Most of us understand the "anti-racist" philosophy. We just don't agree with it.
BTW, it's the height of passive aggressiveness to use this rhetorical trick of naming things (antifa, anti-racist) in such a way that you use the very name to shame people.
I mean, meet my new group: the anti-evil collective. What's that? You're don't agree with us? Well, you're against evil, aren't you? Are you some kind of a demon, or a devil?
So, you claim to understand "anti-racism", but don't agree with it. And yet you're complaining about the name?
I'm sure if you understood the philosophy then you would be able to articulate your issues with it, rather than just complaining about something superficial. I'm guessing you're also against (but understand, ha) feminism too? but just don't like that it sounds like it's just for women.
Or maybe he doesn't want to waste the time writing a dissertation-length critique as a comment on an Internet news aggregator? The name being pretentious and tendentious is a quick heuristic to determine that the overall ideology is nonsense.
I have recently begun calling self-described "anti-<X>s" co-<X>s. Co-racists are almost exactly the same as racists, just with slightly different vocabulary that depends on the existence of classic racists. Co-facists are essentially the same thing (any outgroup must be oppressed and overcome at all costs, is simultaneously weak and super-powerful, etc). Marxist regimes are almost always co-capitalist and co-imperialist (such as the largest explicitly Marxist regime today).
The idea is that the relationship between <X> and "co-<X>" is sort of like "domain/codomain," "sine/cosine," "product/co-product," "vector/co-vector," etc. in math, or "dependency/co-dependency" in psychology. "Co-<X>" cannot exist without <X>, but behaves almost exactly the same.
Certainly the effectiveness of affirmative action is independent of a consensus around affirmative action's effectiveness.
Affirmative action is a widespread policy and has been for decades. Is its effectiveness now conditioned on consensus that the policy is effective? That is a ridiculous rhetorical trap: If anyone expresses mere skepticism that affirmative action has not been effective, then that person is by construction the cause of its failure; conversely, if everyone does agree that affirmative action is effective, yet disparities have persisted (by just about any measure), then everyone is lying to themselves and one another in order to achieve a political consensus that perpetuates the struggles of black Americans (note a parallel to the rhetoric from supporters of Jim Crow, "the peculiar institution" and various progressive "scientific racism" programs like eugenics). I'd consider the latter scenario downright evil.
Affirmative action as currently implemented based primarily on race is just as bad, shifting the inequality of opportunity at best. White people of low socioeconomic status are disadvantaged while people of color with high socioeconomic status unfairly benefit. The idea of affirmative action and “anti-racist” policies are fundamentally fine, but it’s almost completely socially unacceptable to disagree with the popular strategies.
Plus it can pit those low income groups against each other in favor of self-degrading white people in higher academia that do indeed seem to be there without too much merit.
Where is the evidence that being against affirmative action is responsible for maintaining racial inequities? Because that is quite a extraordinary claim, given that we have maintained racial inequities far longer than affirmative action has been popular.
That would assume wealthy groups in america start businesses are higher rates than all other groups. But poor immigrants with no safety net what so ever start businesses at a much higher rate.
This is completely anecdotal but in my experience this is because wealthy people have high paying jobs and don't really see the value in starting a business unless they just want to be entrepreneur. I've lived below the poverty line and everyone I've met in those circles had a side hustle, business or second job. You gotta grind 10x as hard to get out of those circumstances.
I've always assumed part of that is that immigrants find it hard to get their foot in the door and get a job here. Imperfect language skills would be to your detriment in job hunting, but less so if you had an ethnic restaurant or a business catering to those in your community in a similar position.
Not necessarily there are tons of other things that depress business creation: debt load, health insurance, risk. Without a real bottom in the US even with a solid plan and decent savings building a business is extremely risky compared with just continuing to work at your current job.
While I agree in principle, I don't think this is manageable given how diverse the content is on the Internet. What sort of thing are you going to sell me when I'm reading a news article about wars in the Middle East?
That falls apart as soon as the author with the locked paragraph leaves the document open while they’re doing something else, preventing others from editing.
I really don't get it. You want to add thousands of lines of code and complex data structures with tons of edge cases so that I can interrupt you while you write??? It's just not desired functionality. Poor network connectivity is not an excuse to break your workflow.
You simply do not assign 2 people to a task that can only be done by a single person.
It is like a system where 2 people can poor coffee into the same cup at the same time. We deal with the cup overflowing with some drainage (marvel at our creation of course!) but then 12 people put sugar in the cup. Solution: we overflow the cup further to dilute it! We solve the mobility issue by spilling a bit more coffee out of the cup and whip the bottom with just the right type of towel or napkin. The only problem that remains is both drinking from it at the same time.
The framework layer of WPF is implemented in C#. WinUI is all C++, including the framework and the compositor that makes the DirectX calls.
In the framework layer, typical UI updates are faster because the WinUI data binding system uses code-generation rather than the reflection-like runtime binding system that WPF has.
WinUI also includes the rather incredible Windows.UI.Composition API’s, with things like ExpressionAnimation that enable lots of cool animations (like parallax, sticky header, or cursor-relative) at a stable 60 FPS.
Disclosure: I work at Microsoft on the Windows team.
> code-generation rather than the reflection-like runtime binding system that WPF has
That's a good move. If a convenient abstraction can be implemented in a way that 'compiles out', it ideally should be implemented that way. Does this enable more compile-time checks?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Be_an_Antiracist
Rather than trying to make tired points in 140 characters.