Slashdot Mirror


Diversity At Google Hasn't Changed Much Over the Last Year (cnet.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNET: Not much changed at Google over the last year when it came to the diversity of the tech giant's workforce. Google released its annual diversity report on Thursday detailing the composition of its workforce. The percentage of female employees rose by .1 percent to 30.9 percent. The percentage of Asian employees grew by 1.6 percent to 36.3 percent. The number of black and Latino employees grew by .1 percent to 2.5 percent and 3.6 percent, respectively.

"Google's workforce data demonstrates that if we want a better outcome, we need to evolve our approach," said Danielle Brown, chief diversity and inclusion officer at Google, in the report. "That's why from now on ownership for diversity and inclusion will be shared between Google's leadership team, People Operations and Googlers. Our strategy doesn't provide all the answers, but we believe it will help us find them."

439 comments

  1. Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's the purpose of this article supposed to be?

    1. Re: Who Cares? by hlavac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      +1 Get lost with the feminist propaganda

    2. Re:Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just lazy flamebait.

    3. Re:Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The story is that white employment at google fell over 8 percent in only 4 years!

    4. Re:Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not me.

    5. Re:Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the purpose of this article supposed to be?

      to remind you that we're all equally good at programming and that google is obviously engaged in blatant racial discrimination. did i get this right?

    6. Re:Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      #NotMeToo

    7. Re:Who Cares? by blindseer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The story is that white employment at google fell over 8 percent in only 4 years!

      I agree, that is amazing. To do that they'd have to do some serious "diversity" hiring. I assume that Google will be reluctant to fire productive workers, that is unless they expose their racism in a document that was leaked outside the company. Therefore the shift in demographics must come from natural attrition (people die, take different jobs, retire, etc.) and new hires. Unless a company is growing rapidly, and there's a pool of untapped "diversity" to draw from, they can shift only so fast.

      I suspect that this pool of diverse employees must be very thin because graduates in fields like computer science is still dominated by white Christian males. There's a 2 to 1, or perhaps as high as 4 to 1, ratio of men to women graduating in these majors, depending on who you ask. I found out that women owned small businesses can get preferential treatment in Illinois. Unless your business is located where this kind of preferential treatment exists then your pool of hires will be less diverse.

      That brings a saying I heard to mind, diversity is such a great idea that it takes the force of government to create.

      Good job, Google! You are now well on the way to "diversify" yourself into oblivion. Keep this up and in maybe 4 or 8 more years you'll be begging for your "diversity" to move to Illinois where the government can pay for their reduced output at increased wages.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    8. Re:Who Cares? by hackel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Where the fuck do you get "Christian" from? White male, yes (in the US and Europe), but the vast majority of computer scientists I've met are atheist—particularly the white, male ones. Obviously the field attracts people who tend to be very analytical and rational. Of course you get the occasional religious freak, but it's rare.

    9. Re:Who Cares? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      If you work in the computer industry, this trend is going to affect you, whether you care or not.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    10. Re:Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am thinking that there must exist somewhere a document saying VP level approval needed to hire any white guys. Will be interesting to parse the language in that in the courtroom.

    11. Re: Who Cares? by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not so much about feminism, it's social justice, and I'm not using that term pejoratively here or anywhere in this post, and I'm being sincere about this. The complaint about Google is that they aren't meeting enough diversity quotas that social justice warriors say they should. For example, they don't have enough black engineers. This used to annoy me, and normally I'd say what's wrong with merit based hiring? But no more. Google is obviously trying to push social justice with the way they delete and demonetize YouTube videos that have otherwise benign content, including two transexuals that committed the crime of not being left leaning, and two black ladies that were guilty of the same crime. That, and the way Google instills a culture of fear against employees don't de-diversify and join the echo chamber. I think it's time Google ate its own shit.

      Silicon Valley is progressive, and California is as well, right? So why doesn't progressive California together, with progressive San Francisco (and its surrounding progressive cities) force progressive Google to start hiring on more diverse talent? Would it not be the progressive thing to do? I'm being serious here. Would that not promote social justice? In fact, why not force them to replace their Chief Diversity Officer with a notable civil rights leader? Obviously their existing CDO isn't doing her job. Really, how can it be argued that she is? Google's diversity numbers are even worse now than they were last year.

      Google is mostly white males, which means it is in need of a re-balancing. Not enough black people? Fire enough white guys to make room. Don't worry, they're progressive, they'll understand that this is for the better good, because they also support equality. Not enough latino guys? Fire more white guys. Not enough native americans? Pacific islanders? You know what to do. Asians are over-represented? Don't worry about it, they're minorities, just don't hire any more until their numbers go down to meet the ratio. When dismissing white guys, make sure that the cisexual ones are the first to go. Once the ratios are representative of the population, you can hire white hetereosexual males again, just make sure the ratios remain intact. Again, they're progressives, in progressive California. They'll understand. The progressives know that white males got there from white privilege, and all of this is necessary. Having removed enough white males, this should help balance out the male to female ratio. If not, begin dismissing the minorities of most privilege, i.e. homosexual white males. Don't worry though as it won't come to that, the white population makes up quite a big percentage of the overall population.

      I'm being serious about that. I'm a white male and I honestly couldn't care less. Do this with facebook too. Facebook and Google, more than all, should be the first movers, and fine them hard if they don't do this. So be honest, whom among the social justice warriors (again, not being pejorative here) and progressives would not want this? It sets out to accomplish one of your biggest goals. If not, why not?
      .

    12. Re:Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why this obsession over what people look like or what genitals they have? Just so HR can show a pretty "diversity" graph? The value of diversity is in getting groups of people together who have different views, approaches and skills, not about what they look like.

    13. Re:Who Cares? by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      I tend to think that if they were christian, then instead of Linux we'd have Temple OS.

    14. Re:Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Googler here, staying anonymous for obvious reasons.

      Honestly, there is a huge amount of care for this topic at the company from a certain very loud segment. There are also feminist groups circling the company with frivolous lawsuits. It's despicable, there is absolutely NO bias against non-white non-male candidates. We make every effort to recruit and retain people of any kind -- AS LONG AS THEY ARE ACTUALLY COMPETENT.

      That last part is what these screeching harpies really care about. We can't MAKE people interested and competent with this stuff, they're barking up the wrong tree. They need to start looking within, and at the education system. Perhaps different people are attracted to studying different things?

      It's not like we can skew the demographics outside the company, what more do they want from us????

    15. Re:Who Cares? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I like the example of the glass staircase at an apple store. Cool idea, it looked nice, but there was clearly no woman on the design team because that is really awkward to climb in a dress.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    16. Re:Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its suppose to stir your pot. Which is why I have an ad blocker.

    17. Re:Who Cares? by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Informative

      Where the fuck do you get "Christian" from? White male, yes (in the US and Europe), but the vast majority of computer scientists I've met are atheist—particularly the white, male ones. Obviously the field attracts people who tend to be very analytical and rational. Of course you get the occasional religious freak, but it's rare.

      Maybe your social circle is limited, or maybe you aren't widely read.

      Books in Print by Donald E. Knuth
      - 3:16 Bible Texts Illuminated
      - Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About

      Bacon, Bayes, Euler, Galileo, Leibniz, Maxwell, Newton, Pascal, Riemann . . . I could go on. I doubt you will illuminate STEM in the way they did, and they believed in God. It seems atheism is not a requirement for rational thinking, let along science and mathematics. That is a conceit that seems to be popular on Slashdot, but there is little to it.

      List of Christians in science and technology

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    18. Re:Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...but the vast majority of computer scientists I've met are atheist—particularly the white, male ones. Obviously the field attracts people who tend to be very analytical and rational. Of course you get the occasional religious freak, but it's rare.

      Well Donald Knuth is a practicing Lutheran.

    19. Re:Who Cares? by William+Baric · · Score: 2

      First, East Asians place a much greater value in hard work than those of European descent.

      Second, the nobility had a lot more influence on European culture than the clergy. If you look at Islam, you'll see that Muslims still follow the Quran pretty much to the letter. That's not the case for Christianity at all. The reason is because Christianity had to adapt to European culture. Christianity is the product of European culture, it is not the cause of European culture. Qualifying European culture as "Christian culture" is really wrong.

      Third, Jews were always an insignificant minority and for most of the time no one cared about them. Until recently, they were not considered as British, French or Germans, they were considered as Jews. Your excuse to use the word "Christian" as a way to separate Europeans from Jews doesn't make much sense.

    20. Re: Who Cares? by c6gunner · · Score: 1, Troll

      This is almost as retarded as when that one group of Christian idiots put together a list of something like 700 scientists who don't believe in evolution.

      Yeah, Sherlock, you can always find exceptions. You have to be a moron to think that you're actually proving anything, though.

    21. Re:Who Cares? by Ocker3 · · Score: 1

      Christianity has been falling in the USA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    22. Re: Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To demoralize white people.

    23. Re:Who Cares? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      but the vast majority of computer scientists I've met are atheist

      Interesting. Yet another thing that needs to be fixed.

    24. Re:Who Cares? by Ocker3 · · Score: 1

      Now There's a truth!

    25. Re: Who Cares? by c6gunner · · Score: 3, Funny

      Why would you assume that only women wear dresses you sexist shitlord. I'll have you know I'm wearing a kilt right now.

    26. Re: Who Cares? by c6gunner · · Score: 2

      They want you to start hiring unqualified and incompetent candidates, obviously. They don't give a shit about your survival as a company; they only care about their ideology.

    27. Re: Who Cares? by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Google is already hiring a higher percentage of women and minorities than exist in the general population. They are already taking more than their fair share. The only real solution if they want more diversity without stealing from each other is to increase the diversity in the general population but this is hard for a company even as large as google to do. It would likely need to start in grade school and still has to deal with all the subtle factors that cause men and women to choose different careers.

    28. Re: Who Cares? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      >Why would you assume that only women wear dresses you sexist shitlord. I'll have you know I'm wearing a kilt right now.

