> In addition, states had to prove that they promoted participation from minority-owned businesses, women-owned businesses, and “other socially or economically disadvantaged individual-owned businesses.” They also had to create a Five-Year Action Plan that required collaborating with unions and “underrepresented communities,” including prisoners, LGBTQI+ individuals, women, and people of color.
If you support incorporating race and identity group preferences into government infrastructure projects, just own that instead of obfuscating.
Yes, if you are funding a program to get broadband to underserved areas, including rural and low income populations, it's reasonable to require a plan for outreach so that those groups know they can connect. Why have a program if people don't know about it?
They didn't come up with program out of nowhere, it's been well studied those groups had less connectivity and broadband availability.
I'm not sure what your point is here besides that you dislike inclusion. The point of the program is to level the playing field by offering broadband where it might not normally have been profitable to expand.
Outreach shouldn't slow anyone down. The cost of doing some marketing and data analysis is probably miniscule compared to the actual infrastructure build out.
rayiner's comment mentioning "prisoners, LGBTQI+ individuals, women, and people of color" is not about the build out. It's about community outreach and measuring impact on who is getting connected.
It's all in the Notice of Funding Opportunity for the program.
The only reference to actually diversity in the actual build out are:
* Complying with CFR 200.321, considering MWBE are considered in subcontracting, which is standard in many federal contracts
* Non-discrimination in hiring, also standard in federal contracts
* Encouraging, but not requiring awardees to broaden their recruitment to underrepresented groups:
> Ensuring that subgrantees prioritize hiring local workers and have robust and specific plans to recruit historically underrepresented populations facing labor market barriers and ensure that they have reasonable access to the job opportunities created by subgrantees
The set of people included in the regulations are a subset of all the underserved population. According to the study you linked, they should be a large portion of the underserved population. By cutting the additional regulations, you reduce friction. Let's say there is some (probably small) marginal deprioritization of the groups targeted if you remove those regulations. Even with that, if the states can more easily implement these programs, those target populations will probably benefit on net because investment is more likely to actually happen, and their location intersects with the same locations that qualify for being underserved.
Building infrastructure in this country is already nearly impossible, without adding another whole dimension of things that can be used to bog down and litigate projects to death.
I’ve got 10-gig fiber to my house and drive an SUV, I don’t care. The people who should be most upset about this stuff are the folks who want government to facilitate building fiber, trains, etc.
I like having both, my M12 impact has a speed/torque setting which comes in handy for lighter uses, but the adjustable clutch of drills is also useful for driving screws.
I think a lot of the frustration with using a drill to drive screws is just that the adjustable chuck is annoying to use with a hex shank driver bit, which is solved by drills with interchangeable chuck heads such as Festool's drills with their FastFix chuck system, the Bosch 12v small driver, or the Milwaukee installation driver.
For a lot of my work (stage set construction, light house work) I use an adapter and extender, which helps in awkward corners. It also has a sleeve to hold screws steady.
Sometimes I will use a drill bit with a hex shank, which is nice for swapping out but more expensive. I usually don't end up replacing them .
First they came for people without pronouns their email signature, and I did not speak out because I was not a person without pronouns their email signature.
Nitpick: it can be if you redefine numbers and/or operations. Math is not science (but is used as a basis for science) and you can yourself redefine what 2, 5, + and = mean, and use that new set accordingly. Just like you can make "Sky is green" true if your redefine what either "Sky", "is", or "green" mean - language is also not science so it can be redefined.
Our society has become so both-sides-pilled that one side being right about an issue is no longer even theoretically possible. No matter how correct a conclusion might be, it would get dismissed as cable news echo-chambery. It would be called a derangement syndrome. It's like people believe there's a fixed law of the universe, a law of conservation of debate. All debates will always exist in equilibrium, no matter where the fulcrum meanders over time.
Yeah that’s my point - bad behavior is what’s agreed upon to be bad. Hopefully AI can disincentivize the things you point out as bad. That’s the politics of it.
If you are an adult who rides a bike even semi-regularly, I highly recommend taking a few short practice sessions and practice low speed skills on your bike. Learning to trackstand and ride very slowly will improve your bike handling skills a lot.
Or is it that "woke" now just means any internet infrastructure that isn't Starlink?