I want Google to be as 'diverse' as possible. That's because I'd personally like to see them fail as a business, because in my opinion they aren't good for the Internet, and for the software industry in general. And if there's one guaranteed way to make a company irrelevant, and eventually a total failure, it's to hire based on 'diversity' instead of skill and merit.
Scott Adams, the same guy that writes Dilbert, has a similar story. Scott Adams was driven to writing comics because he saw his career hit a dead end from diversity hiring policies where he worked. Ignoring the inherent unequal distributions of qualities among different genetic populations is dangerous. Reality always wins out.
Consider this... If women did the same work as men but for 75% of the wages
Well done, you managed to get every standard taking point in there.
I'll supply the standard responses for you. Women getting paid less is due to things like not valuing them, outright sexism or institutional issues. Since simply having a policy to pay them less is illegal, you don't see companies using that as a business model very often.
Also, you picked the wrong statistic. That's the overall wage gap. You need the equal pay gap, so you can compare like-for-like.
That's the overall wage gap. You need the equal pay gap, so you can compare like-for-like.
Ok, let's go. First, menial tasks: recent Uber data (an extremely SJW company) had women choosing to work shorter hours, choosing less lucrative times of day, choosing less lucrative parts of the city, performing worse when on the same route at the same time of day. That's an unskilled task that requires reflexes. Uber's pay is calculated by a provably fair algorithm.
Then, skilled coding: biggest tech companies have currently extremely biased hiring, with about 25% workforce female. Yet that very same talent pool goes differently when you're not paid for your gender: top 1000 Linux kernel committers: 0.8% female, "key" package (as defined by testing migration) maintainers in Debian Stretch: 0.9%.
Women do have many upsides: much longer life, better ability to distinguish colours (both regular and mutated -- only women can be tetrachromats!), better sense of smell, better sociability. But none of those make you a better engineer. For that, you need more curiosity, higher intelligence, better work ethic (instead of putting kids first), etc.
For the causes, you need to look at hominids 200k years ago. When men were hunting a mammoth, women collected tubers with a kid in tow. Men were expendable, thus today they are still more willing to take risks, which lets them drive that Uber car a bit faster (and modern cars make safety good enough), visualize a 3d solid better, and so on. Women took safer jobs, and the qualities they then needed (ability to tell an edible root from a bad or poisonous one) are still there, except that there's very few jobs that pay well for that skill with colors or smells.
For the causes, you need to look at hominids 200k years ago. When men were hunting a mammoth, women collected tubers with a kid in tow. Men were expendable, thus today they are still more willing to take risks
You don't have to go back 200k years; you can go back 10k years and find the same thing. There's very little reason to believe that the previous 190k years were any different in that respect.
There's very little reason to believe that the previous 190k years were any different in that respect.
'Humans' that long ago didn't even have the same teeth. They were wildly different than modern humans. There is every reason to believe that 190k years earlier were quite different, both in culture and physiology. My god, think before you talk.
O okay you totally convinced me that women are physically equal to men, and biologically identical in literally every single way, because you can't find enough bones from 190k years ago.
You have comprehension problems. While there are clearly biological differences between men and women, drawing firm conclusions based on skeletons from 200,000 years ago is not possible. At this point, we still don't know which particular fossils are even ancestors of modern humans.
Plenty of differences, for sure, but look at modern apes, and you'll see male aggression and risk taking, and female nurturing.
It makes sense from a biological evolutionary perspective. A female has to carry the baby to term, at a great personal investment, therefore the female is very selective in picking the right male to have sex with. This leads to a high risk/high reward situation for the males, competing for the same females.
It makes sense from a biological evolutionary perspective. A female has to carry the baby to term, at a great personal investment, therefore the female is very selective in picking the right male to have sex with. This leads to a high risk/high reward situation for the males, competing for the same females.
This is indeed a logical hypothesis. Until you do the experiment, it's just speculation.
