> I know this is a controversial view, but I think employers should not be allowed to run background checks unless important for the role (government work, access to children, etc) and where it is important for the role it should only return the criminal convictions that might be relevant to the role.
This shouldn't be controversial at all and I think your take is 100% correct wrt exceptions (gov work, access to children etc).
The very "Once a felon always a felon" thing going on in the united states is a secret life long sentence that completely defeats the idea of redemption.
It's not controversial, because we've twisted freedom of association, in places people aren't allowed to even have a "Ladies Night" at the bar, chose who the rent to, etc etc etc. Barry Goldwater absolutely and unequivocally warned us of this.
Now because that freedom of association, freedom to chose who you do business with does not exist, we think this is reasonable.
However, it is not. I own a business. I should not be required to hire anyone I do not want to. Full stop!
And it doesn't have to be a race card thing, Say I hate the Iraq war. Say I would like to never hire any veteran who contributed to the deaths of over 1 million Iraqi Citizens. Or say I worked with Iraq war veterans in the past and I hate their military attitude. I am not allowed to do so. If I bought a company, I would want to fire all veterans. No, you are not allowed to do so.
I get that, but in this specific case it kinda sucks for you. We shouldn’t be making a system that penalizes offenders for life without explicit sentencing for such. Whether that information is useful to your business is relatively irrelevant to me because denying people proper employment does a lot more harm to them than the harm done to the people in businesses like yours by not penalizing them.
So true, that really is exactly what I’m saying by saying you shouldn’t be allowed to dig up whether someone has been convicted of a crime in the past when hiring them. If that‘s playing god, then slap a robe on me and call me father buddy. I mean the state is the one providing you with all that juicy hiring information in the first place. Perhaps this gives you an unfair advantage in the free market, and I’m just a concerned libertarian.
Curious what's going on with the stance of presenters? If you look carefully they all stand in a certain way, with a space between their feet that appears to be constant.
This was entertaining to watch because it felt like a parody, a silicon valley marketing sketch. The intros/outros, strained but restrained excitement, over things that are marginal impact.
Like most years, the iphone is iterative. The iphone 15 is better than 14. This is good.
14 was pretty neat with SOS. What was the last "big" update to an iphone, that really shifted the market? Face-ID? removing the front button?
Back in the 2010s there was a TED Talker/grifter who advocated a wider stance to project power and confidence. For a time that notion must have been picked up by political consultants, leading in the UK to the so-called Tory Power Stance:
I've only watched Tim Cook's introduction, but it sounds like his voice is being shifted (autotuned) to sound pitch-perfect. It's pretty uncanny valley and off-putting imho.
The whole presentation evokes the unsettling sensation of the uncanny valley for me. The presenters appear eerily humanoid in their demeanor, posture and gestures. The peculiar emphasis they use on certain words adds to this feeling too. I said this in another comment, their outfits also don't fit with what one would expect in a typical setting, they feel strangely "off" and out of place. Also... the disorienting special effects and the ambiguous nature of the campus visuals (real or simulated...or both? I can't tell) is just ... a lot. I know Apple is going for a certain look with these presentations but for me it's crossed a line. Kind of like watching one of those weird overly produced Netflix shows or something, where the lighting/coloring/etc is all wrong and fake feeling.
The thing that always gets me about these is their wardrobes. Something about them just seems off and I don’t understand the intention behind it. The colors and styles strike me as unusual. Anyone else ever feel this way?
No; that's what media outlets now call "journalists." Discerning citizens (especially those of us with legitimate journalism degrees and experience) don't.
Come on, look at the bright side of things: this project is going to piss off a lot of San Franciscans, exactly the kind that proved, during COVID, that their real values are the exact opposite of the ones they claim to be in favor of.
They should amend this project and add 15 more stories!
Thats a reasonable point - this will open the eyes of San Franciscans to why people like Scott Wiener, Dean Preston and Matt Haney/etc are bad for SF.
It might be a way to break the political logjam of the far left/fauxgressive movement thats paralized this city and wrecked its economy.
I think you are missing the point. The fact the US is considering a ban is OK in my book, even tho I find it a bit amusing to finally see the US do exactly what he blames China for.
However, the behavior and tone of these representatives, with a monomaniac focus on the communist party was quite shocking.
