which now consists of over 1,180 stations and close to 9,000 Superchargers.
So they're just reinvesting their profits back into the business then. I don't have a problem with that, and I think it's the appropriate thing to do in their case, but don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
I don't think that's a problem if the content hasn't been dumbed down to make it possible for no effort on the part of most people to be able to get an A. Distributing the grading so that only a certain percentage can get an A is utterly pointless. I had a statistics class like that where the professor did something like that and it was practically impossible to get anything other than a D, C, or B. This resulted in a lot of people who had very similar grades (and a good understanding of the content) but it was basically preordained that only 2 people in the class could earn the grade.
Most universities have athletics departments that make sure their students are going to class and doing their work because they have academic eligibility requirements. Sure, if you're a school that's in the top ten it wouldn't surprise me if that gets bent a bit or that the university has shuffled those athletes into underwater basket weaving degrees that aren't particularly rigorous, but it isn't happening for the vast majority of athletes at the majority of institutions.
The only programs generating millions of dollars are football, hockey (for the limited number of schools that have teams), mens basketball, and perhaps women's basketball for a small number of schools. The rest are money pits and no one is going to run the risk of cooking the books for someone on the women's rugby team or men's cross country team.
Why does it matter what time it gets dark? Get up and go to work earlier so you can leave sooner if it's that much of a concern. Calling the point in time that it gets dark 2:30 PM, 8:30 PM, or 5:15 AM doesn't change the total amount of daylight that you get. If you really think you absolutely need to be in sync with the southern states to get business done, then that's a price you'll have to pay.
Basic housing where? If you want it in San Francisco then it's going to cost as much as everyone else who wants to live there is willing to pay. Turns out the bay area is attractive and has a lot of people who want to live in the limited number of homes available there. Basic housing in the middle of Nebraska can be as low for a year's rent as San Francisco can be for a month's. Similarly, anyone can go to college and the government will guarantee (a bit of a Faustian bargain, but that's an aside) your loans. Just don't go to a university that costs more per year than some state schools charge for a four-year degree. There are a lot of Americans who are poor for no other reason than poor financial decision making or lifestyle choices. For example, a pack a day smoker could be several thousand dollars richer if they were to give up their habit, never mind the added health benefits and reduction in future healthcare costs.
Minimum wage is just like rent control. It's an idea that some well-meaning individual had that paves a pathway to hell. A minimum wage means that there will always be people who cannot get any job because there is nothing that they can do that is worth paying them the minimum wage. There are entire groups of people for whom you've made it illegal to work, which is why you see illegal immigrants having more social mobility than impoverished Americans. The illegal immigrants will work under the table for below minimum wage, but it allows them to build financial capital and develop some kind of skill as meager as they may seem. Meanwhile the poorest Americans have no ladder to climb and you've trapped them where they are. There are some that just won't ever be able to escape their situation, but you've removed their ability to at least try.
You seem to believe that money is an entity unto itself and that if everyone just had more that they'd all somehow be better off. It's utterly worthless unless there's an actual economy to back it up. Otherwise Venezuela or Zimbabwe could have continued to run their presses for ever and give people ever more. Money is just a proxy for value created and is itself just a commodity whose value is relative to its scarcity. Money doesn't make you rich if your billions of Zimbabwean dollars can't even buy a loaf of bread because no one can produce one. It's far better to have relatively little money but live in an economy that produce all that you need for almost nothing. You seem to want to strike out at a factory owner while forgetting that they cannot succeed without a willing customer. It is we the consumer that purchases any miserable condition you care to attach to a business.
It doesn't matter and tariffs are a bad idea even if they're unilateral. Yes, it sucks for the individual business that has a disadvantage, but for the economy as a whole, free trade is what is most beneficial. If China wants to subsidize a particular industry, Americans are better off buying the cheaper goods at China's expense. It's essentially the Chinese paying for Americans to have less expensive products. You might complain that China (or rather individual businesses in China) ends up with a lot of American dollars that American businesses no longer have instead, but China does not benefit from hoarding dollars (inflation will render them worthless in due time) so it has to find something to spend them on which means purchases from or investment in American businesses or anyone else who will accept those dollars as payment.