      What? WHY WEREN'T YOU ON THAT DESIGN TEAM?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    29. Re: Who Cares? by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      LOL . . . right . . . "exceptions" . . . . I suppose if you want to call them "exceptions" it should be noted that many of them are seminal figures in the history of math an science. Seminal figures tend to be "exceptions." And contrary to the your nonsense claim it is easily seen that Christians have played key roles in the development of math and science in the West. If you want to deny that you are moving into the realm of parody. You might as well put on a John Cleese voice and ask, "What have Christians ever done for math and science?" That could get to be a long and embarrassing list.

      If you go down that road I might have to ask: are you from the Canadian Atheist's Front, or the Atheist Front of Canada? Militant, but not mindful of history.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    30. Re:Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Showing how Google managers can be guilty of using bad metrics, such like managers in every other company.

    31. Re: Who Cares? by c6gunner · · Score: 1, Insightful

      1. He was talking about the present, and it's telling that you have to scroll back hundreds of years to come up with your "seminal figures".

      2. Christians have undoubtedly contributed to math and science, but so have Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Nazis, communists, anarchists, puritans, etc, et al. Only a moron would confuse the individual with the ideology and claim that Nazism isn't a cancer because some Nazis did good science (or that Nazis aren't a minority in the sciences, because, like, Von Braun and stuff).

    32. Re:Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To let everyone know getting a job at Google all depends on your race, sex, and nationality. Oh, you should add sexual orientation to the mix but they are trying to down play this in their hiring practices. Might as well make political affiliations to the list as well.

      White heterosexual males and those who do not worship the progressive political agenda. Seems to me Google has opened themselves up to a massive class action lawsuit in the near future. And the lawsuit will certainly address the "diversity" issue but not in the way most people would like. Googles got deep pockets that lawyers will be lining up to take advantage of. Diversity is just a new type of discrimination and there is no law on the books that says only a minority has the right to file discrimination complaints.

    33. Re: Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No to derail your thing since I know you're going for the classic social justice warrior rhetoric, but if you base the demographics on the actual number of peoples of various races living in America the only race over-represented in technology is Asians. Yes, there are certainly more white people than others, but white people are a huge portion of the American racial makeup.

      If SJW's wanted actual representation (spoilers: they don't) they'd demand that Asians be fired.

    34. Re: Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is almost as retarded as when that one group of Christian idiots put together a list of something like 700 scientists who don't believe in evolution.

      Yeah, but how many fo them are named Steve ?

    35. Re: Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I appreciate that you left blacks off of your list in bullet #2. They hadn't even discovered the wheel before colonization, despite having tens or hundreds of thousands of years head start.

    36. Re:Who Cares? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Obviously the field attracts people who tend to be very analytical and rational.

      No, it clearly attracts people who believe thye're super-rational.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    37. Re:Who Cares? by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Propaganda

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    38. Re:Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      White Christian males are still doing all the engineering. The black people and crazed, rainbow-haired "thery/them" crowd are employed to run seminars explaining why white christian males are terrible people, and to take down channels that hurt their feelings.

    39. Re: Who Cares? by bingoUV · · Score: 4, Funny

      Obviously their existing CDO isn't doing her job

      He / she is a diversity hire. To fire him / her and appoint a more efficient one would go against the whole existence of this particular office in the first place.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    40. Re:Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not an atheist. I do not define myself by the non existence of god(s). There is no god(s), and there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster (not sure about this one).

    41. Re:Who Cares? by blindseer · · Score: 0

      Math and science scores have also been falling in the USA. Coincidence? Causation?

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    42. Re: Who Cares? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      Google is obviously trying to push social justice with the way they delete and demonetize YouTube videos that have otherwise benign content, including two transexuals that committed the crime of not being left leaning, and two black ladies that were guilty of the same crime.

      But they also demonetize lots of left leaning channels. And there are plenty of popular, highly profitable far right channels too, such as Carl Benjamin.

      This narrative that Google persecutes the right is demonstrably untrue.

      So why doesn't progressive California together, with progressive San Francisco (and its surrounding progressive cities) force progressive Google to start hiring on more diverse talent?

      Because the issue is not just problem can not be solved that way. There are issues from pre-school to retirement, and Google have actually done quite a lot to help such as providing free educational resources. Mandatory diversity reports for large companies helps create an incentive and an observable metric, while accepting that beyond the headline number the issue is complex and won't be solved quickly.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    43. Re: Who Cares? by thunderclees · · Score: 1

      Nice but this is wrong.
      or at least is an attempt at propaganda
      or is a victim of bad data
      or maybe this is the left mumbling to itself again
      Since S. Asians make up majority of the workforce at Google.
      Face it, determining quotas using race is racism just the same.

      How the Asians became white

    44. Re:Who Cares? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      What's the purpose of this article supposed to be?

      You may not care about "diversity", but I assure you that "diversity" cares about you ... you will be made to care ...

    45. Re: Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. He was talking about the present, and it's telling that you have to scroll back hundreds of years to come up with your "seminal figures".

      Except he doesn't. You're not going to know who Bob the Full Stack Developer in $RANDOMSTARTUP is, though, and insist he's made up.

      In reality, tech's awash in the faithful. They're just smart enough to keep their Sky Daddy to themselves.

    46. Re:Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "diversity is such a great idea" - pushed by those who would destroy western society without any military action.
      I find it interesting that Racism is growing as we import more foreigners that hate us...maybe it isn't racism but the sign of an impending push back.
      Eric Arthur Blair is rolling in his grave as his beloved London is taken over.
      Interesting that he was born in India of all places...

    47. Re:Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you proposing that christian scientists are not rational? Because I can give you a large list of scientists who believed in God. Just to name a few.

      Robert Boyle,
      Michael Faraday,
      William Kelvin,
      Max Planck,
      Albert Einstein,
      Blaise Pascal,
      Erwin Schrodigner,
      Francis Bacon,
      Guglielmo Marconi,
      Louis Pasteur,
      Werner Heisenberg

      Not sure who you're calling a freak but take a good look in a mirror sometime. Some of the greatest discoveries of mankind were made by Christian Scientists.

    48. Re:Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      XD

      Are you actually saying that the drop in religion is directly tied to loss of math and science scores?

      Well lets hear your theory then champ, I need a laugh on a Monday morning.

    49. Re:Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #WasNotMe

    50. Re: Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you saying presently there are no computer scientists or scientists that are Christian?
      "Nazi's????????". Now your just talking out your rear end.

    51. Re: Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, please. Hiring people that are unqualified or uninterested based on trivialities isn't going to accomplish anything. It sucks that most girls and women could care less about technology, but it is what it is. No amount of cajoling or outright imposiition is going to change that. I call millennial alert on this one.

    52. Re: Who Cares? by strikethree · · Score: 2

      I am cool with this as long as it applies to all jobs, not just "some" jobs. Let's make sure the ratios are the same for plumbers, kindergarten teachers, etc.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    53. Re:Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google upper management is completely dominated by jews. There are other kinds of "white males" you know.

    54. Re:Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So has IQ.

    55. Re:Who Cares? by satcat · · Score: 2

      > Bacon, Bayes, Euler, Galileo, Leibniz, Maxwell, Newton, Pascal, Riemann

      Uhh...Well known modern day scientists, yeah... You basically had to believe in a god back then because without the discovery of evolution or the big bang (non-static Universe), nothing made sense without a god.

      The GP comment was overboard, but modern STEM groups skew sharply non-religious compared to the surrounding population. I barely know any religious people. I can think of 1 (the other one announced he was no longer Christian last year). A few "spiritual". People who grew up religious or in religious families and are now atheist, I know a LOT of them.

    56. Re:Who Cares? by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      I assume that Google will be reluctant to fire productive workers

      Google doesn't need to fire anybody; there is a lot of competition for skilled workers. Google has made it clear that they have racial and gender preferences in hiring and promotions, so if you're not a member of their preferred groups, the natural thing to do is to leave the company.

    57. Re:Who Cares? by satcat · · Score: 1

      Whoops, I can think of 2 actually. That's really it though.

    58. Re:Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The big bang is supported by the Catholic Church.

    59. Re:Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good, it's a cancer that needs to be eliminated

    60. Re: Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Random usual cuckiness hitting slashdot.

      Diversity officer is a made up position to placate the hefty SJW presence in SF. People cannot be forced into jobs they do not want to work. The diversity factor at Google is naturally occurring forcing it in some way is going to ruin Google.

    61. Re:Who Cares? by satcat · · Score: 1

      So's evolution (I think? Perhaps not in whole), but the point is that before those ideas existed, you pretty much had to think of species and the universe as static, and that only made sense with a god, and a god that had a particular reason to create humans and suffering etc.

      Whereas with those well-supported scientific theories, things make a lot more sense without a god, or at least without the god of the Abrahamic religions ("a personal God" "who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind" as Einstein put it, rejecting the idea in a letter to a Rabbi).

    62. Re:Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To promote racial, religious and gender tension by dividing people up in clearly defined groups?

    63. Re:Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bacon, Bayes, Euler, Galileo, Leibniz, Maxwell, Newton, Pascal, Riemann . . . I could go on. I doubt you will illuminate STEM in the way they did, and they believed in God. It seems atheism is not a requirement for rational thinking, let along science and mathematics. That is a conceit that seems to be popular on Slashdot, but there is little to it.

      Whoa. Someone's been triggered.

      So triggered you apparently didn't even fully read the post you're replying to. How could he have met Newton, Galileo, etc? Also, how do those people now somehow qualify as computer scientists? Donald Knuth was the only one you mentioned who qualifies. Why the hell is this "informative?"

    64. Re: Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a dress.

      At most it resembles a skirt.

    65. Re: Who Cares? by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      *Appoint* a new one? I'm hoping they can eliminate the office entirely and replace it by an algorithm. At least the algorithm doesn't feel bad when you call it racist.

    66. Re:Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi.

      Thanks for your insightful explanation of Lemarkian racism. Be strong and don't fall for the Darwinian evolution -- we all know giraffes have long necks because of many generations of stretching to reach leaves in high places.

