355
The PSF has withdrawn a $1.5 million proposal to US government grant program
(pyfound.blogspot.com)
this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2025
355 points (99.4% liked)
Linux
59264 readers
615 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I decided to read the article for once and holy shit.
"These terms included affirming the statement that we “do not, and will not during the term of this financial assistance award, operate any programs that advance or promote DEI, or discriminatory equity ideology in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws."
Good on them for refusing but also government just hindered all the cybersecurity infrastructure involving python because they hire non-white people.
… are they trying to change what DEI even means in the process here? Incredible.
Yup. It's like one of those facebook "DND secretly stands for Devils New Day" rhetoric.
Holy shit
Using the word "irregardless" disqualifies you from any job, anyway. So shouldn't really matter to you.
I like that word. It's like an in-joke that you try to sneak under the radar to see who's paying attention.
Please provide proof that this is in use at the PSF.
Quotas for minorities are a very outdated practice and were used to break the most entrenched norms (women in C-suites).
More modern practices include preferring diversity between equally qualified candidates, ad retargeting and messaging efforts, and inclusive norms at workplaces.
Also, diversity is profitable, it increases both innovativeness and productivity. It seems uniquely stupid to kneecap the economy to benefit your cronies. Then again, maybe that's the whole point of the GOPedo platform: rob the commons.
I suppose that
say everything.
To my understanding of the language (which is not my primary language) they simple ask that no DEI initiative is carried forward and that there is no violation of anti-discrimination laws, so what I read is that PSF is not confident that they will not be able to not carried forward some DEI initiative or to not violate anti-discrimination laws.
Assuming this is the only reason they pulled out and given the usual definition of "DEI"
Cinically speaking, only in cushy jobs...
Well, between equally qualified candidates (if really true) you can just toss a coin.
Diversity could be profitable. Uniformity could be profitable.
The only thing that benefit economy is to choose the best candidate for a given work.
Then good I am not from US.
It seems evident you're not giving an informed opinion.
The Trump administration has deemed presentations of employed women and poc as part of DEI.
I find it hard to see that describing your employee diversity is discriminatory. And the law is quite settled on this not being discriminatory. Changes are being forced by executive order, many of which have been illegal under the current administration.
Diversity has repeatedly been shown to be more profitable than homogeneity, in both academic and gray literature. Besides being good for societal cohesion, fairness, stability, happiness, and moral virtue.
The best candidate is indeed best, but there are too narrow and outdated ideas on how to identify the best candidate, and humans have a bias to choose/hire for safety and similarity over actually relevant criteria, which is why we have the problem in the first place.
I did not say that diversity could not be more profitable, just that it is not always more profitable.
There is no way to solve this problem. I can be the best fit as person but the worst from a technical point of view, like you can be the best from a techincal point of view but the worst from a personal point of view.
Both of us would be a problem, although in different ways, in a team.
And I'm showing you, with sources, that you are wrong on both your points.
It can be reliably and reproducibly measured that diversity is more profitable. It's as "always" as tylenol helps against headaches, trains for travel, google for searches, gravity for keeping you on the ground. Yes, there technically are times these don't work, but it works more often than not, and typically there's other factors when it doesn't.
And similarly, yes you might not always pick the best candidate, but applying robustly provable best practices will lead you to doing it more often.
Do you go through anything else in life in this manner? That if you can't do it perfectly, you'd rather not try? I'd wager not, as trying gets you closer to your goals, even when not meeting them immediately.
I don't know how you didn't spot that Trump is a massive racist and just wants to make life shit for people who aren't white and that's all he cares about. When Trump says DEI, he means black people or hispanic people or anyone who isn't white having a job at all. He calls it equality but he means it racist. I don't know how that can have passed you by. Supporting the racist in chief for equality's sake is insane.
I don't care about Trump, it is not my problem, in EU Trump policies are irrelevant.
But Trump is a consequence, not a cause. You people voted for him. Maybe choose better candidate (both sides of course)
And yet here you are, arguing in support of his policies.
You have that really fucked up for two reasons.
No one like me voted for Trump. People like you voted for him then blamed people like me for their reactionary shit.
Yeah, I should find something more productive to do... you are right.