Free trade is what ensures that consumers are able to get their goods at the lowest cost possible. I recently saw a homeless person with an Android phone. Were it not for inexpensive Chinese manufacturing, I'm not sure this individual would have had that phone. Tariffs on steel and aluminum will just mean that products become more expensive or that fewer are made. Trump is a fool for thinking that this will somehow help Americans. If he's truly concerned with predatory practices (e.g., dumping) the WTO already exists to handle such issues. As much as people want to rag on globalization, it's what is getting more consumer goods into the hands of people all around the world and has drastically reduced the cost of goods to the point where even the most impoverished are starting to have things like smart phones and internet connectivity.
That's probably why you shouldn't rely on any one fact checker either. If you've got half a dozen different fact checkers and they all agree on something, you can probably trust it, especially if you are relying on fact checkers with opposing biases. For example, if you read an article on all of Fox, CNN, MSNBC, Brietbart, and the Huffington Post, the subset of details that are reported on by all of those sites are the ones that are almost certain to be true even though each of them might individually be trying to spin the story in a particular direction.
That in itself isn't a fool proof method, but it's likely to yield better results on average than using a single source or having to witness everything for yourself first hand before being willing to accept it. I don't recall ever being to West Virginia, but that shouldn't prohibit me from believing that it's a real place or distrusting a "fact checker" who tells me that it's real.
Rent control doesn't solve the problem because it actively discourages new development, which when you have a growing population leads to housing shortages. Legislating something doesn't alter reality or prohibition would have worked, there would be no litter in parks, and Wall Street would never do anything someone finds unscrupulous.
There are various schools of economics and they often squabble over policies and correct courses of action for many things, but rent control is not one of them.
It's one of those inane things that's just used to complain. If well off white people are moving in to a neighborhood it's gentrification. If they're moving out it's white flight. I'm sure if they stayed in place long enough, some term would be created to castigate them for that as well.
I think this will just make people more emboldened because it's rather toothless. If you're going to threaten people, you need to show them you really mean business. I suggest 21 straight plays of "What's New Pussycat" to get the point across.
I haven't followed the VR scene much, but is there actually a killer app for it yet? I know there were some impressive tech demos, but from what I've heard there aren't any games that offer a truly compelling VR experience to make buying now (as opposed to waiting for generation 2 or 3 hardware) for any reason beyond technology lust necessary.
I hate to say it, but why should you expect a party that has no respect for the second amendment to care about any of the others? Whether you like guns or not is irrelevant when in trying to undo them you erode the very basis for preventing other forms of government tyranny.
And before people start with the whataboutism and Republicans, I don't see them as terribly much better as neither party seems to give a fuck about the 4th amendment as of late and both have been quite happy to overstep the 10th for a long time now.
If not that, then what should the number of black, female, etc. employees in software development be? You can't argue that it's too low or that the numbers are an indication of systemic issues if you don't have some expected value. One could make a similar argument with just as much support (that is to say very little) that the number of those groups employed is too high.
I also don't see how Google, Amazon, or any other company is in a position to address societal issues that are far removed from their core business. The problem with any policy that resembles affirmative action is that it assumes that a top-down approach to solving the problem will be effective, when I feel it's the exact opposite. It's a bit like trying to erect a building roof first and then wondering why it leads to all manner of instability.
Companies would be better off employing whomever allows them to make the most money and their taxes to ensure that education and infrastructure are adequately funded. However, there are some who believe that it is the failure of those public institutions which continues to perpetuate cycles of poverty in some communities, but if that's the case then those companies could do better by investing in educational institutions that they believe could help solve the problem and I suspect there's some self-interest in ensuring that the next generation is going to be ready to enter a labor market possessing the kinds of skills those companies demand.
I don't believe that even if you assume that a given labor force must match gender and racial demographics that any one business that fails to meet those criteria must be biased. If you were to assume that, you'd also have to argue that the NBA is horribly biased as they have a disproportionate number of black athletes relative to the population of the U.S. and no women at all. There are plenty of other professions where the numbers are similarly slanted such as the petroleum industry, nursing, commercial fishing, veterinary medicine, logging, and primary education instruction. No industry is likely to be balanced when there are others that are also imbalanced because you can't hire people that aren't in your field.