    67. Re: Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the issue is not just problem can not be solved that way

      Typical far-right conservatard talking point. Why are all you cis white males the same? The solution from GP is obviously correct. Fire you honky's and hire more minorities and wymyn. Fucking shitlord

    68. Re: Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would caution that those right leaning among us to not conflate progressivism and social justice with this type of thinking. The evidence of outcomes shows what is, not what causes what is. This may point to injustice within systems of society, or not. Looking at diversity statistics and trying to manipulate numbers to get the right ratios does not fix the root problems and has clearly caused other unintended pendulum swing consequences.

    69. Re: Who Cares? by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      That, or women need to be forced to do the work even if they don't want to do it. If we start picking women at the age of 13 and force them into a life-long career in tech even if there are other things they would rather do, then we can get the percentages up to where they need to be. /s

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    70. Re:Who Cares? by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 2

      Yep, I'd AC on this very reasonable posting, too, if I worked at Google and wanted to stay there. It's pretty much what Damore really said (no relationship to all the blatant out-and-out lies said about what he said) and they fired him for being sane.

    71. Re: Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And there are plenty of popular, highly profitable far right channels too, such as Carl Benjamin.

      If you think Sargon is far right then you're probably looking at the entire political spectrum from the left pole.

    72. Re: Who Cares? by ChatHuant · · Score: 1

      >>Why would you assume that only women wear dresses you sexist shitlord. I'll have you know I'm wearing a kilt right now.

      >What? WHY WEREN'T YOU ON THAT DESIGN TEAM?WHY WEREN'T YOU ON THAT DESIGN TEAM?

      Oh, he was, he was...

    73. Re: Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing exceptional in science has happened to dispprove god since Charles Darwin. Big bang didn't do it. Quantum physics didn't do it. In fact every major scientific discovery since Charles Darwin point closer to Gods existence.

    74. Re:Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where the fuck do you get "Christian" from?

      Maybe your social circle is limited, or maybe you aren't widely read.

      Amen...

      ... is the Egyptian God of Hidden Powers and Wind, and Amen-Ra (AKA Amon-Re) was a defacto monotheism in Ancient Egypt. The conception of "Christ" is an allegory whereby such a consciousness rises from the masses to ascent to the seat of the Pharaoh and those who believe and confess with their mouth in same shall have everlasting impact on life forevermore.

      Pharaoh descends into the underworld to intercede on behalf of his believers and ensure them an afterlife in the hereafter.

      If you are an atheist, then you must at least recognize there is more going on here than mere BS, if you are Christian then the God who Dwells within should guide you, and you'll soon find yourself agreeing with me in every respect (Now, go read the Ancient Greek, Babylonian, and Sumerian legends, then revisit Genesis 6, Book of 1st Enoch, Jubilees, Jasher, etc. and our true history will be revealed).

      That is to say: All the Luciferian NWO control freaks and Freemasonic shenaniganeers are working for the same real & true God. Anyone who doubts such a being can exist needs to go read the patent database regarding mind kontrol then extrapolate 'till your heart's content.

      captcha: keyhole

    75. Re:Who Cares? by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      To promote racial, religious and gender tension by dividing people up in clearly defined groups?

      They failed.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    76. Re: Who Cares? by satcat · · Score: 1

      And yet oddly those most educated in science tend to have the least belief in gods.

      Which god are you talking about? The Catholic one? Which scientific discoveries point to a god other than the god of deism, god of the gaps?

    77. Re: Who Cares? by Spasmodeus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You jest, but this is exactly what happened last year.

      Apple's Diversity Chief was forced out after committing heresy. She said that a room of twelve white men could be diverse, because they could all come from different backgrounds and experiences. She was forced to apologize for this heinously offensive statement, and step down, and she was replaced by a white woman.

      This makes it stunningly clear that what currently passes for social justice advocacy is really more about rigidly enforcing dogma than it is about helping people.

    78. Re: Who Cares? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Guilty as charged.

    79. Re:Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps different people are attracted to studying different things?

      I thought your memo got you fired?

    80. Re: Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No to derail your thing since I know you're going for the classic social justice warrior rhetoric, but if you base the demographics on the actual number of peoples of various races living in America the only race over-represented in technology is Asians. Yes, there are certainly more white people than others, but white people are a huge portion of the American racial makeup.

      If SJW's wanted actual representation (spoilers: they don't) they'd demand that Asians be fired.

      either you forgot the sarcasm tags or you don't know. They ARE pushing for less Asian males in STEM for that reason, it fucks with equality of outcome. Same for education system where weak underperformer groups get lower entrance grades and hand holding, meanwhile Asians have higher ones to try and meet quotas.

    81. Re:Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The story is that white employment at google fell over 8 percent in only 4 years!

      I agree, that is amazing. To do that they'd have to do some serious "diversity" hiring. I assume that Google will be reluctant to fire productive workers, that is unless they expose their racism in a document that was leaked outside the company. Therefore the shift in demographics must come from natural attrition (people die, take different jobs, retire, etc.) and new hires. Unless a company is growing rapidly, and there's a pool of untapped "diversity" to draw from, they can shift only so fast.

      I suspect that this pool of diverse employees must be very thin because graduates in fields like computer science is still dominated by white Christian males. There's a 2 to 1, or perhaps as high as 4 to 1, ratio of men to women graduating in these majors, depending on who you ask. I found out that women owned small businesses can get preferential treatment in Illinois. Unless your business is located where this kind of preferential treatment exists then your pool of hires will be less diverse.

      That brings a saying I heard to mind, diversity is such a great idea that it takes the force of government to create.

      Good job, Google! You are now well on the way to "diversify" yourself into oblivion. Keep this up and in maybe 4 or 8 more years you'll be begging for your "diversity" to move to Illinois where the government can pay for their reduced output at increased wages.

      from what I've seen the only religion they pick out in tech is against Jewish white males, however they treat it as an ethnicity and mean secular Jews so even that doesn't count. It is just white followed by Asian males over representation in science and tech in general they are pushing to reverse and theology isn't really considered.

      In fairness it isn't google causing it but the equality groups who are responsible for the diversity training and have strong hold over their HR department. Generally their HR is mix of useful idiots and ones who know it is BS but do their job properly, protecting corp interests at the expense of employees which is always HRs interest, never the staff. These groups basically have a 2 pronged 1: hire us to do your training etc etc or else...... and 2: Meet these diversity quotas that push our agenda or else we will tar and feather you as a racist company. ALL big science and tech industries have this issue but it is more visible in high profile public arena comapanies who get the brunt of it, also any companies with "progressive" image as part of their brand like google gets heavily manipulated by these groups because they know they wont just tell them to go f*** themselves as preserving that image is big business to them. This is why Damore said he didn't blame Google and explained. I'd already seen it elsewhere so guessed it would be that and he simply confirmed it.

    82. Re:Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know of the insidious nature of Leprosy? It results in the loss of the ability to feel pain, which contributes of the loss of body parts due to repeat and often unnoticed injury. Think of that, they have lost a critical sense that protects them. Likewise Color blindness is the inability to sense differences in color patterns that exist, and other people generally see. People that are color blind don't realize what they can't see. Has it ever occurred to you that you may suffer from a similar spiritual condition? That you can't see "the number "2"" that others see? Are you special because you can see there is nothing there, or because you fail to see what is there? How would you know? How do you explain the continued existence of the Jews?

      The Miracle of Jewish History

      Over three hundred years ago King Louis XIV of France asked Blaise Pascal, the great French philosopher of his day, to give him proof of the existence of miracles. Without a moment's hesitation, Pascal answered,"Why, the Jews, your Majesty-the Jews."

      We don't have to speculate what Pascal meant when he gave this answer, because he took the trouble to spell it out. In his masterwork, Pensees, he explained that the fact that the Jewish people had survived until the seventeenth century-the time period in which he lived-was nothing short of a supernatural phenomenon. . . .

      Jewish history, simply put, defies explanation.

      Mark Twain was an agnostic and a self-acknowledged skeptic, yet he could not help but be overwhelmed by this remarkable truth. This is what he wrote in 1899:

      The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away. The Greek and Roman followed, made a vast noise and they are gone. Other peoples have sprung up, and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out and they sit in twilight now or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew. All other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?

      . . . . more

      Do you not see it? Or perhaps you are "blind." Do you have the capacity to even consider the question?

    83. Re:Who Cares? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      No.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    84. Re:Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Atheist, maybe, but why can't they still belong to a church?

      Belonging to one doesn't mean they have to attend the sermons, does it?

      (Serious question. Not from the USA.)

    85. Re:Who Cares? by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      It's not like we can skew the demographics outside the company, what more do they want from us????

      Don't worry, they're working on that VERY fast with mass immigration and birth rates.

    86. Re: Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing exceptional in science has happened to dispprove god since Charles Darwin. Big bang didn't do it.

      Read Lawrence Krauss's A Universe from Nothing, it provides at least some scientific justification that God is not necessary for the universe to exist.

    87. Re: Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poor straight white male! Life is rough for you.

    88. Re:Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But y u so raciss?

  2. Re:diversity is a false god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You mean religion in general is cancer.

  3. Purple people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's say at Large Company, they have 90% purple people. They produce high quality product in a timely manner.
    I'm a violet person, and I haven't made the cut. Do I demand a job anyway because my skin color is violet? Or look at why I'm not as qualified and try and fix that?

    1. Re:Purple people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither. Instead maybe you should watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9H_cI_WCnE

    2. Re: Purple people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Diversity means not white, therefore 100% purple is 100% diverse. You can't pull the violet card!

      But it's fun to see Google struggle with diversity, because this is the result of their culture and they are a racist company.

  4. nibberizing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hire more nasty niggling Neolith nibber bitches and watch the profit$ drop. GLUBGLUBGLUB.... worked for Silicon Graphics back-in-the-day ... work for GOOGLE now.

  5. The solution is pretty simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google should just fire a bunch of white males and then hire a bunch of diversity-enabled people instead.