You're flailing. First of all homo sapiens are accepted to possibly be as old as 350k years with little in the way of major change. Setting that aside, you see the same thing with great apes. Chimps might have a token female in their squad as they roam hunting and maintaining territory but that female is always a straggler participating in what the males initiate. I'm not even sure why you could possibly expect anything different... It's like people realize they cannot argue against evolution in body co
Chimps might have a token female in their squad as they roam hunting and maintaining territory but that female is always a straggler participating in what the males initiate. I'm not even sure why you could possibly expect anything different..
You don't understand why you could expect something different between chimpanzee culture and physiology and human culture and physiology?
Are you really arguing that what happened 10,000 years ago when the physical differences between males and females were important to survival has some kind of relevance to doing an office job today?
I'm kind of at a loss to know what you think you even mean by "SJW" any more.
By "SJW", I mean believers in a recent extremely vile religion that preaches racial and gender discrimination, is thoroughly anti-scientific, sanctimonious and self-righteous. It also doesn't self-identify as religion to be able to exploit avenues of disseminating and legislating their rules that would be otherwise banned (kind of like L. Ron Hubbard exploited identifying as a religion).
Ah yes we hunted the mammoth.
It was hunting by humans that offed the species (that survived millions of years worth of ice age cycles, so habitat shif
I mean it used to be shorthand for "grandstanding, virtue signaling, demagogic assholes"
FTFY
From Salon writing a dozen fainting couches on a Game of Thrones [salon.com] rape scene while ignoring Theon's mutilation in the previous season and cannibals munching on a village in the same episode, to Marvel not race swapping Iron Fist, [kotaku.com.au] to pretending two wankers who complain about a black stormtrooper on Twitter means Star Wars fans are racist (nevermind 35 years of Londo).....yeah, SJW's are a thing.
The difference between progressive and regressive (SJW).
A progressive wants to improve life for all, usually with a focus based on class. A regressive wants to mainly focus on those ranked higher on the "regressive stack" (based on things like skin color and sexuality); if something is detrimental to someone lower on the regressive stack, but it benefits someone higher on the regressive stack, then it's okay ("the ends justifies the means").
A progressive tries their best to be "color blind" (as in, all people should be treated the same, everyone should have the same opportunities). A regressive believes that things like skin color and sexuality are more important than values or content of character.
A regressive will place those higher on the regressive stack on pedestals; you cannot joke or criticize these people, but you can joke, criticize, or wish death upon those lower on the regressive stack.
A regressive thinks in black-and-white terms with little nuance. You are either 100% with their cause, or you are 100% against. There is typically very little middle ground in their mind.
A progressive uses "privilege" to make people think about their position (i.e. "You (male/female) never have to think about which bathroom you have to go into. Other people would like to feel that way too."). A regressive uses "privilege" to shame and guilt, much like bad religious institutions (i.e. "Check your privilege!").
A regressive is fine with segregated spaces, but only for those higher on the regressive stack (such as black-only college dorms); anyone lower must 100% not have any space only for their group.
A progressive might respect culture but understands it can be fluid and not everyone celebrates all aspects of cultures the same (especially in melting pots such as the US). A regressive believes cultural appropriation is everywhere and that there is an inherent "cultural copyright" that only members of said culture can participate or allow others to participate in (while being uneducated about the origins of certain things, such as dreadlocks, or believing that only Mexicans can wear sombreros).
A progressive believes that even though people have done bad things in the past (or even present), blame is not to be put upon those that are part of those groups that did not take action in those things. A regressive believes in original sin (particularly for those lower on the regressive stack) and that blame and responsibility should be shared across generations and groups.
A progressive believes that, even if what one says is terrible and disgusting, people have the right to express their views. Bad ideas should be exposed so that they can be critiqued and shown why they are bad. A regressive believes that anything they deem bad should be suppressed at all costs; violence and censorship are perfectly fine to use ("no bad tactics, only bad targets").