I suspect even the most ardent supporters of the notion that there are no biological differences between men and women that would lead them to make different career choices, wouldn't argue that physical differences don't exist that clearly lend advantages to certain vocations where physical labor is a necessary component for the job. The mere existence of those jobs and the qualifications naturally resulting in male dominance means that there is going to need to be a counter-balance in some other fields which will necessarily be female dominated.
My position is that I don't really care whether or not my dentist is male or female so long as they're the most qualified individual I can find at the price I'm willing to pay. I don't see how having or lacking a Y chromosome factors in to ability and I'm not concerned that the field is primarily made up of women. Similarly, I don't care who's writing the software I use so long as it satisfies my needs. I don't believe that companies should be concerned with it either, nor should they be forced to by government decree. Instead, what we should strive for as a society is to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to pursue their individual goals and desires and express their individual freedom to the greatest extent possible. If that results in 80% female dentists and only 20% female programmers, who are we to tell women that they can't be dentists and instead must work with computers, while telling men that they need to teach first grade.
The approach I propose doesn't seek to get more women into computing or computing jobs, it merely is a way to ensure that as a company you're not discriminating against them either overtly or merely as a result of reasons that are not at all apparent. I think it also serves as a good defense against accusations of bias as it's quite hard to explain how you could actively discriminate against women, minorities, or other groups if you don't possess the information to do that. If post-use analysis shows that some group isn't making it through the resume screening stage or some other phase of the interview, it's more indicative of an earlier problem such as substandard education than of any act on the part of the company.
Here's the easy solution to this problem. Don't include information on race, gender, etc. on employment applications and you don't have to worry about excluding people because HR or hiring personnel are bigoted, whether actively or unconsciously. If it gets the point of the interview and you've still got people being biased or discriminatory, then you've got bigger problems because at that point there's no excuse for falling back on some preconceived notions as everyone who makes it there should be qualified to work at your company or your screening process sucks.
Anything else is going to create a perception of unfairness regardless of what kind of noble intentions you might have. One thing that always astounds me is that the people who constantly bang on about white or male privilege and how that provides unfair benefits for some always seem to want to enact policy that enshrines unfairness as a fundamental concept. If you think that unfair treatment results in people being dissatisfied or outright disgruntled, then why the hell would you think that actively creating unfair conditions wouldn't result in the same conditions. To some degree I think this is partially (among a great many other things) responsible for the rise in what's been called the alt-right and has played a part in why someone like Trump was able to win the election.
Unfortunately the ambulance ride tree doesn't grow here, so we're forced to do things differently.If you were to make ambulance rides free here then you'd have plenty of jagoffs with minor, non-serious injuries calling them because they're entitled narcissistic shitheads that think their cut hand is as serious as someone else's stabbing.
Ambulances should only be used is the person needs some form of care en route to the hospital or has suffered injuries where they shouldn't be moved or handled by non-trained professionals. Otherwise, there are plenty of situations where it's probably better not to call an ambulance, especially if someone else is there and can take them to the hospital much faster.
Slashdot Mirror
While there's some truth to that, you probably weren't still making black powder as an adult. I understand that some people may still do so for legitimate reasons (e.g., manufacturing their own ammunition), but there's a whole host of behavior that society is far more willing to tolerate in children than they will in adults. It sounds as though some of the stuff this guy was playing with shouldn't have been done in a residential area at all.
Part of being an adult is learning to take appropriate precautions and implementing safety measures. It sounds as though you had a reasonable grasp of that even as a kid, but this guy should have known better.
Yeah, I haven't been in one for almost two decades, but my experience was similar to yours. It felt more like a set of a David Lynch movie with all of the underlying sense of dread that place was giving off. I don't have any memories of going to one as a young child though, so I can't be sure if it's just nostalgia through a rose-colored lens or if there was a time when it was wonderful in reality as in memory.
It seems as though most of what's actually news comes via the Associated Press, so what you're asking for doesn't seem unreasonable. What you get from a magazine or paper just seems to be local stories or editorial content.
I think it has less to do with that and more to do with them being unwilling to be worked like dogs as you see more often with the fresh batch of college graduates that will line up for a 60+ hour weekly grind.
I think that ShanghaiBill has the right of it. Give most people some power and they'll invariably turn into giant plonkers of some sort.