    Sure, you won't get the same quality of employee, your entire business will suffer for it because you aren't hiring the best employees for each job, but hey, you'll make those numbers look great finally! And that's what's really important, right?

    I mean, this is just as ridiculous an answer as trying to force companies to hire a bunch of employees that don't actually exist. As stupid as trying to create a new labor imbalance that values gender and skin color over skills, knowledge and experience. Though I do look forward seeing white male as a protected class soon!

    1. Re:The solution is pretty simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easier than that, they should invent a "gay drug" and turn a suitable proportion of the detested white males into diversity-friendly homos.

  6. What James said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Google's workforce data demonstrates that if we want a better outcome, we need to evolve our approach," said Danielle Brown, chief diversity and inclusion officer at Google

    If you had listened to James Damore instead of doing the same illegal things over and over again, you might get a better result.

    1. Re:What James said by Z80a · · Score: 1

      I suspect that those "diversity officers" are there to hire their friends, rather than "diverse people in general".

  7. What is the goal? by Jarwulf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is the goal to have a 50% female workforce even though there's almost no chance of that happening in terms of interest in the general population for the foreseeable future so they'll have to resort to lowering standards or upping hires for more diversity officers and other nontech positions basically defeating the supposed reason they're concerned? What happens if they overshoot the goal and men dip under 50%. Are they just going to not care and ignore it like for how women now earn significantly more college degrees and dominate middle bureaucratic management and nobody gives a crap?

    1. Re:What is the goal? by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Funny

      Who works there?

      Repeat: 'I identify as a black women, now give me a promotion and a big fat raise...'

      Problem solved.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:What is the goal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can decide to identify as a woman, but not as black. That's because being black is hereditary but being a woman is all in your head. Or at least I think that's the excuse I heard.

      dom

    3. Re:What is the goal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ummm, no sweetie. Race is a social construct which doesn't exist anyway.

      t. Shaun King

    4. Re:What is the goal? by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Is the goal to have a 50% female workforce even though there's almost no chance of that happening in terms of interest in the general population for the foreseeable future so they'll have to resort to lowering standards or upping hires for more diversity officers and other nontech positions basically defeating the supposed reason they're concerned?

      Yes.

      What happens if they overshoot the goal and men dip under 50%.

      Nothing.

      Are they just going to not care and ignore it like for how women now earn significantly more college degrees and dominate middle bureaucratic management and nobody gives a crap?

      Yes, but they'll find some other metric to complain about.

      Hope that helps.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    5. Re:What is the goal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Race" is a load of bullshit, but that doesn't mean a whole bunch of people can't make a whole ton of money acting like it is real!

    6. Re:What is the goal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did a 2 year tech degree at a community college. The class before me had 0 females, the one before that had 1, my class had 1 and the class after me had 1 that I know of. The town and surrounding towns were pretty diverse but I only remember about 1/10th being non-white. The job I work at now had grown about 200% a year and we have hired all males. I am not part of the hiring process but I know the rate of females applying is at best 1 in 10 if not worse. Other departments have quite females, but that is typically in the non IT roles.

      At rate, I am not sure how a tech company could get any where near 50%.

  8. Shocking... by MikeRT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who wants to bet their next paycheck that Google's recruiters have never darkened the door at a career fair at a HBC? Where do they think they're likely to find a huge group of black Computer Science majors who aren't African or Caribbean immigrants outside of that?

    Google's not stupid. They know where they could aggressively recruit young black people trying to get engineering degrees, but HBCs are too prole for a company that typically only recruits "from the best." And Google doesn't want proles because they might bring truly shocking perspectives like telling Mr. I Identify as a Dragon that he's a total whack job who needs to stop mixing crystal meth and D&D instead of nodding along. (Working and middle class black people tend to be refreshingly willing to call you on your bullshit compared to the upper class yuppies that dominate places like SV)

    1. Re: Shocking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe you're just engaging in rather stupid and baseless speculation that plays to your leftist delusions.

    2. Re:Shocking... by grasshoppa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Forgive me, but if Demore's essay really had such an effect, doesn't that prove him right?

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    3. Re:Shocking... by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We know that some female applicants withdrew in the wake of that shitstorm.

      If they withdrew over that then good riddance.

      Or perhaps Google realised that everyone else is also trying to recruit from that limited pool of candidates

      Limited pool? I thought they made up 50% of the universe, which is the whole basis for claiming that if you employ less than 50% of them you're literally worse than Hitler.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:Shocking... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      Or maybe Damore screwed them this last year.

      He screwed them by quitting? Oh wait, he was fired. So they actually screwed themselves. Well cry me a river (has the Californian drought ended already?).

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    5. Re: Shocking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So brave, ac

    6. Re:Shocking... by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Google could still goose its numbers by opening product-development centers where the bulk of the employees are some shade of brown. Just give them meaningless work to do, discard it all, and highlight the numbers in their employment reports. But you don't want to mix the diversity hires with actual developers, since that would reduce productivity.

    7. Re:Shocking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a white male immigrant and I turned down an offer from Google last year over the way its management treated Damore. I even told the recruiter I was working with that was why as well.

    8. Re:Shocking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's an HBC?

      None of these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HBC seem to match the context here.

    9. Re:Shocking... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      The numbers taking STEM courses have fallen sharply since the 1980s, so there are only limited numbers looking for entry / sub-management level stuff now. That's why Google and others are putting so much into education, which takes a long time to pay off.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:Shocking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      darkened the door

      HBC

      heh

    11. Re:Shocking... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      What do you mean? What aspect of the memo does it prove correct?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:Shocking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I graduated from Allen University which is an HBC but so bad that most of my classmates had trouble reading at a third grade level. I graduated with a degree in math with a concentration in Comp Sci. I've done pretty well and am retiring next year at 47. The vast majority of the people I graduated with weren't qualified to manage a McDonalds, but there was one other person in my major that I think could have been good enough to work somewhere like a Google. You're right Google isn't looking there because there's not much talent, but even at the worst colleges, there's almost always someone worth finding.

      Allen only requires a 2.0 GPA from high school. I only went there because I was able to go free since I had a scholarship. There was no minimum SAT score or even requirement to take the SAT unless you were applying for a scholarship.

    13. Re:Shocking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is also a disparity in how many blacks graduate from any college - ~%60 for white vs ~40 percent for black, and how many enroll in computer science to begin with.

      The numbers get grimmer if one looks at masters or doctorate level studies.

      Google and many Silicon Valley tech companies tend not to recruit from schools that have a decent computer science curriculum, they tend to focus on the schools that have the best computer science curriculum, which probably do make a significant difference in the quality of the candidate. This only makes things grimmer for black candidates, or candidates of any color from poorer backgrounds.

    14. Re:Shocking... by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Limited pool? I thought they made up 50% of the universe, which is the whole basis for claiming that if you employ less than 50% of them you're literally worse than Hitler.

      Oh dear, there you go using white male stuff like "logic" again ...

    15. Re:Shocking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's an HBC?

      Historically Black College

      (I think that's it)

    16. Re:Shocking... by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      All of Damore's errors I noticed were because he was a strongly biased leftist. You call him a Nazi? Ok -- he's that member of the Nazi party who dared to say "hey guys, why do we call the Jews an inferior race if they're easily testable as the very best group when it comes to intelligence? And why do we murder gypsies as "non-Aryans" if any anthropologist can tell you northern Indians are aryan but Germans are not? And why do we follow that mme Blavatsky drivel if we claim to be scientific?".

      So he was one of extremists who committed the worst sin: dared to debate the party beliefs. For any religion (whether it identifies as a religion or not), the most hated are those of their own side who are not orthodox enough. A good read is here -- late in the page I linked and the next one.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    17. Re:Shocking... by novakyu · · Score: 1

      Well, it's because the GP should have used the correct term, HBCU. But yes, if you know HBCU, you could guess what HBC meant.

    18. Re:Shocking... by russotto · · Score: 1

      Google does recruit at HBCUs. The basic problem is not that the HBCUs are "too prole", but that the HBCUs tend to have lousy comp sci programs which turn out students who can't make the cut. Google has actually sent people in to start teaching classes at HBCUs to try to rectify this.

    19. Re:Shocking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure your would-be manager cried himself to sleep that night.

      Either that or he went "Well, we dodged *that* bullet" and thought no more about you. Republican culture warriors are a poor fit for the Google work environment.

    20. Re:Shocking... by swillden · · Score: 1

      Who wants to bet their next paycheck that Google's recruiters have never darkened the door at a career fair at a HBC?

      I would take that bet, but it wouldn't be fair because I already know the answer. Google absolutely recruits at HBCUs, aggressively. Because many of them have weak CompSci programs, Google also contributes faculty to them... Google employees can apply to spend a year (or more) teaching at an HBCU, paid by Google at their regular salary.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    21. Re: Shocking... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      There seems to be very little work in the google environment these days. And they're hell bent on reducing it further.

    22. Re:Shocking... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      All of Damore's errors I noticed were because he was a strongly biased leftist.

      Which errors are you talking about exactly?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    23. Re:Shocking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Limited Pool is the correct answer here.

      You cannot be both blind to diversity criteria hire and employee the best and brightest when the talent pool lacks those diverse people. To change that (avoiding the loaded word 'fix') you have to change the pool of candidates.

      Traveling outside the United States in an IT related field is eye opening. Other countries have so many more women and people of different backgrounds in the technology fields. For some reason, outside of the US, the High School social stigma of not being a skinny married woman or a beefy football/basketball/baseball star did not seem to take hold. You've got lots more equality with less women in nursing or secretarial positions and a whole lot more in engineering.

      It's almost as if the imbalance were cultural. Unfortunately only popular music stars, famous actors and the president seem to be able to influence that. Tiny businesses like Google or Apple have to get buy with force feeding money to the government, re-educating their "customers" in the guise of Coder Girl Camps and Affirmative Action hires.

      After all, if you can get away with paying women and minorities 75% of that white, middle-class man's salary to do the same job it is really best for that bottom line.

    24. Re: Shocking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ones where he thought people at Google were free thinking rational humans, and not mindless slaves to a laughably weak ideology, like AmiHomo.

