Most companies don't care about diversity of any kind for any reason besides PR. Every hiring manager knows that the most productive engineering teams are made up of 100% Asian cis-male Libertarians.
Diversity in terms of measurable metrics, such as women/minorities/LGBT++ being adequately represented, is simply a benchmark that can be paraded around for appeasement purposes.
The curve flattens naturally at some point, always after “something” has been done. That does not mean these two things are related to any significant degree.
You may not notice, that doesn't mean nobody does. Also it can depend on your operating system. Windows 10 (maybe everything now?) forces you to be in vsync, so increasing refresh rate has a non trivial improvement on the # of ms for a keypress response.
Now whether you will notice that can depend what environment you are in. If your editor already has an input latency of 100ms then shaving 8 off probably is not noticeable. But going from 20 to 12 might be.
you can just point a phone camera at the keyboard and screen, record a video clip, blow it up into stills with ffmpeg, and then count frames
Even at 60fps, you should be able to see the difference between 30ms and 100ms. Newer phone cameras often have a "slow motion" mode that'll give you 120+ fps video, too
SOME people can see the difference between 30ms and 100ms, but it's almost impossible to actually see it. You'll mostly end up feeling that everything sucks and not knowing how or why.
If you take 10,000IU because 8895IU is what gets 97.5% of people to 50nmol/L, you are basically assuming you need more supplement than 97.5% of people, which is highly unlikely. There are people "at risk" that have trouble metabolizing the supplement, but chances are you're not one of them.
You need to do blood tests. Don't take 10,000IU daily without consulting a doctor. The "generally considered safe" upper limit is 4000IU. You'll probably be fine with 2000IU. Too much Vitamin D can mess with your calcium and doses as low as 5000IU/daily over a few years have been reported to cause serious problems.
Safari may be fast, especially on mobile, but it sure is holding back everyone on features. The irony is that with WebGL2 and WASM, near-native-speed applications would be possible.
Also, if there were Safari APIs for all their fancy chip features, developers might actually use them widely.
The problem is that if this happened, Apple would lose its monopoly on a good app experience. They need web technology to be crappy, and poor performance is part of that picture.
You're not talking about developers in general, you're talking about web developers—and holding them back a little is almost a positive thing to do at this point.
Why? There's a lot of stuff getting developed with web technology as the platform of choice. Not because developers want to, but because major stakeholders are pushing for it. It enables cross-device deployment without gatekeeping by platform holders and crusty IT departments. Making the platform worse just makes these applications worse, it won't turn them into pristine native applications.
WebAssembly support is there, but it needs SIMD and threads to really be fast. That could happen soon, now that there’s some consensus on the standards for both.
WebGL2 support is just about ready in Safari. They are just about fully moved over to using ANGLE as the WebGL backend which includes WebGL2 support. I tested it out with my app on the Safari Technology Preview and it was flawless (as expected from using ANGLE in Chrome).
Game engines are usually maintained for years if not decades, as they are often enormous investments. However, it's more common to fork (or at least freeze) for a specific project, so in that sense there is more room for ad-hoc solutions.
The difference is that it's a shift in perspective. It's acceptable to say that white people aren't suited to live in Australia. It's not acceptable to say that black people aren't suited to live in the UK, for example.
The same website the OP links to, which is an Australian site, has a page that includes the text, "Vitamin D deficiency may be a greater health concern for people with naturally very dark skin, as it is more difficult for people with this skin type to make vitamin D.".
It's unclear why an Australian site would be going into the question of who is "suited to" live in the UK.
I mean, the low case rates could be due to the lockdowns, not sure about mortality rates unless you're comparing it to places where the ICUs have become overwhelmed.
You're being uncharitable, which is part of the problem. These supplements are "recently invented" in terms of evolutionary history and it's not clear how well they work, compared to actual sun exposure.
"Not suited to" may be a contentious choice of words, but "not adapted to" is plain fact. Not being adapted to an environment confers disadvantages. Perhaps these disadvantages are minor, certainly in this case they are not lethal (in isolation), but from a healthcare perspective, they are important to take into consideration.
Consider that jumping at every opportunity to scold someone choosing their words unwisely does nothing to actually fight racism, but could indirectly harm those people you are intending to help. After all, why would a true racist care about the health outcomes of the races they ostensibly despise? Why would anyone risk investigating genetic differences in medicine, when the payoff is an accusation of racism by well-meaning but uneducated laymen?
> Why would anyone risk investigating genetic differences in medicine, when the payoff is an accusation of racism by well-meaning but uneducated laymen?
You are replying in a thread that above has a link to a great deal of race-specific research done on just Covid-19. There is a large amount of race-specific medicinal research. There is a huge amount of scientific research into medical and sociological factors that pertain to race. You will find it in seconds if you Google for it. Many standard heart-health guides will factor in your ethnicity.
To suggest there isn’t, and there’s some kind of conspiracy is just a form of tired “race realism” bullshit. Just more suggesting that “if we let the facts speak” we’d find some races are superior to others.
People are maladapted to live almost everywhere, which is why we wear warm clothes and sun protection. This whole thing is a racist trope to give cover to the idea that people of colour don’t “belong” in places.
I didn't mean to say that there isn't any race-specific research, but that there is a risk of being called a racist (or a "race realist") associated with doing such research, especially when it gets attention from sensationalist media and keyboard warriors on social media.
Therefore, if there is such a risk, it must have a chilling effect on actual research and on public health relations, even if doesn't outright prevent it from happening at all.
You are demonstrating that there indeed is such a risk, by suggesting that I'm one step away from proclaiming the superiority of the white race. You're not doing anyone any favors with that.
> Furthermore, pointing out that people with darker skin are not adapted to live up north could easily be misconstrued as an anti-immigration stance.
True. That can easily happen. Reason enough to not push that angle, at least not directly. There are other ways of phrasing that.
Besides, for humans, there's no longer such a thing as "being adapted" to the environment, at least not in that limited sense. This is not an Earth versus Mars thing, it's just a matter of latitude.
If natural abilities were such a big factor, we wouldn't need clothes in Norway or Canada to survive in those places, in winter. But we do. Plus heating.
Humans are not "adapted" to live in all environments on Earth, at least not without tools, which includes clothing. So, if your skin is light and you are in an area with high insolation, cover up more and try to spend less time in the sun. Add some sunscreen too. If the skin is darker, do the opposite. Add some supplements as needed. Done. Adapted to the environment.
Diversity in terms of measurable metrics, such as women/minorities/LGBT++ being adequately represented, is simply a benchmark that can be paraded around for appeasement purposes.