However, if we don't work Facebook into the story, we can't really push forward with censoring the internet so that bad things like this don't happen at home.
I generally get close to 36 mpg, but I can easily see 25 if I'm in heavy traffic a good deal of the trip or driving around downtown. However, Google lists the current average price of fuel in the U.S. as only about $2.50, so for a lot of people in ideal situations it probably breaks out close to even.
However, to be fair you can probably use your home electricity in a lot of cases and outside of Hawaii, no one pays $0.24/kWh in the U.S. It's typically closer to half that much in most states.
esla said that it aimed to still make the cost of Supercharging cheaper than gasoline and that it doesn't aim to make its Supercharger network a profit center. Instead, they want to use the money to keep growing the network which now consists of over 1,180 stations and close to 9,000 Superchargers.
So they're just reinvesting their profits back into the business then. I don't have a problem with that, and I think it's the appropriate thing to do in their case, but don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
I don't think that's a problem if the content hasn't been dumbed down to make it possible for no effort on the part of most people to be able to get an A. Distributing the grading so that only a certain percentage can get an A is utterly pointless. I had a statistics class like that where the professor did something like that and it was practically impossible to get anything other than a D, C, or B. This resulted in a lot of people who had very similar grades (and a good understanding of the content) but it was basically preordained that only 2 people in the class could earn the grade.
Most universities have athletics departments that make sure their students are going to class and doing their work because they have academic eligibility requirements. Sure, if you're a school that's in the top ten it wouldn't surprise me if that gets bent a bit or that the university has shuffled those athletes into underwater basket weaving degrees that aren't particularly rigorous, but it isn't happening for the vast majority of athletes at the majority of institutions.
The only programs generating millions of dollars are football, hockey (for the limited number of schools that have teams), mens basketball, and perhaps women's basketball for a small number of schools. The rest are money pits and no one is going to run the risk of cooking the books for someone on the women's rugby team or men's cross country team.
What a strange era for people to sign their litter. At least we know who to fine.
Perhaps someone should tell the homeless in San Francisco, Seattle, or other cities to sign their trash and they too can be a part of science.
Why does it matter what time it gets dark? Get up and go to work earlier so you can leave sooner if it's that much of a concern. Calling the point in time that it gets dark 2:30 PM, 8:30 PM, or 5:15 AM doesn't change the total amount of daylight that you get. If you really think you absolutely need to be in sync with the southern states to get business done, then that's a price you'll have to pay.
Basic housing where? If you want it in San Francisco then it's going to cost as much as everyone else who wants to live there is willing to pay. Turns out the bay area is attractive and has a lot of people who want to live in the limited number of homes available there. Basic housing in the middle of Nebraska can be as low for a year's rent as San Francisco can be for a month's. Similarly, anyone can go to college and the government will guarantee (a bit of a Faustian bargain, but that's an aside) your loans. Just don't go to a university that costs more per year than some state schools charge for a four-year degree. There are a lot of Americans who are poor for no other reason than poor financial decision making or lifestyle choices. For example, a pack a day smoker could be several thousand dollars richer if they were to give up their habit, never mind the added health benefits and reduction in future healthcare costs.
Minimum wage is just like rent control. It's an idea that some well-meaning individual had that paves a pathway to hell. A minimum wage means that there will always be people who cannot get any job because there is nothing that they can do that is worth paying them the minimum wage. There are entire groups of people for whom you've made it illegal to work, which is why you see illegal immigrants having more social mobility than impoverished Americans. The illegal immigrants will work under the table for below minimum wage, but it allows them to build financial capital and develop some kind of skill as meager as they may seem. Meanwhile the poorest Americans have no ladder to climb and you've trapped them where they are. There are some that just won't ever be able to escape their situation, but you've removed their ability to at least try.
You seem to believe that money is an entity unto itself and that if everyone just had more that they'd all somehow be better off. It's utterly worthless unless there's an actual economy to back it up. Otherwise Venezuela or Zimbabwe could have continued to run their presses for ever and give people ever more. Money is just a proxy for value created and is itself just a commodity whose value is relative to its scarcity. Money doesn't make you rich if your billions of Zimbabwean dollars can't even buy a loaf of bread because no one can produce one. It's far better to have relatively little money but live in an economy that produce all that you need for almost nothing. You seem to want to strike out at a factory owner while forgetting that they cannot succeed without a willing customer. It is we the consumer that purchases any miserable condition you care to attach to a business.