    25. Re:Shocking... by mapkinase · · Score: 0

      >Working and middle class black people

      If by black you mean African American, then we are talking about unicorn rarity. If I see a black Ph. D. I will always presume he or she was born in Africa, because that's what statistics says.

      There are 40 M blacks in USA and 186 M blacks in Nigeria.: 4.5 times more. And it's easier for a rich upper class kid from Nigeria to get into US science-intensive organization, than for a descendants of centuries of slavery to get there.

      The inertia of the insanely unfair and uncivilized treatment of blacks in USA is still underestimated.

      Mayflower crackers _created_ a whole nation with inferior subculture and inferior genes.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    26. Re:Shocking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for confirming my view of the toxic close-minded and prejudiced environment that is festering away inside Google.

      Glad to know I can still trust my gut. I'm not a citizen so I can't vote and don't really follow US politics because I'm of the opinion that both sides are completely unhinged.

      I do think it's a shame that a company that continues to tout itself as an engineering company now deems it verboten to have frank and rational debates and its leadership will hang its engineers out to dry then feel free to go on and publicly engage in the very same "harmful stereotyping" they claimed the guy they fired did.

      That's not an environment I would feel comfortable working in.

      Oh I should point out that after I rejected the offer I received a call from someone who claimed to be very senior in "people ops" wanting to know more about my decision. That person stated that I wasn't the only person who had turned them down for that reason, so maybe things have been changing in the last 12 months?

    27. Re: Shocking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woke black engineers will save Google from the SJW infestation.

    28. Re:Shocking... by penandpaper · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The inertia of the insanely unfair and uncivilized treatment of blacks in USA is still underestimated.

      That doesn't explain the historical trends. Before the civil rights era and during Jim Crow, most if not all measures of success for black people in the US were going up. Graduation rates, jobs, money, strong family, civic participation, etc. They were even trending better than whites in some regards. Something happened after the civil rights era and a victim culture took root in addition to the loss of family structure. A culture developed to resent white people, disregard strong family values, and be a victim that relies on the government handout.

      You can't and shouldn't blame slavery for your lot in life. I think (god help me I am referencing this guy), Kanye West said it best to the effect: "If you think you have been a slave for 400 years when slavery ended ~200 years ago, that's a choice to be mentally enslaved. ". At some point, you have to be responsible for your own actions and not blame the past for your current situation. If you want a better future for your children you have to work for it.

      Asians had a similar history in the US yet they are doing better than whites in almost all categories because of their culture of work and family values.

    29. Re:Shocking... by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Thanks. That's a very good point.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    30. Re:Shocking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Traveling outside the United States in an IT related field is eye opening. Other countries have so many more women and people of different backgrounds in the technology fields.

      Stop lying.

  9. "The percentage of female employees rose to 30.9%" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, I know those 30.9%. Imagine you're a guy wanting to get into human resources and other such jobs used to make up the equality numbers, at an IT company. I know who really get discriminated.

  10. Are they discriminating against whites? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    62% of the population, but only 53% of Google employees... how would this come about except through strong discrimination in hiring practices?

    1. Re:Are they discriminating against whites? by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      I don't know where you get that 62% number. But according to wikipedia:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Bay_Area#Demographics

      ... Whites represent 52.5% (and falling) of the relevant population. Considering margins of error and rounding, that puts Google's 53.1% white vs. 46.9% minorities pretty much exactly where they ought to be on race; with the male vs. female percentages being the only remaining trouble point on the diversity front... that's evident in the diversity report and with regard to the categories on which they provide data anyway. They've not, I see, provided data on the age demographics or the sexual orientations of their employees. So they could very well be guilty of, and covering up, ageism and homophobia. But without numbers, there's no real way to be sure as yet.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    2. Re:Are they discriminating against whites? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google employs people all over the world. Using a limited area within one city is faulty, myopic. I have a google office a few blocks away in a "fly-over" state. The local population is 98% white. Why is google intentionally not hiring them half the time?

      Would you call it fair and diverse to have 98% black applicants and only hire them 53% of the time?

    3. Re:Are they discriminating against whites? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Google hires from more than just San Francisco, ya know...

    4. Re:Are they discriminating against whites? by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Whites aren't allowed to have their own countries. Diversity for whites, ethnostates for everyone else. That's how it works.

    5. Re:Are they discriminating against whites? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great work! Now go figure it out for their data center in Iowa, which is going to have some radically different results. And then all the rest of the google locations.

      And then explain why a top company paying top dollar to attract the top talent shouldn't be expected to represent the entire country. They don't just hire Friscans.

      Come back when you have more than a 5 minute google finding that supports your point!

    6. Re:Are they discriminating against whites? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their hiring pool isn't just the Bay area though.

  11. Re:Trump is going to Federal Prison shortly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hillary you're drunk, go home.

  12. Re:Trump is going to Federal Prison shortly by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So, which law is it you're saying Trump violated when Greenburg approached Stone to tell him he had information the campaign might want to hear? Is it the same legal territory you might discuss when the DNC/Clinton machine spent money to hire foreign agents to spend time in Russia obtaining phony info from government agents there? Please catch your breath from your shrieking for a moment, and be specific on the statutes involved. No? Don't have that handy to copy/paste like the anonymous troll you are? Didn't think so.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  13. I want Google to be very 'diverse' by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    1. Re: I want Google to be very 'diverse' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      East Asians are often quite skilled, too.

    2. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by blindseer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Interview with a manager that saw his company die from diversity hiring:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      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 then a company consisting completely of women would beat all the rest. I have seen small companies run entirely by women but they've been veterinary clinics, medical clinics, and schools, but that's because women naturally gravitate to occupations where a strong nurturing personality is beneficial.

      Here's another thing, women don't really want equal distribution in all occupations. Women make up a small portion of prisoners. Should we lock up women to make up for that? Women make up a small portion of the people that die in war, should we send more women out to fight and die? There's a small ratio of women that dig ditches, clean out sewers, climb power transmission towers, hang siding and shingles, pour concrete, pick up trash, stack bricks, and on and on. We shouldn't have women doing these occupations just to keep things "fair". Just as we shouldn't demand more women engineers to keep things "fair". What's "fair" is allowing people to get the jobs they are suited to by personality and merit. When we do that we have many males in engineering and many females in medicine.

      We can have a meritocracy and prosperity or we can artificially enforce "diversity" and see civilization fall apart. Google will have to learn this one way or the other.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    3. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by cdsparrow · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well said. Wish i had mod points today.

      Diversity shouldn't be a metric that matters in 95% of occupations. The ability to do the job you are hired to do is all that matters.

    4. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 5, Funny

      97% of all combat deaths are male. We should send only women into combat zones until we achieve a 50-50 balance.

    5. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Well done, you managed to get every standard taking point in there. Well done as well - you've managed to be the standard, factless, feminist with emotional, shamed-based arguments. What is your remedy for the situation? I wouldn't hire a woman like you with an attitude like yours because I couldn't afford the potential litigation exposure you'd bring my company if I wanted to put the air conditioning on too cold you'd say you were discriminated against - because women have slower metabolisms - while claiming men and women are identical and fluid even. On the other hand the women that work for me are kind, loyal, and some of my most brilliant minds around, the opposite of you. Take time to look at yourself, not your gender and you'll go as far as you want.

    6. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      Prove it. Sue. Retire. Any lawyer would love to help. You can't because it does not exist.

      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.

      Last year you were claiming the reverse, as if moving targets and framed arguments are the only way you can keep the lie afloat.

      Obviously, only the deliberately obtuse are suggesting making things worse in order to "improve" equality. And of course, women do actually do a lot of unpleasant, demeaning and badly paid jobs too. It's a shame you waste so much energy containing about this misconception when you could be pushing for better conditions for men.

      Ad hominem. Cant be an Ami post without poorly veiled hatred and harassment!

      Then we wind up at the classic "if women get men's jobs civilisation will fall", a nostalgic echo back to the 1900s. Mustn't forget Scott Adams too, confirmed red piller and inventor of a foul tasting vegan microwave burrito.

      Second and third course of ad hominem.

      You have nothing to reason or convince with. You are powerless.

    7. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by mukinrestak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If they aren't more skilled, why are diversity hiring practices divergent from meritocratic ones?

    8. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      you missed a few reasons why women get paid less:
      - Women value work life balance over additional salary
      - Women value flexibility over additional salary
      - Women value vacation days over additional salary
      - Women value less job related travel over additional salary
      - Women do not negotiate salary as often as men

      What it comes down to? Women value predictability and stability over risk. Men will accept jobs that have inherently higher variability and risk in return for higher salary.

    9. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by KiloByte · · 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.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    10. Re: I want Google to be very 'diverse' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asian men are more skilled, but yes, white men are the next most skilled.

      You said this like it was a slight, a negative, or untrue.

      The most innovative, successful, and powerful entities in the world were born from the minds of young white and asian men. They have trouble growing more diverse not from discrimination, but because they hire the best people for the job, which is almost never women, blacks, or latinx.

    11. Re: I want Google to be very 'diverse' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol so funny, ok here is the standard reply to your standard reply which you know but ignore: women make the same PER HOUR WORKED.

      If mom is taking a day or two a week out compared to a man because sheâ(TM)s showing late, leaving early or taking several hours mid day to do whatever for her kids she SHOULD GET PAID LESS, precisely BECAUSE SHE WORKS LESS.

      If you want to subsidize her for breeding, then letâ(TM)s also subsidize both men and women who do not breed because of saving the planet or some other bullshit.

      Work less, get paid less. How is this hard to figure out? How about we take the extra from your salary to boost moms? Oh no we cant do that becuae then you would directly suffer from the effects of your own beliefs. Instead we must -socialize- your beliefs so we all suffer to give higher compensation to women for having sex.

      Load of crap.

    12. Re: I want Google to be very 'diverse' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because there's never actually been an effective meritocratic selection process?