True, but Trump was elected, he do not magically appeared one night. And if Trump was elected, this can mean two things
choose what better suit yourself, because the point is that people voted for him and not that Trump "created" the voters.
If you wanted to win, you should have put against him someone more credible than Kamala Harris who had as only point the fact that she is a black woman: she got less than 1000 votes during the primary elections of her own party, listening to her TV debates it was chilling. Maybe you should care also about all the non $MINORITY_OF_THE_DAY people.
And that assuming that the Democratic voters even went to vote instead of staying at home horrified by what the party did.
Nodoby even voted for Berlusconi, yet somehow he won more than one election, just saying...
The problem is that people like me are the ones that see what happen, do not say anything but in the end vote based on what they see and what candidates say.
Trump was elected because a very significant minority of Americans are racist, and the Republican party have been eroding democracy for decades.
You refuse to acknowledge that trump is the instigator of a whole bunch of racist shit.
No, the problem is that people like you criticise diversity, equality and inclusion and like to pretend that it's discriminatory when it's working against racial inequality and racial discrimination.
Lol. You wrote paragraphs on why you think DEI is bad and then you blamed DEI policies for the election of trump! You're part of the mindless "blame Democrats for everything whether they oppose it or not" crowd and you are incapable of shutting up about how you think DEI and Democrats are wrong.
Anyone who takes trump or his international chums at their word is an idiot.
"you"?!
For someone who claims to be European, you're pretty bad at realising that there are people who don't live in America (including me, in case that persisted in escaping your attention), and you're pretty bad at realising that it's possible to be against racism whilst not being part of the leadership of the Democratic Party of the United States of America.
Not everyone who is anti-racist is in the DNC, and not everyone in the DNC is anti-racist.
I would have thought that was obvious, but then there is a correlation between racism and lower educational attainment.
Then where was the the majority of Americans ? Why they did not vote against someone that seems to be clearly a racist ?
Can not be the case that the opposing party did such a terrible job that people prefer someone else even if it racist since it is seen as the lesser devil ?
I mean, do you really think that normal people would agree that letting BLM (which was a minority) to devastate cities was a good way to earn votes ? Or calling misogynist or nazi everyone do not think like you will earn you votes ?
No, I refuse to acknowledge your cause-effect.
You say that people is racist because Trump won, I am saying that Trump won because people is racist.
Then it is obviously true that Trump find someone who listen to him but that people where there before Trump, do not spawned after Trump.
I criticize forced diversity, I sustain that equality and inclusion means that everyone has the right to try, not the right to succeed.
But let's assume you are right and DEI is the right thing, so why only in cushy c-level jobs ? No way, half of construction workers need to be women or from minority, half of the surgeons need to be women or from minorities, half of every worker in every job need to be women or from minorities. That would be the best diversity, equality and inclusion you could dream of... until you need a surgeon.
Obviously. You assume that DEI is always good, I say that DEI could be good. But forced DEI is always bad. It is obvious that if people are rejected for some DEI policy they will vote for someone who say that they will delete DEI policies.
No, I am saying that Democrats have lost because they demostrated to be even more incompetent than the Republicans.
To be clear, I think that in the last election Republicans did not win because they did everything right but because Democrats did everything wrong, and DEI policies were only one the things they did wrong.
And that is the reason Democrats have lost. Insulting the voters is never a good way to win. And I could say the same about every voters: if you take any politician chums at their word, you are an idiot.
Oh, I realize that. What you do not realize is that criticizing some ideas or policies do not automatically make me a racist I can agree with the spirit of a policy but not agree on how it is executed and I don't think to be a racist for this.
Absolutely not. I claim that trump is the instigator of a whole bunch of racist shit, not that he causes racism. This was the worst straw man argument ever.
More stuff I never said, more assuming that I run the American Democratic Party (despite never having set foot in the USA).
Lol you got triggered and ranted all day because someone disagreed with Trump's interpretation of discrimination. You agree with trump but you don't want to say so because you don't like admitting that you have a lot in common with the stupid racist in chief.
When we can put all of our brains into robotic bodies with hydraulic tits and have chainsaws for hands the world will be a better place.
I'd vote for you.
Get a load of this (R)etard. Gonna be Secretary of White Trash later this regime.