It doesn't matter and tariffs are a bad idea even if they're unilateral. Yes, it sucks for the individual business that has a disadvantage, but for the economy as a whole, free trade is what is most beneficial. If China wants to subsidize a particular industry, Americans are better off buying the cheaper goods at China's expense. It's essentially the Chinese paying for Americans to have less expensive products. You might complain that China (or rather individual businesses in China) ends up with a lot of American dollars that American businesses no longer have instead, but China does not benefit from hoarding dollars (inflation will render them worthless in due time) so it has to find something to spend them on which means purchases from or investment in American businesses or anyone else who will accept those dollars as payment.
Free trade is what ensures that consumers are able to get their goods at the lowest cost possible. I recently saw a homeless person with an Android phone. Were it not for inexpensive Chinese manufacturing, I'm not sure this individual would have had that phone. Tariffs on steel and aluminum will just mean that products become more expensive or that fewer are made. Trump is a fool for thinking that this will somehow help Americans. If he's truly concerned with predatory practices (e.g., dumping) the WTO already exists to handle such issues. As much as people want to rag on globalization, it's what is getting more consumer goods into the hands of people all around the world and has drastically reduced the cost of goods to the point where even the most impoverished are starting to have things like smart phones and internet connectivity.
That's probably why you shouldn't rely on any one fact checker either. If you've got half a dozen different fact checkers and they all agree on something, you can probably trust it, especially if you are relying on fact checkers with opposing biases. For example, if you read an article on all of Fox, CNN, MSNBC, Brietbart, and the Huffington Post, the subset of details that are reported on by all of those sites are the ones that are almost certain to be true even though each of them might individually be trying to spin the story in a particular direction.
That in itself isn't a fool proof method, but it's likely to yield better results on average than using a single source or having to witness everything for yourself first hand before being willing to accept it. I don't recall ever being to West Virginia, but that shouldn't prohibit me from believing that it's a real place or distrusting a "fact checker" who tells me that it's real.
Rent control doesn't solve the problem because it actively discourages new development, which when you have a growing population leads to housing shortages. Legislating something doesn't alter reality or prohibition would have worked, there would be no litter in parks, and Wall Street would never do anything someone finds unscrupulous.
You also get plenty of cases where people who don't need rent control housing occupy it (and hold on to it) because it's cheaper. You also see even worse examples like the Congressman who was renting four separate rent-controlled apartments at the same time.
There are various schools of economics and they often squabble over policies and correct courses of action for many things, but rent control is not one of them.
It's one of those inane things that's just used to complain. If well off white people are moving in to a neighborhood it's gentrification. If they're moving out it's white flight. I'm sure if they stayed in place long enough, some term would be created to castigate them for that as well.
That's how we'd know that we had true AI, because the machine thinking would be indistinguishable from that of humans.
I think this will just make people more emboldened because it's rather toothless. If you're going to threaten people, you need to show them you really mean business. I suggest 21 straight plays of "What's New Pussycat" to get the point across.
I haven't followed the VR scene much, but is there actually a killer app for it yet? I know there were some impressive tech demos, but from what I've heard there aren't any games that offer a truly compelling VR experience to make buying now (as opposed to waiting for generation 2 or 3 hardware) for any reason beyond technology lust necessary.
I hate to say it, but why should you expect a party that has no respect for the second amendment to care about any of the others? Whether you like guns or not is irrelevant when in trying to undo them you erode the very basis for preventing other forms of government tyranny.
And before people start with the whataboutism and Republicans, I don't see them as terribly much better as neither party seems to give a fuck about the 4th amendment as of late and both have been quite happy to overstep the 10th for a long time now.
Does exercise come in pill form?
If not that, then what should the number of black, female, etc. employees in software development be? You can't argue that it's too low or that the numbers are an indication of systemic issues if you don't have some expected value. One could make a similar argument with just as much support (that is to say very little) that the number of those groups employed is too high.
