Why should a small group of activists get to decide for everybody which statues are allowed to stand?

For the same reason we often let a small group of activists decide which statues to erect in the first place?

Many changes which I'd expect are commonly understood to be positive for society started with a small group of activists. Movements start small and public opinion doesn't change overnight. Sometimes public opinion needs a nudge from a small noteworthy action.

Had you ever discussed applying democratic values to the evaluation of the suitability of historical public statues spontaneously, before these actions made the news?

Indeed. Have a popular vote.

It tells you the company values process over efficacy. Interviewing, like practically any complex task is dynamic in nature. Following down a line of conversation with a candidate provides genuine insight into the individual and cannot be done mechanically.

These kinds of attempts at language revision rarely have anything to do with the people supposedly offended by them; they are an excuse to gain moral standing. The goal is to advance a particular political ideology, namely Social Justice, which its advocates believe is in the best interest of said minorities and thus doesn't require the consent of those they choose to speak for.

Neutrality does not "implicitly support the status quo" unless you believe the status quo is stable or exists in a local maxima. That clearly isn't true however because the status quo is dramatically different today than it was historically, and I wouldn't attribute activism for the bulk of those changes.

I dry clean my suits. I thought that was the only way to clean them... am I missing something?

I think most people don't realize this given how normalized it is. Wealth is a mechanism of distributing limited resources, and thus profit seeking without concern for externalities or creating value makes everyone else worse off.

I have known very few managers who didn't routinely lie. The advantages of subtle (or not so subtle) manipulation are too tempting when trying to get something from someone.

One I'm interested in is graph databases powered with linear algebra (see GraphBLAS and RedisGraph). Putting the graph structure in a sparse matrix in GPU memory and doing matrix-multiplication to perform queries means you can effectively traverse the entire graph quickly by using the massive parallel nature of the graphics card.

It's a fascinating set of priories that lead to these policies.

"We trust you enough to run your code in production but we can't let you read another team's code because you might steal it. Yes, the odds that anyone wants to steal the code for this mundane microservice are staggeringly low... and yes you're going to be less productive and more prone to serious bugs by being in the dark, but that's your problem."

I honestly don't even know if it's "you might steal it"

It's just this vague notion of "if you aren't contributing to this repo you don't need to access it" or something.

I wish they hadn't phrased it as "less advanced forms of life", but rather "earlier forms of life". It's a common misunderstanding that evolution favours what we humans would consider improvements, when in reality evolution has no goal.