Tim cook, a gay man, donated a million to trump. Don’t let Apple pretend they aren’t playing both sides.
But Costco loves us, right?
Welcome to Costco
Your uniqueness will be added to our membership.
Resistance is in aisle 6
They also operate a lot of sweatshops.
Explain what you mean
A sweatshop is where people, namely children and the elderly, work for wages that could not even afford food and water or possibly even no wages at all. In many cases the people are not allowed to leave. Noteworthy past examples include Nike Sweatshops in east asia including Pakistan, Indonesia, and India.
Similarly, Apple runs Sweatshops in India, and in December of 2020 a riot broke out where the unpaid workers trashed the facility that assembles iPhones.
You were referencing Costco. Cite examples of alleged Costco sweatshops please.
And since you’re introducing the Apple example, cite that specifically please. Interested to learn more of India and Apple
No, neither me nor the comment above mine said Costco. It was explicitly apple.
They were probably set off by the loose usage of the word “similarly”.
I’m nearly certain that ALL major tech manufacturers do. So, don’t go thinking that Samsung phone of yours is sweatshop free.
DAMNIT! MAKING ME AGREE WITH APPLE.
God damn Tim Apple
for paying orange man who wants to get rid of DEI
Right, what a lil bitch like the other rich cunts
Apple may be a terrible company, but their pride logo looks so good
They’ve had a rainbow logo for a long time.
And personally, I hope they’ll bring it back. Along with the colorful plastic era. These days it’s all boring aluminium, but Apple used to enjoy actual colourful designs. I love the G3 iMac so much, I’ve got a framed poster of it. Can you imagine how cool an iPhone or tablet would be in these colorful plastic designs?
Making it transparent might encourage pesky users to consider replacing a part.
The annoying thing is… they used to let you do just that! On the G3 iBook you could just lift up the keyboard and replace the RAM and AirPort card. And i’ve been fistdeep in my G3 easter egg to replace the AirPort card.
As a longtime Apple fan, it’s annoying to see what we’ve lost.
They are a terrible company, and yet I’ll always bat for them online because I feel they get more flak than other, even worse tech companies.
Apple was the first company to give you several years of software support instead of one major OS version. Apple, for a while, made devices so easy to repair, it would’ve put them out of business at some point, honestly. Even with the first 8 or so iPhones, they were fairly easy to open up, but I’m talking of course about the PowerPC era, where they’d send you repair manuals with your spare parts. As a private individual.
Apple still makes the highest quality laptops, as far as actual build quality is concerned. That aluminium feels so nice. Also only running 2 or 3 models at once means they’re actually easier to repair, as spare parts aren’t nearly as diverse. I see a HP that doesn’t say “Elitebook” on it and I throw it in the trash, because I ain’t looking for parts for no Pavilion or Envy or whatever.
That said, do I think they actually have any social principles? Hell nah. But they aren’t worse than all the other companies. Apple makes money selling you an overpriced phone. Google only does if you buy a Pixel, which isn’t all that big a marketshare, there’s still Samsung and others in the same space. Google needs to be making money off those too, and they are, via data collection and advertising.
The amount of kool-aid in the post is amazing.
Apple computers have always been on the lower end of support (see their support of hardware as they’ve gone thru different CPU architecture). Windows/Linux has never been this quick to drop support.
Apple hardware has always been hard to repair. Non-standard parts, non-standard screws (pentalobe screws, etc…)
Their laptops have never been the “highest quality”, they are better than average but haven’t ever been the highest quality. Companies like Asus and Sony (when they made laptops) were more reliable (unless you want to compare a $2000 MacBook to a $500 laptop but that’s making sure it isn’t fair.).
And Apple does data collection and ads. Always have. iAd was Apple’s first and started in 2010. And Apple collects a ton of private data about you.
They have always claimed to be doing one thing while in reality been doing the opposite. They get flak because they are the worst for this two-faced behavior.
I figured Apple was because they’ve been silent. Shoutout to Apple
Tim Cook has made it a point to kiss the ring privately on his own while keeping apple neutral so that money keeps flowing in.
Wonder how this is going to affect unemployment. One of the effects people don’t talk about with these programs is that appearance guidelines get rolled back also. All these people with face tattoos and piercings will also suffer from these rollbacks.
Noted.
Tim Cook is really playing both sides of the fence here.
Most also did. Techbros back them mostly used to be rright-libertarian, they just pivoted more and more to republicans once non-right leaning people showed an extreme distaste for GenAI.
Crypto has been leaning right for years and it’s a damn shame IMO. The initial motivation was to create a money supply without automatic annual pay cuts, without corporate bailouts, where we aren’t forced to either invest in a business or work until we die. All humans should share a FOSS money supply. A large percentage of us were leftists or (actual) anarchists.
Then it appreciated really fast and attracted a bunch of get-rich-quick crypto bros who understand nothing and want you to buy their latest shitcoin. And it’s hurt adoption in the long term as a consequence.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they started distancing themselves from the darknet drug markets that got us here.
Recent happenings among payment processors making me considering amending some changes to my open source game engine’s branding guidelines, that I’ll allow projects accepting crypto etc. (still no NFTs), and I will only intervene if people involved with the projects are also involved in rugpulls, or similar scams.
The real fence is capital vs labor, and he doesn’t play both sides of that one
I mean, he did give a generous “personal donation” to the Trump inauguration.
He was going to give it to whoever won. Of course he wants to be on the good side of those in power. It’s not about the president, it’s about Tim Cook.