I also don't see how Google, Amazon, or any other company is in a position to address societal issues that are far removed from their core business. The problem with any policy that resembles affirmative action is that it assumes that a top-down approach to solving the problem will be effective, when I feel it's the exact opposite. It's a bit like trying to erect a building roof first and then wondering why it leads to all manner of instability.
Companies would be better off employing whomever allows them to make the most money and their taxes to ensure that education and infrastructure are adequately funded. However, there are some who believe that it is the failure of those public institutions which continues to perpetuate cycles of poverty in some communities, but if that's the case then those companies could do better by investing in educational institutions that they believe could help solve the problem and I suspect there's some self-interest in ensuring that the next generation is going to be ready to enter a labor market possessing the kinds of skills those companies demand.
I don't believe that even if you assume that a given labor force must match gender and racial demographics that any one business that fails to meet those criteria must be biased. If you were to assume that, you'd also have to argue that the NBA is horribly biased as they have a disproportionate number of black athletes relative to the population of the U.S. and no women at all. There are plenty of other professions where the numbers are similarly slanted such as the petroleum industry, nursing, commercial fishing, veterinary medicine, logging, and primary education instruction. No industry is likely to be balanced when there are others that are also imbalanced because you can't hire people that aren't in your field.
I suspect even the most ardent supporters of the notion that there are no biological differences between men and women that would lead them to make different career choices, wouldn't argue that physical differences don't exist that clearly lend advantages to certain vocations where physical labor is a necessary component for the job. The mere existence of those jobs and the qualifications naturally resulting in male dominance means that there is going to need to be a counter-balance in some other fields which will necessarily be female dominated.
My position is that I don't really care whether or not my dentist is male or female so long as they're the most qualified individual I can find at the price I'm willing to pay. I don't see how having or lacking a Y chromosome factors in to ability and I'm not concerned that the field is primarily made up of women. Similarly, I don't care who's writing the software I use so long as it satisfies my needs. I don't believe that companies should be concerned with it either, nor should they be forced to by government decree. Instead, what we should strive for as a society is to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to pursue their individual goals and desires and express their individual freedom to the greatest extent possible. If that results in 80% female dentists and only 20% female programmers, who are we to tell women that they can't be dentists and instead must work with computers, while telling men that they need to teach first grade.
The approach I propose doesn't seek to get more women into computing or computing jobs, it merely is a way to ensure that as a company you're not discriminating against them either overtly or merely as a result of reasons that are not at all apparent. I think it also serves as a good defense against accusations of bias as it's quite hard to explain how you could actively discriminate against women, minorities, or other groups if you don't possess the information to do that. If post-use analysis shows that some group isn't making it through the resume screening stage or some other phase of the interview, it's more indicative of an earlier problem such as substandard education than of any act on the part of the company.
Here's the easy solution to this problem. Don't include information on race, gender, etc. on employment applications and you don't have to worry about excluding people because HR or hiring personnel are bigoted, whether actively or unconsciously. If it gets the point of the interview and you've still got people being biased or discriminatory, then you've got bigger problems because at that point there's no excuse for falling back on some preconceived notions as everyone who makes it there should be qualified to work at your company or your screening process sucks.
Anything else is going to create a perception of unfairness regardless of what kind of noble intentions you might have. One thing that always astounds me is that the people who constantly bang on about white or male privilege and how that provides unfair benefits for some always seem to want to enact policy that enshrines unfairness as a fundamental concept. If you think that unfair treatment results in people being dissatisfied or outright disgruntled, then why the hell would you think that actively creating unfair conditions wouldn't result in the same conditions. To some degree I think this is partially (among a great many other things) responsible for the rise in what's been called the alt-right and has played a part in why someone like Trump was able to win the election.
Unfortunately the ambulance ride tree doesn't grow here, so we're forced to do things differently.If you were to make ambulance rides free here then you'd have plenty of jagoffs with minor, non-serious injuries calling them because they're entitled narcissistic shitheads that think their cut hand is as serious as someone else's stabbing.
Ambulances should only be used is the person needs some form of care en route to the hospital or has suffered injuries where they shouldn't be moved or handled by non-trained professionals. Otherwise, there are plenty of situations where it's probably better not to call an ambulance, especially if someone else is there and can take them to the hospital much faster.