A progressive seeks allies; the progressive and the ally may not agree on all things at all times, but will generally share a base set of values. The ally is an individual and is respected as such. A regressive seeks servants, under the guise of seeking allies; servants are not allowed to question anything the regressive says or does, and must always defer/be quiet/give up things or spaces to those higher on the progressive stack.
Agreed. It's a huge problem with the progressive movement. Regressives are really good at shaming and shouting out progressives, and getting other people to believe that they're on the side of good (I think they're just really good at lobbing accusations of "racist" and "sexist", which nobody wants to have happen to them). Hopefully their momentum will die down soon and we can get back to actual progressiveness.
Uber, the company known for having an extremely toxic, sexist work environment and for trying to silence victims of sexual assault is "an extremely SJW company"?
I'm not even going to bother with the rest, it's so divorced from reality and carefully cherry picked. This being Slashdot, it will only get modded "troll" and "flamebait" anyway.
You start out with real points (women frequently choose less demanding schedules, forgo advancement, men are driven to compete based on sexual selection), transition into shakier ground (linux coders), and somehow end up absolutely wrong (women need jobs involving their sense of smell????)
The problem with your argument, and most arguments around this topic is that outside the very cutthroat, analytic world of tech women are winning. The most important part of a woman's world in the past was not smelling tub
You start out with real points (women frequently choose less demanding schedules, forgo advancement, men are driven to compete based on sexual selection), transition into shakier ground (linux coders), and somehow end up absolutely wrong (women need jobs involving their sense of smell????)
How my data about kernel and Debian coders is "shaky"?
Here's my methodology (applied to Debian stretch, kernel data was less strict): first, I looked at the first name. If it was gender-obvious (I know western and slavic names), I took that. If not, I looked into Debian's ldap (it holds data only about official members, and the "gender" field is often empty). Otherwise, I did ~60 seconds of duckduckgoing for the person; if that didn't reveal the gender I left it unknown. From the data, I also removed on
The trouble with a lot of self-made men is that they worship their creator.
Who Cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the purpose of this article supposed to be?
I want Google to be very 'diverse' (Score:5, Insightful)
I want Google to be as 'diverse' as possible. That's because I'd personally like to see them fail as a business, because in my opinion they aren't good for the Internet, and for the software industry in general. And if there's one guaranteed way to make a company irrelevant, and eventually a total failure, it's to hire based on 'diversity' instead of skill and merit.
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Interview with a manager that saw his company die from diversity hiring:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Scott Adams, the same guy that writes Dilbert, has a similar story. Scott Adams was driven to writing comics because he saw his career hit a dead end from diversity hiring policies where he worked. Ignoring the inherent unequal distributions of qualities among different genetic populations is dangerous. Reality always wins out.
Consider this... If women did the same work as men but for 75% of the wages
Re: (Score:-1, Flamebait)
Well done, you managed to get every standard taking point in there.
I'll supply the standard responses for you. Women getting paid less is due to things like not valuing them, outright sexism or institutional issues. Since simply having a policy to pay them less is illegal, you don't see companies using that as a business model very often.
Also, you picked the wrong statistic. That's the overall wage gap. You need the equal pay gap, so you can compare like-for-like.
Obviously, only the deliberately obtuse are
Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' (Score:5, Interesting)
That's the overall wage gap. You need the equal pay gap, so you can compare like-for-like.
Ok, let's go. First, menial tasks: recent Uber data (an extremely SJW company) had women choosing to work shorter hours, choosing less lucrative times of day, choosing less lucrative parts of the city, performing worse when on the same route at the same time of day. That's an unskilled task that requires reflexes. Uber's pay is calculated by a provably fair algorithm.
Then, skilled coding: biggest tech companies have currently extremely biased hiring, with about 25% workforce female. Yet that very same talent pool goes differently when you're not paid for your gender: top 1000 Linux kernel committers: 0.8% female, "key" package (as defined by testing migration) maintainers in Debian Stretch: 0.9%.