      Poppycock! It's extremely easy, especially in the software development field. You just ask the candidate to write some code. Within a few minutes you'll have an excellent understanding of the candidate's merit. Those with merit will have no problem writing code. They'll usually be eager to demonstrate their skills. Those without merit will quickly fail.

    13. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit, we're getting to the point where diversity nazis blaming "internalized racism" for everything wrong with the world is about as credible as religious nuts blaming Satan.

      From the slavery era to 1968, the civil rights movement always had concrete problems to point to and solve, and (eventually) government and society solved them. But now that we seem to be out of real problems, and the practical effects of centuries of change - while major - didn't quite go as far as one might wish, we have to throw around non-disprovable accusations of some intangible "racism" problem with no directly observable effects and which can never even hypothetically be addressed in any meaningful way. Just as in the religion case, this provides not only a ready-made excuse for problems that are more likely caused by personal or cultural failures, but also a path to smug moral superiority over your fellow citizens via aggressive checking of privilege and striving to achieve "woke"-ness.

    14. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      google will loose its best minds to ideology.. and in turn its products will turn to shit, as they seem to be doing now (Pixel OS, Gmail changes, google search relevance)

      What a shame, google had so much promise, and was a chance to knock Microsoft off its seat... but that moment has passed now I believe.

    15. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    16. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If women did the same work as men but for 75% of the wages then a company consisting completely of women would beat all the rest. I have seen small companies run entirely by women but they've been veterinary clinics, medical clinics, and schools, but that's because women naturally gravitate to occupations where a strong nurturing personality is beneficial.

      Comments like this sort of stick in my craw.

      I don't disagree that the idea that a company should hire a woman for every man hired in order to have some magic 50-50 ratio is ridiculous.

      The question is whether or not a company is not hiring a woman for a position she could do because she's a woman.

      There are plenty of examples of companies calling in John for an interview and not calling in Susan (or Enrique or Javon) even though they have duplicate resumes. And, to me, it's worthwhile to make certain that this isn't happening. "Oh, this is all low-level device driver stuff. Not something a woman would be good at, so I won't waste my time. Women developers are better at UI because women have an 'eye' for that sort of thing..."

      That's the part that sticks in my craw: "Oh, women/men are better at..."

      Heck, there are plenty of cases where courts have assigned child custody to women because, "women are more nurturing." Then they discover that Mom's a coke addict and the kids live in squalor. But, hey, that's better than living with Dad (y'know, the guy who left her because she was a coke addict).

      Now the common response is, "Okay, but for the most part, women/men are better at..."

      That may be true or it may not be. But you're potentially discounting a fantastic candidate because "most women wouldn't be good at that..." But what about the one who is?

      I always hear people bringing up the paucity of male elementary school teachers. And they're right--imagine if you wanted to teach in elementary school but you couldn't even get an interview because you were male? And the reason is that, "most women are better with young children than men are." That's wrong--and I agree with that wholeheartedly. So why should it be different for women wanting to be developers?

    17. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not speculative. Male skeletons had more damage. Skeletons found near settlements were predominantly female, meaning the males likely died somewhere else.

    18. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by phantomfive · · Score: 0

      There aren't enough skeleton remains from 200k years ago to make any kind of firm analysis of that type.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    19. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Heck, it's extremely difficult to measure even when they've been working for you for years.

      Maybe you're just not that good at measuring things.

    20. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was this supposed to be a nonsequitor? I guess well done, sir.

    21. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "And so instead a great deal of intuition and gut reactions goes into the selection process as well"

      Probably you are right here but then, why they don't publicly provide the facts, just as they provide their internal statistics? How many CVs by gender (or whatever other group); how many after first, second, first interview? I think it can't be too fair, say, having 80% males when 40% of valid CVs came from women (but I open to see the arguments).

      But it also seems the whole issue is badly scoped -twice.

      On one hand, it seems very difficult to change society at the top of the chain: by the time a CV reaches HR, candidates already have been through the system for too many years. Initiatives should start much, much early and responsibility requested where is due.

      On the other hand, the whole USA society seems to have an deeply ingrained problem: it is not integrationist but ghettoist. Just contrast a photo from, say, New York city, where you can see a great "plurality" -all kinds of skin colors, dress styles... but, in general terms, here you have a white male, there a black woman, an Asian child overthere... now, get a similar photo from, say, Sao Paulo: at first glance doesn't seem to be that many diversity; on closer inspection what you have is a full gradient of human phenotypes with no gaps in-between: that *is* integration. You can't bias on color skin when there are no color skins but just shades, when basically everybody is at the same time black, and white, and yellow and red.

    22. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      > There are plenty of examples of companies calling in John for an interview and not calling in Susan (or Enrique or Javon) even though they have duplicate resumes

      This might be true of some industry, but there's no compelling case for it existing in software development.

      > "Oh, this is all low-level device driver stuff. Not something a woman would be good at, so I won't waste my time"

      If you think anyone would NOT hand this off to someone else, regardless of gender, I would love to know where you're swimming in so many candidates who understand the context that you can afford to discount anyone.

      After 25 years, I've never even HEARD about gender discrimination (in hiring or tasking, within California), because finding a useful candidate is hard enough that nobody realistically cares about gender in software development. I've also never seen it, but have seen the opposite (men passed over in favor of young women) without the identical resume constraint. But sometimes it's obviously a chauvinistic preference for image, a prelude to predation, or a failure in competence.

      > http://www.insyncsurveys.com.a...
      This is not proof.

      > https://www.reuters.com/articl...
      http://www.pnas.org/content/11... - This is not proof, but it is a study.

      vs

      > That contradicts a 2012 study in which academics gave higher ratings to hypothetical job candidates with male names than those with female names (and identical resumes).
      http://www.pnas.org/content/10... - This is not proof, but it is a study.

      I mean, I don't see a lot of studies and not a lot of example companies that demonstrate anything either way.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    23. Re: I want Google to be very 'diverse' by Ocker3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, writing code is the Only thing Google wants people to do?? Not work as a team? Present a persuasive series of slides? Be able to focus for six/twelve months on a mission critical project that doesn't show results until the end?

    24. Re: I want Google to be very 'diverse' by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      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.

    25. Re: I want Google to be very 'diverse' by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    26. Re: I want Google to be very 'diverse' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hilarious. These people are not white. You're delusional. Sao Paulo is about as fucking ghetto as it gets.

    27. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's "fair" is allowing people to get the jobs they are suited to by personality and merit. When we do that we have many males in engineering and many females in medicine.

      What if somebody asks the question "What if" relating to the traditions of the society? All hell would break loose. Oh wait, judging from the comments and moderations all hell has been released upon us already.

      When we do that we have many males in engineering and many females in medicine.

      While medical engineers should mostly consist of people with undefined sexuality?

      Fairness is not the reason these diversity programs exists. Long term profit is.

    28. Re: I want Google to be very 'diverse' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Clearly the person that you are arguing with is the moron. It's definitely totally not you.

    29. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To my (probably too limited) understanding of the topic you are introducing straw-man arguments. In my part of the social sphere the answers to your arguments would be:

      Consider this... If women did the same work as men but for 75% of the wages then a company consisting completely of women would beat all the rest. I have seen small companies run entirely by women but they've been veterinary clinics, medical clinics, and schools, but that's because women naturally gravitate to occupations where a strong nurturing personality is beneficial.

      The argument (as I understand it) is that due to bias in raising children, society etc. there are not enough woman to staff a (hypothetical) all-woman company (and no one wants such a company!). So to give an over simplified example: due to systematic bias, there are too few women who know how to lead a company. Thus your hypothetical all-woman company could not happen. The all-male company is, however, very possible because you can (more easily) find men for all positions.

      Also the argument of "naturally gravitate" is hotly contested. I personally see no reason why this it is more natural for a women to be a nurse than a bricklayer. (And just to preempt the physical strength argument: if women had to lay bricks, maybe we as a society would have developed ways to lay bricks more efficient (requiring less strength) or found ways to get by without brick laying altogether. )

      Here's another thing, women don't really want equal distribution in all occupations.

      This is wrong in my social circles. They do want exactly that. One-by one:

      Women make up a small portion of prisoners. Should we lock up women to make up for that?

      You ask the question the wrong way. The question to ask is, why is our society structured in a way that locks up more men? The goal would be to reduce male imprisonment and not increase the number of female inmates.

      Women make up a small portion of the people that die in war, should we send more women out to fight and die?

      Yes - why not? Although the prevailing view in my circles is to fight less wars overall. But if we fight, we should fight and die equally. Some people suggest having more women as generals etc. might reduce the number of wars, casualties etc. but I guess that argument is hard to validate.

      There's a small ratio of women that dig ditches, clean out sewers, climb power transmission towers, hang siding and shingles, pour concrete, pick up trash, stack bricks, and on and on. We shouldn't have women doing these occupations just to keep things "fair".

      Actually - in my circles the prevailing view is that we should have more women there (see also my brick laying example above).

      Just as we shouldn't demand more women engineers to keep things "fair". What's "fair" is allowing people to get the jobs they are suited to by personality and merit. When we do that we have many males in engineering and many females in medicine.

      And here the question is: why? Why should women be doctors and men engineers? The argument I find most convincing is that society is fucked up and forces people into their roles. While I think traditional roles in the past were useful for the survival of the species, I think we have progressed far enough to overcome that and create a society where everyone can pick the path they prefer.

    30. Re: I want Google to be very 'diverse' by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    31. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    32. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0, Troll

      I had to bring the signature back. This is a new level of SJW panic ridiculousness.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    33. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    34. Re: I want Google to be very 'diverse' by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      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.

    35. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by blindseer · · Score: 3, Informative

      That may be true or it may not be. But you're potentially discounting a fantastic candidate because "most women wouldn't be good at that..." But what about the one who is?

      If that's what you believe I wrote then you need to go back and read it again.

      I'm merely recognizing that men tend to do better than women in software engineering and other STEM occupations. That means that if Google hires the best people for software engineering they won't get a 50/50 men/women ratio. The distribution will be more like 85/15 men/women. I get this ratio based on the ratio of men and women that graduate in computer science and related fields.

