Because those people were able to legally do some of those jobs, but SpaceX chose not to consider them because it would be more administration/bureaucracy for SpaceX. Ergo, discriminating on the basis of their status.
It was the same with disabilities, leading to the creation of the ADA. Companies would argue that they shouldn't have to hire someone in a wheelchair because it would cost them money to build wheelchair ramps and other accessibility aids.
The reality is that the regulations and restrictions in the other direction are much more severe. It's not that SpaceX cares about whom they hire; they'd hire anyone competent. The gov. will come down hard on export control and other issues if SpaceX slips up. So SpaceX essentially said fck it, just be a citizen or LPR. And this is more a sign of exasperation than anything else.
Well, they are seemingly allow to hire permanent residents and are not restricted to citizens only. If there was a citizen only requirement this would be a non issue.
You aren't allowed to exclude somebody who would otherwise be eligible because their work permit has an expiry date
The concept of “race” as defined in the US is not used in Europe to begin with.
Instead often times what is used is “ethnicity” and even that typically boils down to one’s “origin” and doesn’t take skin color into account.
A lot of European countries prohibit the government from registering skin color, ethnicity, religion etc. out of fear of a repeat of the 1940s.
So you won’t find US-style self-report questions on government forms w/r/t “race” or “ethnicity”.
In fact many go as far as limiting themselves to “citizen” and “non-citizen”, with the exception of immigration services maintaining the necessary information until naturalization of course.
So according to American race definitions most people in Europe will be white, but that doesn’t say much about diversity.
In fact the US definition of White is very broad [0]:
> White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "White" or report responses such as German, Irish, English, Italian, Lebanese, and Egyptian. The category also includes groups such as Polish, French, Iranian, Slavic, Cajun, Chaldean, etc.
So for example people from Morocco, Turkey and countries like Iraq and Iran (arguably some of the bigger sources of non-European immigrants to Europe) would be considered “White” implying a lack of diversity, even though there are significant cultural differences between those people and, say, native Germans.
Take a look at Switzerland with four different official languages (five if you include English for many official settings), something not found in the US.
I’ll make sure to let India know that they’re not diverse despite their 23 official native languages and their massive religious divisions.
You’re basically trying to define “diverse” as “amorphous immigrant melting pot”, a society that only exists in the new world where the native population was nearly wiped out.
There is no need to be condescending. Plenty of visibly white people living in a given European country are immigrants. There are flows of people within the EU as well, it’s a big place with a lot of different countries. Quantifying cultural differences is a bit of a fool’s game, but to me it’s not obvious that e.g. Poles or Hungarians are much closer to Spaniards than Moroccans are to the French. Skin colour is just an indication of actual diversity, which includes many other factors.
Poles, Hungarians and Spaniards share a thousand-long common history of being part of Christian Europe, under Roman Christianity. That was the leading and unifying cultural force in Europe up until the XX century (with common philosophy, Latin as the lingua franca, obviously with shared religious beliefs etc.). Moroccans and the French don't have anything that ties them that strongly.
> Poles, Hungarians and Spaniards share a thousand-long common history of being part of Christian Europe, under Roman Christianity
Not at all. That's a mirage in which some people want to believe.
Spain went through the gothic kingdoms, the emirate of Granada, the Reconquista, the Habsburg dynasty, to name a few. Poland saw nothing of that, and was not even part of the Roman Empire in the first place. They went through various wars and conquests with theirs own neighbours, some of the various bits of the Holy Roman Empire, the various baltic and Russian states, and Sweden, but there is almost no overlap with what was going on in Spain. Hungary was a very fringe frontier province in the Roman Empire and the cultural consequences are very different. And again, they were in very different situations, being much closer to the Ottoman Empire for a while and having to deal with the various bits of what is now Romania. Russia is a European country, but again the local culture looks very different.
On the other hand, Spain has a couple of centuries of history in common with North Africa. Ties between Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia on one side and France on the other are strong because of the shared history and the number of binational individuals and families. This is the same everywhere: countries have strong ties with their neighbours, and this does not stop at the EU's boundaries.