Women do have many upsides: much longer life, better ability to distinguish colours (both regular and mutated -- only women can be tetrachromats!), better sense of smell, better sociability. But none of those make you a better engineer. For that, you need more curiosity, higher intelligence, better work ethic (instead of putting kids first), etc.
For the causes, you need to look at hominids 200k years ago. When men were hunting a mammoth, women collected tubers with a kid in tow. Men were expendable, thus today they are still more willing to take risks, which lets them drive that Uber car a bit faster (and modern cars make safety good enough), visualize a 3d solid better, and so on. Women took safer jobs, and the qualities they then needed (ability to tell an edible root from a bad or poisonous one) are still there, except that there's very few jobs that pay well for that skill with colors or smells.
Re: (Score:2)
For the causes, you need to look at hominids 200k years ago. When men were hunting a mammoth, women collected tubers with a kid in tow. Men were expendable, thus today they are still more willing to take risks
That's extremely speculative.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: I want Google to be very 'diverse' (Score:2)
You don't have to go back 200k years; you can go back 10k years and find the same thing. There's very little reason to believe that the previous 190k years were any different in that respect.
Re: (Score:2)
There's very little reason to believe that the previous 190k years were any different in that respect.
'Humans' that long ago didn't even have the same teeth. They were wildly different than modern humans. There is every reason to believe that 190k years earlier were quite different, both in culture and physiology. My god, think before you talk.
Re: (Score:2)
O okay you totally convinced me that women are physically equal to men, and biologically identical in literally every single way, because you can't find enough bones from 190k years ago.
You have comprehension problems. While there are clearly biological differences between men and women, drawing firm conclusions based on skeletons from 200,000 years ago is not possible. At this point, we still don't know which particular fossils are even ancestors of modern humans.
Re: (Score:3)
Plenty of differences, for sure, but look at modern apes, and you'll see male aggression and risk taking, and female nurturing.
It makes sense from a biological evolutionary perspective. A female has to carry the baby to term, at a great personal investment, therefore the female is very selective in picking the right male to have sex with. This leads to a high risk/high reward situation for the males, competing for the same females.
Re: (Score:2)
It makes sense from a biological evolutionary perspective. A female has to carry the baby to term, at a great personal investment, therefore the female is very selective in picking the right male to have sex with. This leads to a high risk/high reward situation for the males, competing for the same females.
This is indeed a logical hypothesis. Until you do the experiment, it's just speculation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Chimps might have a token female in their squad as they roam hunting and maintaining territory but that female is always a straggler participating in what the males initiate. I'm not even sure why you could possibly expect anything different..
You don't understand why you could expect something different between chimpanzee culture and physiology and human culture and physiology?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you really arguing that what happened 10,000 years ago when the physical differences between males and females were important to survival has some kind of relevance to doing an office job today?
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
I had to bring the signature back. This is a new level of SJW panic ridiculousness.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm kind of at a loss to know what you think you even mean by "SJW" any more.
By "SJW", I mean believers in a recent extremely vile religion that preaches racial and gender discrimination, is thoroughly anti-scientific, sanctimonious and self-righteous. It also doesn't self-identify as religion to be able to exploit avenues of disseminating and legislating their rules that would be otherwise banned (kind of like L. Ron Hubbard exploited identifying as a religion).
Ah yes we hunted the mammoth.
It was hunting by humans that offed the species (that survived millions of years worth of ice age cycles, so habitat shif
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY
From Salon writing a dozen fainting couches on a Game of Thrones [salon.com] rape scene while ignoring Theon's mutilation in the previous season and cannibals munching on a village in the same episode, to Marvel not race swapping Iron Fist, [kotaku.com.au] to pretending two wankers who complain about a black stormtrooper on Twitter means Star Wars fans are racist (nevermind 35 years of Londo).....yeah, SJW's are a thing.
Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's what SJW (regressive) means:
The difference between progressive and regressive (SJW).