      The question is whether or not a company is not hiring a woman for a position she could do because she's a woman.

      What we see Google doing is passing over superior applicants for software engineering positions because that applicant is a man. We know this is happening because of documents leaked out from the company. Given that discriminating for jobs based on sex is illegal in the USA, and has been for years, Google should be sued into oblivion for this.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    36. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oooh, that will set the Incel RWNJ off, the sweaty fat fucktards will go wild.

    37. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by blindseer · · Score: 1

      As a rule I tend to not reply to ACs but this one amused me.

      While medical engineers should mostly consist of people with undefined sexuality?

      My guess is that those with undefined sexuality would tend to become medical engineers so they can figure out what's wrong with them and develop means to correct that condition.

      Fairness is not the reason these diversity programs exists. Long term profit is.

      If profit was the motivator then no one would hire based on diversity, they'd hire the best people that they could find for the job.

      I recall an anecdote of a person that claimed in some forum or another that sports teams were racist because football linemen tended to be black while the more prestigious roles of captain and quarterback tended to be white. A football coach stood up and exclaimed that he did not care what color the teammates were, he picked the best person for the position. Failing to do so meant losing games and his job being at risk. Just because the skin color happened to generally fall upon different positions did not mean racism, only that genetics and athletic abilities happened to coincide with skin color.

      Forcing a football team to have more white linemen and consider who is captain based not on skill but on skin color means losing football games. For high school coaches all the way up to professional team owners this means losing games and therefore losing profits, if not immediately then in long term career success.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    38. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The question is whether or not a company is not hiring a woman for a position she could do because she's a woman.

      That is illegal. If you have proof, you have a case. It's that simple.

    39. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no gender pay gap. There is a gender WORK gap.

      This gap will remain until it becomes socially acceptable for men to leave their careers to bring up their children and for women to work as garbage collectors.

    40. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When men were hunting a mammoth, women collected tubers with a kid in tow.

      Surprise, surprise.

      12,000 year old prehistoric art shows woman hunting

    41. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If profit was the motivator then no one would hire based on diversity, they'd hire the best people that they could find for the job.

      Isn't that the problem though? How does anybody know who will have the most profitable ideas for the products in some undefined time in the future? I personally, for example, would have never been able to create a service like Facebook simply because I wouldn't have seen any value in it. Similarly, I wouldn't have been able consider valuable those many bizarre things Internet culture has created. If I were a stock holder, I'd still expect a company of being able to create such ideas to increase the value of my position. Economy is increasingly based on ideas and collaborations of many different people instead of physical characteristics or mental acuity of single individuals.

      Just because the skin color happened to generally fall upon different positions did not mean racism, only that genetics and athletic abilities happened to coincide with skin color.

      It is a know fact that the Nordic (Danish) men have thicker ankles than men from Ethiopia (I think it was) on average, for example. This leads to an increase of oxygen consumption for the Danish man, which leads to worse running performance but gives a possible survival advantage in a cold environment. These people would probably appreciate different products and a Danish man would probably not wear the same clothes or eat the same vitamin supplements in the cold, dark North. The Danish man wouldn't even be aware of the difficulties facing, say, the Ethiopian man in up here. Therefore, if a hypothetical nutritional company would have a purely Danish workforce, it might miss a market opportunity to sell vitamin D supplements to the Ethiopian man. The abilities of an individual does not guarantee of a commercial success anymore.

    42. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by blindseer · · Score: 1

      The argument (as I understand it) is that due to bias in raising children, society etc. there are not enough woman to staff a (hypothetical) all-woman company (and no one wants such a company!). So to give an over simplified example: due to systematic bias, there are too few women who know how to lead a company. Thus your hypothetical all-woman company could not happen.

      You misunderstood my argument.

      All women companies do in fact happen, I've seen them and they've become successful. This tends to happen with small companies within certain fields, such as medicine. When a company reaches a certain size then people will specialize more. A veterinary clinic that had all women employees at first will at some point in their growth look for someone to do things like take out the trash, sweep the floors, change the light bulbs, and clean the toilets. Given that strength is beneficial for carrying trash, and height beneficial for changing light bulbs, then people hired for this will likely be taller and stronger. Men tend to be taller and stronger than women and so this person is likely to be male.

      Over time this formerly all female company might need someone to manage the books. If we look at averages on how men and women perform with numbers we see that men tend to do better. Therefore this position will likely be filled by a man.

      It's not that it's impossible to find sufficiently talented women to fill all positions, only that a company over a certain size is unlikely to be entirely women due to the needs common to any given company.

      The all-male company is, however, very possible because you can (more easily) find men for all positions.

      Just like it is possible for a small company to be run entirely by women it is possible for a small company to be run entirely by men. An automotive repair shop might be run entirely by men because men tend to like to do such things. An automotive repair shop is unlikely, though it's not impossible, to be run entirely by women. All male companies are more common because there are more men in the workforce and men tend to take on the risks of starting their own company.

      Also the argument of "naturally gravitate" is hotly contested. I personally see no reason why this it is more natural for a women to be a nurse than a bricklayer. (And just to preempt the physical strength argument: if women had to lay bricks, maybe we as a society would have developed ways to lay bricks more efficient (requiring less strength) or found ways to get by without brick laying altogether. )

      You can't just preempt the physical strength argument because laying bricks is an occupation that will inherently require physical strength. If for some reason we as a society had to have women lay bricks then we'd find the tallest and strongest women, with the best manual dexterity, to do it. It's "more natural" for men to lay bricks because the nature of the job means men are better at it, on the average.

      Let's take the nursing example though. Women tend to gravitate to pediatric medicine. 30% of all physicians are women but 60% of pediatric physicians are women. Why is that? Is it because women prefer to be around children? Maybe. It can also be because of the strength and height differences with men. Moving a child around is easier than an adult. An uncooperative patient that weighs 200 pounds will overpower a 100 pound nurse, regardless of the sex of either. In a large hospital, with nurses of an equal distribution of men and women, will naturally develop more nurses in pediatrics because the high school football player with a concussion thinks he's being attacked by aliens needs to be wrestled to the ground and restrained before he hurts himself. Who are you going to send to do that? The 100 pound female nurse? Three 100 pound female nurses? Or the 250 pound male nurse that was once a high school football player? Enforcing a rule of 50/50 male/female nurse

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    43. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      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 ?

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    44. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for your reply!

      You raise some very good points, that I have so far not thought about. I am currently pressed for time and will probably not have time to reply in more depth to your post in today, so sorry for my short reply

      I personally was not aware of the IQ difference and am not sure if it is true (but I trust you on that - I just do not have the time to verify). However, I find the effect strange: higher (average) IQ leads to lower (average) economic success. If this is true, then maybe our society needs some serious rethinking. But I think it is plausible: Men have (as far as I know, I do not have the time to check), higher maximum IQ and are more "aggressive". Which would mean that there are more men with clever ideas and the drive to realize them. This would then be rewarded financially.

      About the imprisonment: Maybe there should be more done to help man 'channel' their aggression into 'creative construction'. Maybe every girl outreach program should be accompanied with 'bully outreach' program.

      Anyways, sorry for the brief (and not thought through reply). Thank you very much for clarifying your point of view - you showed me some ideas and facts I was not aware.

    45. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by KiloByte · · Score: 2, 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 shifts couldn't be the cause, at least not by itself). And humans and hominids before hunted a lot of other animals, mammoths are merely the most iconic example.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    46. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      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 tubers (seriously how did you come up with this?) it was forging social bonds and equitable relationships. The skills that are most required today are not those of a great hunter seeking personal achievement, it is those of a person willing to produce modest gains day by day solely for the good of the group. This is why in 2017 51.7% of people in management professions were women, and 57% of people in professional occupations were women, including 75%(!) of people in health care. Meanwhile men are killing it in truck driving and construction, great.

      Computer science is basically the last bastion of high-paying jobs where men are at an advantage over women, and I don't think it will hold out for ever. Certainly, by the time it goes men as a group will be in trouble, and it would be advantageous to start talking about that now, rather than puffing ourselves up over the exploits of our long-dead hunter forefathers.

    47. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      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 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, 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.

    48. Re: I want Google to be very 'diverse' by strikethree · · Score: 2

      Not work as a team?

      You can't work as part of a team if you can't do the work.

      Present a persuasive series of slides?

      Presenting slides is fine and all, but what about the questions afterwards?

      Be able to focus for six/twelve months on a mission critical project that doesn't show results until the end?

      Again, being able to focus is not of any help if you can't do anything.

      So, writing code is the Only thing Google wants people to do??

      No, but writing code is central to what they do...

      Either women can do the job or they can't. If a man can't do the job, they don't hire him and nobody says anything about it. Duh, you have to be able to do the job. If you can't do the job, then don't expect to be able to get the job.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    49. Re: I want Google to be very 'diverse' by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    50. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by i286NiNJA · · Score: 1

      Though I dislike google's particular style of diversity

      discounting a fantastic candidate because "most women wouldn't be good at that..." But what about the one who is?

      My first hand experience with various unusual engineers, ones that have some combination of major traits that you'll probably never work with again. They usually bring a lot of value to whatever project they're working on. I don't know if it's because they had to be better to get where they are now or because they're bringing something different to the team. But diversity in engineering teams is wonderful when you can get it.

      Google is how you don't get diversity it's fake and transparent as fuck and if I was say a black guy and I needed a job or a career I'd take my black guy job at google and my black guy bux but I'd stick a black bullet point on my resume and gtfo once I felt I could. Sure I'd be the black guy from google at my next job but that's a lot better than being everyone's diversity project.

    51. Re: I want Google to be very 'diverse' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They want people who can produce. There is no need, or room in tech, for "the idea person" anymore. You need to be able to have an idea, and execute to a meaningful degree. If you can't execute, you aren't useful.

    52. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you really saying that they are no differences, despite massive evidence there is?

