As a scoop user it should be noted that scoop is much more oriented towards developers. Scoop runs in the Powershell environment and tends to mostly offer posix tools or SDKs as available packages, although git repositories can be added to scoop to provide more packages (there aren't that many of these right now).
This is disingenuous. Medical schools would increase resident caps even without the bonus money from Medicare if there was a reason to do so. Reasons go beyond just the Medicare funds that go for those slots.
They are most certainly allowed to increase the cap. They don't have the money to. Texas is putting state money into state-run academic hospitals in order to increase the number of slots open, and at least one non-profit academic hospital here (Scott & White) is using their own money to increase the number of residency slots they have.
"The BBA resident limits have imposed significant limitations on the ability of teaching hospitals and medical schools that sponsor and conduct graduate medical education programs to respond to the needs of the communities they serve."
https://www.aamc.org/advocacy/gme/71178/gme_gme0012.html
Medicare funding drives GME availability, but that is only because it represents the lion's share of the funding for it. Universities in Florida and Texas[1], the two states with the biggest shortfalls in residency slots, are taking steps to address this by finding other sources of funding or creating partnerships with non-academic hospitals to have med students do their residencies there.
I may be mistaken, but I don't think the federal government even has the power to restrict the number of residency slots.
A large majority of residencies are funded this way due to the very high cost of residency. As a result, many private institutions won't increase residency numbers on their own due to funding.
The main issue is the cost of residency is massive and is prohibitive for private money to fund anyone's residency.
> Which is completely irrelevant, as are accent/sex/other discriminatory factors that make zero difference to how someone is likely to work within a team.
This is just plain ignorant. Every single place I have worked has had its share of everyday sexism and racism, and that includes how current employees act in hiring interviews. You claim to not notice these things, but what you are saying is that you don't consider those things valid differences that may affect how someone perceives your team or work environment. How can you ever confront issues in your workplace by shoving your head in the sand?
> I'm pretty sure that if you run statistics, you would find out that people from poor neighborhoods are more likely to be criminals, violent, less educated, less intelligent.
I'm pretty sure if you run statistics you would find that people from poor neighborhoods are more likely to have their activity be criminalized, cast as violent, denied access to education formally and informally, and have their intelligence devalued in comparison to a social norm that has implicit bias.
> and although software development is meritocratic, it's not as meritocratic as those orchestras
Software development IS NOT meritocratic and neither are orchestras. There is just as much politics, networking, and problems with "value" in orchestras as in software development.
This sounds a bit cynical and negative to me. Probably if your company is too big then these are quite inevitable. But at least at where I work now I feel free. There's enough transparency, candidness and equality among all. Don't know whether things will change in the future, but a relatively "clean" state is certainly possible, at least according to my current feelings.
Orchestras are not a collection of independent workers. Everyone works together as a team and chemistry is very important.
> your team, understands your industry, and cares about your mission
When teams are largely made up of a certain kind of person, using this as criteria for hiring is a sure fire bet to make sure your team stays homogenous and never grows outside of its little comfort zone.
> This is part of the author's larger point: your title does not limit your contributions. You don't need permission (a title) to act a certain way. Titles, then, are an acknowledgement, not a license.
While it's true you can do whatever you want, titling generally functions as a way to control or punish the output of a worker. I have seen folks with lesser titles do something that a manager doesn't agree with and then been censured for it being outside of their job duties. I have seen people with high titles be chided for doing small work that someone felt was below them. I have seen managers become untouchable by anyone below them because the manager title became a shield against any other non-manager's criticism or input.
Titles service to reinforce the employee hierarchy that most business utilize. All the usual problems with that hierarchy are expressed through titles.
I had the exact opposite experience. Learning about native peoples and their history was extremely fascinating for me and I wouldn't like to have missed out on that knowledge. Learning more about other people is never a waste.
> It's interesting to me how we finally got rid of Original Sin, but now have replaced this with other, atheistic forms of this, like trying to make our children feel guilty about Native Americans and Slavery. I personally think this is the best way to increase tensions.
Time and time again people like to derail important discussions about the nature of Native American genocide and slavery by claiming this. Acknowledging this history is not about making people feel guilty, it is about understanding how those people are treated today and how their treatment is an extension of this history. The nature of racism and its history and legacy should not be trumped because it makes someone somewhere feel bad.
The best way to increase tensions is to ignore the past and continue to let that past influence how people are treated in the present, both socially and politically.