It’s about him being a dipshit.
If you are in charge of a company whose market cap is larger than most nations’ GDP, you have to engage in diplomacy. Sometimes that’s blatant and overt corruption.
Fuck yeah I love Costco
Well they don’t love you.
They can tout DEI and idpol all they want. They’re still stiffing union workers.
Companies are not things to love.
The least racist is still racist.
I don’t doubt that all companies push back against unions. They force the company to pay more. The only thing I have to say regarding Costco is that it usually pays its employees a much better wage than most stores.
I’ve also heard this. Their employees are generally pretty happy about working there.
apple is so good for having a diverse group of slaves to build their phones
Can someone smarter than me (I know, it’s a low bar) explain how DEI is unconstitutional? Especially when it comes to private enterprises like Apple and Costco?
Edit: okay, I found a decent article that lays it out. While I agree with the basic premise, I know its effect won’t be more equality.
DEI is basically “you know that thing we do where we only hire from the old boys club at our favorite ivy league university? Let’s hold off on that.”
Companies benefit from DEI policies because they expand their hiring pool, so the company ends up with better talent. They’re still aiming to hire the best out of that pool, of course. Companies are motivated by profit, not by reparations.
I know its effect won’t be more equality.
Its effect will be more equality. Unfortunately that is not a good thing for the old boys club, which is what motivates the FUD and disinformation you’ve heard regarding DEI as a buzzword.
My understanding is it’s basically pulling the uno reverse card to suggest it’s anti-white behaviour.
“I got passed over for a promotion cause they needed another minority manager instead of a white one” type stuff
I’m not American so no idea what your constitution says.
the whole DEI inititive generally is to get people who historically underprivileged more positions at work. this however in a few instances, would lead to someone being hired because of their race, rather than skillset. Theres ongoing anti sentiment who fully believe that anything with DEI has made a company gone downhill (with basically 0 evidence, or very anecdotal evidence proving so)
Constitutionally, some claim it to be unconstitutional because of the 14th amendment that states:
“No state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
as the idea of affirmative action, or DEI programs bascially give minorities a higher chance of being hired, therefore the idea is that people were not equally protected under law.
basically programs typically put Whites (and Asians in some contexts, tech jobs and universities) at a disadvantage.
personally, i think most of it is hubabaloo, and most companies know(or should know) the minimum requirement they are looking for out of an employee since most of them already want the cheapest person in the building regardless of race. I just think the argument that they wont hire the best person suited for the job a fallacy, as if they were THAT good, then they would never get passed up to fill some racial quota. No one is going around for example passing up on Jim Keller (cpu architecture guru) over a minority designer who has little experience. for the jobs that require the best, a company will look for it regardless.
I want to add that while I agree that in most companies “most of it is hubabaloo” and the companies just hire qualified people, there are some loud and visible examples of blatantly unqualified people getting a position with only apparent qualification being pronouns in their bio. For example a game developers spokesperson not realizing calling all gamers “insufferable bigoted incels” on social media is not a reasonable way to market a videogame.
So while most companies just call countering biases in hiring DEI, the term DEI for many people is now associated with hiring unqualified people, largely because those rare examples I mentioned being amplified and presented as the norm by right-wingers.
If you ask me, companies should drop the term DEI from their hiring policies and just write them neutrally. Sure, most of the perception of unfairness is probably unfounded, but not all of it. And whether true or not, the perception that the hiring process was not fair by people rejected by the hiring process just builds resentment and builds support for morons like Trump that speak against such policies.
Hiring unqualified people also happens without DEI though and looking at studies on DEI’s impact on productivity it might actually happen more without it in place considering that output usually increases when implementing DEI measures…
A bunch of candidates from diverse backgrounds, the unqualified white dude gets hired out of unconscious systemic racism or out of fear of being flagged as a company with DEI measures in place. Nepotism as well, hire the son of a good employee even though better candidates exist…
Hiring unqualified people also happens without DEI though
Absolutely it does.
looking at studies on DEI’s impact on productivity it might actually happen more without it in place considering that output usually increases when implementing DEI measures…
Maybe, but I am sceptical in trusting studies like this, since they are rarely unbiased.
But even assuming it is true, making these policies obvious and giving them a name (DEI) creates an easy target to point at when assholes rouse hate against minorities. So as I said, I don’t think it is worth it in the long term. Plus, it probably also helps create/reinforce the subconscious notion that minorities need help to qualify for jobs, rather than being equal. Appearances matter when trying to win people over.
Because of subconscious notions they do need help to get jobs they’re qualified for. Hell, being bald is a deterrent, being called Kevin is a deterrent, being short is a deterrent to get hired with similar qualifications!
According to AI, not having a bookshelf in the background of a video call is a deterrent.
But why not do blind remote interviews or similar neutral policy? DEI doesn’t help any of the people you mentioned.
“Our new fairness in hiring program ensures we hire strictly on merit by eliminating human biases using cutting edge technology.”
You can’t argue against that. Compare that with random DEI selling pitch and tell me you don’t see how DEI is unnecessarily divisive.
Hiring on merit means only hiring white men because from birth they have an advantage. Unless you ignore all socio-economic issues people need to deal with throughout their whole lives, hiring based on merit only makes no sense, sometimes you have to give a chance to people you wouldn’t naturally give a chance to in order to break centuries old practices. Maybe in a thousand year a black kid will have exactly the same opportunities as a white kid, but it’s not the case now.
