Posts by 335/113 5 publicly visible posts • joined 12 Nov 2018
Only an indicative statement can be true. Whether or not it is true depends on the meaning of the words in it, like eg "send". An exhortation isn't the kind of thing that can be true or false, or a lie. Maybe it can be dishonest (as in dishonest intentions), but that's at least as tricky to verify, as what it means.
Thanks for the interesting NHSX link. A reaction.
There may be some jobs for which anything other than pure merit is remotely relevant. Things like flying airplanes (aeroplanes?), preforming surgery, building cranes or hospitals, or research in physics or mathematics aren't among them. Positive, negative or any form of social-engineering discrimination would be, er, frowned upon.
Maybe appearing on the television or in parliament would rule out the Joseph Merricks amongst us. I'd put spending taxpayers money in the first category. JM, or someone identifying as a green wheely-bin would be fine if he or she or it truly understood what they were doing, and I'd hope (close to desperately) the interview panel would focus exclusively on that.
On the Boeing website (I think it is still there), the first thing you see is that there are 42 diversity councils in Boeing. Excellent. Tickety box. There didn't seem to be an awful lot of clued up folk, or wheely-bins reviewing the design of their airplanes (aeroplanes?), or at least being listened to.
You are quite right that making money is one of the main things that incurs a tax; but not that make money=pay tax. Spending money is another main thing that incurs a tax. Or living somewhere. Or dying. (I'm retired, obviously...).
I do like your point, but I'm not comfortable with the idea that behemoths provide their services for free. They use, or exploit, our tax-funded infrastructure: like education, for just one example.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
