WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

491

Interesting read into the mindset of these people (just a couple of pages).

It is time that we as an industry abandon the notion that merit is something that can be measured, can be pursued on equal terms by every individual, and can ever be distributed fairly.

It goes on and on like this. The author seems confused though, as if a person is evaluated in some way other than the quality of their work, like they have some sterile merit exam. They don't seem to grasp that it's based on what a person contributes, and that the reason meritocracies exist is that anything not based on merit will fail because it won't produce value. They exist out of necessity rather than fiat.

Interesting read into the mindset of these people (just a couple of pages). > It is time that we as an industry abandon the notion that merit is something that can be measured, can be pursued on equal terms by every individual, and can ever be distributed fairly. It goes on and on like this. The author seems confused though, as if a person is evaluated in some way other than the quality of their work, like they have some sterile merit exam. They don't seem to grasp that it's based on what a person contributes, and that the reason meritocracies exist is that anything *not* based on merit will fail because it won't produce value. They exist out of necessity rather than fiat.
[–] 3 pts 2mo

We understand that working in our field is a privilege, not a right. The negative impact of toxic people in the workplace or the larger community is not offset by their technical contributions.

WUT?

So let say I invent a drug that cures all diseases, birth defects, and handicaps and make people live 500 years. But I announce I hate all niggers, kikes should be exterminated as the vermin they are, and Hitler was right so NO ONE will use my miracle of science? Really?

"You created a miracle but since you like Hitler we won't be using it". That's what this tool says?