A progressive wants to improve life for all, usually with a focus based on class. A regressive wants to mainly focus on those ranked higher on the "regressive stack" (based on things like skin color and sexuality); if something is detrimental to someone lower on the regressive stack, but it benefits someone higher on the regressive stack, then it's okay ("the ends justifies the means").
A progressive tries their best to be "color blind" (as in, all people should be treated the same, everyone should have the same opportunities). A regressive believes that things like skin color and sexuality are more important than values or content of character.
A regressive will place those higher on the regressive stack on pedestals; you cannot joke or criticize these people, but you can joke, criticize, or wish death upon those lower on the regressive stack.
A regressive thinks in black-and-white terms with little nuance. You are either 100% with their cause, or you are 100% against. There is typically very little middle ground in their mind.
A progressive uses "privilege" to make people think about their position (i.e. "You (male/female) never have to think about which bathroom you have to go into. Other people would like to feel that way too."). A regressive uses "privilege" to shame and guilt, much like bad religious institutions (i.e. "Check your privilege!").
A regressive is fine with segregated spaces, but only for those higher on the regressive stack (such as black-only college dorms); anyone lower must 100% not have any space only for their group.
A progressive might respect culture but understands it can be fluid and not everyone celebrates all aspects of cultures the same (especially in melting pots such as the US). A regressive believes cultural appropriation is everywhere and that there is an inherent "cultural copyright" that only members of said culture can participate or allow others to participate in (while being uneducated about the origins of certain things, such as dreadlocks, or believing that only Mexicans can wear sombreros).
A progressive believes that even though people have done bad things in the past (or even present), blame is not to be put upon those that are part of those groups that did not take action in those things. A regressive believes in original sin (particularly for those lower on the regressive stack) and that blame and responsibility should be shared across generations and groups.
A progressive believes that, even if what one says is terrible and disgusting, people have the right to express their views. Bad ideas should be exposed so that they can be critiqued and shown why they are bad. A regressive believes that anything they deem bad should be suppressed at all costs; violence and censorship are perfectly fine to use ("no bad tactics, only bad targets").
A progressive seeks allies; the progressive and the ally may not agree on all things at all times, but will generally share a base set of values. The ally is an individual and is respected as such. A regressive seeks servants, under the guise of seeking allies; servants are not allowed to question anything the regressive says or does, and must always defer/be quiet/give up things or spaces to those higher on the progressive stack.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
recent Uber data (an extremely SJW company)
I... What?!?
Uber, the company known for having an extremely toxic, sexist work environment and for trying to silence victims of sexual assault is "an extremely SJW company"?
I'm not even going to bother with the rest, it's so divorced from reality and carefully cherry picked. This being Slashdot, it will only get modded "troll" and "flamebait" anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything else is fine , but
Uber's pay is calculated by a provably fair algorithm
Do you have the source code for Uber's algorithm ? Or what black-box-testing can be performed on Uber to "prove" such things ?
Re: (Score:2)
You start out with real points (women frequently choose less demanding schedules, forgo advancement, men are driven to compete based on sexual selection), transition into shakier ground (linux coders), and somehow end up absolutely wrong (women need jobs involving their sense of smell????)
The problem with your argument, and most arguments around this topic is that outside the very cutthroat, analytic world of tech women are winning. The most important part of a woman's world in the past was not smelling tub
Re: (Score:2)
You start out with real points (women frequently choose less demanding schedules, forgo advancement, men are driven to compete based on sexual selection), transition into shakier ground (linux coders), and somehow end up absolutely wrong (women need jobs involving their sense of smell????)
How my data about kernel and Debian coders is "shaky"?
Here's my methodology (applied to Debian stretch, kernel data was less strict): first, I looked at the first name. If it was gender-obvious (I know western and slavic names), I took that. If not, I looked into Debian's ldap (it holds data only about official members, and the "gender" field is often empty). Otherwise, I did ~60 seconds of duckduckgoing for the person; if that didn't reveal the gender I left it unknown. From the data, I also removed on