Even the supposedly close religious beliefs created a deep chasm in most of Europe. Large regions of Europe are muslim, there always has been a Jewish minority across the whole continent, and even amongst Christians, how many wars fo religions were fought over the centuries? Europe makes no sense from an ethnic point of view. It is a collection of very diverse people even though there are some cultural and historical aspects in common, and a belief that the future is better if we stop fighting each other. This is why European nationalism is not a thing.
I guess this thread discusses 2nd order effects. The most important factors are still the food you eat (Mediterranean diet in this case) and the number of calories (portion sizes).
We use a similar method to simulate 2D atmospheric turbulence for adaptive optics simulations in astronomy. The structure of turbulence is described by an analytical power spectral density function (classically Kolmogorov spectrum). We generate random coefficients in the Fourier space and then weight them by the PSD. After an inverse Fourier transform we obtain a beautiful draw of turbulence with the desired spatial structure.
The logic behind this is that work from home allowed greater participation from not-these groups. Folks whose physical or mental health was improved in a work from home environment (I know someone with chronic migraines, for whom the typical 'Glass and steel open office' workspace is basically hell on a random draw of days). Additionally, for those whose health conditions are such that COVID-19 is still a concern in the "Manage Your Own Risk"-era, losing work from home means losing one of the major ways to manage that risk.
Work from home also allowed for more schedule flexibility - it's hard to run an errand, pick the kids up from school, etc. when that's a 15 minute trip, rather than having to commute back home. This burden often falls disproportionately on women, and workers with families (who are likely slightly older than those who don't).
Removing the constraint of "You have to have the capital to move to SV to work here" allows hiring from a broader and more diverse pool of groups with less generational wealth, which means likely a more diverse body of job candidates.
Whether you agree with this or not, there is a logic behind it. Heck, I think they actually missed a couple axes of workers Apple is going to miss out on.
Thank you for the references, this is a very interesting perspective that I personally never considered before.
But still, I wondering if this should mean that WFH needs to be enforced at any company. Not every company can implement full WFH without disrupting operations, especially when working with hardware or when needing concurrent comunication between co-workers.
The article about black workers, mentions discrimination based (mainly) on their appareance. Sure this cannot happen if they work behind a screen. But the same would happen if we all were blind? Shall we wear opaque glasses to end discrimination based on racial features too?
We can also flip the argument. I see this as telling black people (or other groups), stay at home, and in this people will not discriminate you. Is this really what we want? We should make the world better by improving it, not downgrading it.
Is it really hard to imagine that it's easier to get to the office as an able bodied 22 year old than as a 45 year old wheelchair user? Or a 31 year old single parent?
No, but any physically impaired person will have a disadvantage in any physical environment. You cannot always lower the baseline to allow all persons to do the same in the same conditions.
By this reasoning, we should also close all physical stores, since wheelchair users have more difficulties to buy bread in person. If for the majority it is easier to go in person to buy bread, I think a better compromise is to adapt the shop to as many people as possible, while accepting that access will be still more difficult for some.
Is it really hard to imagine that it’s easier to afford a comfortable vehicle to commute in, not to mention housing with a shorter commute, as a 45 year old senior manager than as a 22 year old just starting out with significant college debt?
And those salaries get lower as they advance in their careers? Or do they go up?
If the more senior people get paid even more, how does this contribute to making the workforce skew younger?
Have you considered that there are jobs besides software engineering at Apple? And those jobs might also have 22 year olds working at them? Is the entry level marketing assistant getting six figures and stock options too?
Well, senior people earn more and have an easier life. This is not necessarily bad. Young people don't need to have an easy life, just a fair one, with equal opportunities to those ones that came before them and the ones that are among them.
The title was from the cnn.com article. I've changed to that now from https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... - usually the best choice for studies like this is to link to the best third-party article and link to the paper in the thread.
The problem is that high performance optical systems are expensive.
There are physical limits that forces them to have big mirrors and other expensive and relatively bulky optical elements. Also, there is no mass production due to small batch sizes (typically one or two).
So if they have a two year life span, it will not be economically viable.
For additional background, there are already optical interferometry telescopes in use, see VLTI by the European Southern Observatory (Chile, shared facility with the four VLT telescopes and some smaller telescopes).
It is pretty cool, we use it for detection of humidity degree or for species discrimination (e.g. plants, minerals, chemicals…).
[0]: https://www.iridesense.tech/