    53. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      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 one person who identifies as female despite being male (I know of only one such maintainer), counting as neither a man or a woman (and the percentage figure excludes invalids, unknowns and this one trans, from the denominator). This might not be the most exact count but if you have a better idea that's doable with little work, I'm all ears.

      I took only the so-called "key" packages (as in: high popcon, d-i, plus closure over depends and build-depends) to reduce my effort; I can extend to the full set of Stretch maintainers if there's a need to. I don't expect the full data to be greatly different.

      and somehow end up absolutely wrong (women need jobs involving their sense of smell????)

      What I said, is that there's very few high-paying jobs that require a sense of smell. Please explain what's wrong with this statement.

      Computer science is basically the last bastion of high-paying jobs where men are at an advantage over women, and I don't think it will hold out for ever.

      Could you tell me why? Being social is not an advantage for software engineering at all -- I'd call it an disadvantage.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    54. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      google will loose its best minds to ideology.. and in turn its products will turn to shit, as they seem to be doing now (Pixel OS, Gmail changes, google search relevance)

      What a shame, google had so much promise, and was a chance to knock Microsoft off its seat... but that moment has passed now I believe.

      You should short google stock then. Don't think I would though. Progressives are the most hypocritical group I've ever seen. Despite the fainting couch hysterics of "do as I say", these people like to make and keep their money just as much as any hard core conservative would.

    55. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoever made that art was probably capturing that exceptional case for what it is.

      For men to hunt 12,000 years ago is just a normal thing. Why would you create art depicting something everyone knows is normal?

    56. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      It's called "What this country needs is a good war!"

      In the absence of serious problems, lesser ones rise up to take the place in societal focus, which is a fancy way of saying those in power start the drumbeat so they have an issue to scream about. Just give them the power to address it!

      A good war re-focuses the nation on actually major problems.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    57. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by Stolovaya · · Score: 3, 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.

    58. Re: I want Google to be very 'diverse' by butchersong · · Score: 1
      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 composition because it is so obvious so they argue it stops in the brain. Human children are extremely vulnerable. There is zero evidence that women did anything significantly more than spend their time gathering food, caring for them and working diligently to keep them alive. It isn't as if that is some trivial accomplishment either....

      Why do people keep trying to argue without evidence that evolution ends at the neck up.

    59. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by dpidcoe · · Score: 1

      Now the common response is, "Okay, but for the most part, women/men are better at..."

      That may be true or it may not be. But you're potentially discounting a fantastic candidate because "most women wouldn't be good at that..."

      Do people actually mean that when they say what you're complaining about though? I always took it to mean that for a given set of people of profession, a higher percentage of women will gravitate towards specializing in x thing whereas a higher percentage of men will gravitate towards specializing in y thing due to whatever distribution of natural aptitudes. I've never taken it to mean that somehow, e.g. a female engineer will be inferior to a male engineer, or a male teacher will be inferior to a female teacher.

    60. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Progressives are the most hypocritical group I've ever seen.

      This has been my experience. The old saw goes, liberals love minorities in theory but hate them in practice while conservatives hate minorities in theory but love them in practice. Hence why libs like Bernie will point the finger at all the "racist" white people but took the money and ran to Vermont, one of the whitest states in the union. All the while conservatism is most popular in the states that are by far the most diverse. Imagine that.

    61. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by Alypius · · Score: 1

      Get woke, go broke.

    62. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by Alypius · · Score: 1
      "Women have always been the primary victims of war." --Hillary Clinton

      Alternate take: "97% of all combat deaths are male. Women and minorities hardest hit."

    63. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by ewibble · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of examples of companies calling in John for an interview and not calling in Susan (or Enrique or Javon) even though they have duplicate resumes. And, to me, it's worthwhile to make certain that this isn't happening. "Oh, this is all low-level device driver stuff. Not something a woman would be good at, so I won't waste my time. Women developers are better at UI because women have an 'eye' for that sort of thing..."

      Where have you seen this? I have never worked in a company that states that they hire men over women. There are plenty that publicly state the opposite. So what happens is you see that statistic and imply it is the case.

      That's the part that sticks in my craw: "Oh, women/men are better at..."

      Heck, there are plenty of cases where courts have assigned child custody to women because, "women are more nurturing." Then they discover that Mom's a coke addict and the kids live in squalor. But, hey, that's better than living with Dad (y'know, the guy who left her because she was a coke addict).

      First that statement doesn't mean ALL it means in general. So it is quite possible that a man is more nurturing than most if not all women, or a women is the most brilliant software engineer that ever lived. In the case of the coke addict mother the court should look at individual circumstances judges certainly get paid enough do that.

      I don't know if women are more nurturing (in general) or not and what causes it if they are, society or genetics or most likely a mixture of both. But in order to find out we look at the evidence unemotionally without preconceptions the answer should be.

    64. Re: I want Google to be very 'diverse' by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      It ain't ghetto if there's only one.

    65. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Some people suggest having more women as generals etc. might reduce the number of wars, casualties etc. but I guess that argument is hard to validate.

      Wouldn't those people be sexists? In order to get different results, she would have to do things differently. If she is behaving differently, is it because she is a woman? Therefore, the presumption must be that women behave differently. They are different.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    66. Re: I want Google to be very 'diverse' by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    67. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by murdocj · · Score: 1

      Funny... I post in reply to a post that going for diversity is guaranteed to make a company fail.. and I get marked at flamebait.

      Welcome to the echo chamber.

    68. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask a SJW if they are Progressive. I'm willing to bet 90%+ will say yes.
      Love how some Progressives are now uncomfortable with this congregation under their umbrella. Look how the parent tries desperately to uncouple the two camps. I'm glad you are squirming. Maybe it will cause some of these people to see why their own Progressivism goes against human nature.

    69. Re:I want Google to be very 'diverse' by Stolovaya · · Score: 1

      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.

  14. it's because they're hiring for mediocrities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to hired at google you need ample free time to grind worthless leetcode problems. problem is:
    1) people have jobs and other interests. you need to be boring loser to have nothing better to do with your time. or, be really desperate.
    2) you need to be privileged enough to spend your time on leetcode. if I were poor i'd rather spend my free time building something I could monetize.
    3) anyone with an actual high IQ would rather spend their time doing more interesting and challenging things. but, the interview format rewards cramming this shit and regurgitating it quickly. if you've been working on PhD-level CS theory the stuff they test for won't be as fresh.

  15. Why not start at the top? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    None of the top executives at Alphabet are black or hispanic, Larry and Sergei are both white males. For such an important issue, they should be willing to give up their positions to historically disadvantaged people.

    Or is this the usual "diversity for thee, but not for me" situation?

    1. Re:Why not start at the top? by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 1

      You are racist! racÂist /rÄsÉ(TM)st/ - a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

      Are you saying that once Google became successful that Larry and Sergei should have quit? Board of Director Roger W. Ferguson, Jr. looks like the Grand Wizard of the KKK to me.

      I happen to know of of the attorneys for Google who is both Chinese and female.

      But the real problem here is where is the racism? Shouldn't the goal of any employer to hire the best and brightest without regard to the sex? Is this what is being done at Google? Or is it that you look at the employees and see there are not enough of race X?

    2. Re:Why not start at the top? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Larry and Sergei are both white males"
      they are both Jewish so they cannot be white.

    3. Re:Why not start at the top? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking nazi. Larry and Sergei aren't white, they're Jewish.

    4. Re:Why not start at the top? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Larry and Sergei are not white. They are jews.

    5. Re:Why not start at the top? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haven't you heard that any successful ethnic group is now counted as white, including Jews and Chinese?

  16. I'm pretty sure there was a memo/manifesto on this by king+neckbeard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm pretty sure there was a memo/manifesto on this that received a great deal of attention...

    The funniest thing is that despite not being adept at office and internet politics, Damore was actually pretty empathetic. He pointed out that the job description and environment were optimized towards what white men want.

    SJWs responded by assuming that the only rational way to interpret it was that women weren't fit for the job, ignoring the possibility that the job wasn't fit for women.

    So, it looks like Damore was right and insightful, even if he's already been converted to full Nazi. I don't really blame him in that scenario, given that his views were rejected by SJWs, and embraced by racist and sexist assholes. People are often going to associate with people that don't treat them as shitty as other people do.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  17. Re:diversity is a false god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    and islam is asshole cancer.

  18. Re:"The percentage of female employees rose to 30. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow! Too much estrogen! I hope the HVAC system can handle it.

  19. Want to know why Google hasn't achieved nirvana? by OYAHHH · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because it cannot be done!

    There is NO way you cannot tell me those money grubbing hacks @ Google would not hire 100% purple poka-dotted zebras if purple poka-dotted zebras made them more profitable.

    The fact is that there are significant cultural differences between demographic segments. And there is NOTHING wrong with that.

    But, ultimately it translates into only 2.5% of the black population cuts the mustard at Google. It's not Google's issue, it's black culture as a wholes' issue.

    When the percentage of black people or Latina's or females who value schooling and work ethics like oriental people do then you will automatically see a reversal of these numbers.

    Governments, corporations, and educational facilities should not be in the business of cultural modification because we all know, assuming we are honest, that family and extended family/friends are the ultimate cultural arbitrator.

    --
    Caution: Contents under pressure
  20. when do we get a report on the number of people wi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a well known bias against outy belly buttons....

  21. that dude who's no longer in company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't he fired as he was making a proposal to adjust the working environment so it'll attract women more?

  22. They want the best of both worlds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They can publicly state they are "working on it" to please the liberals while still retaining their merit-based hiring.
    They could just point out that there aren't that many women, blacks, or hispanics that have CS degrees.
    Instead of aiming for a workforce that is demographically similar to the population, they should be aiming for a workforce that resembles the distribution of CS degree holders.
    If women are only 25% of CS degrees and Google wants more than 25% women, they will guarantee that there will be a CS business with less than 25% women.
    Simple math. But I don't expect the HR department to understand since they aren't the STEM types.

  23. One step forwards, one step backwards? by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Considering the lengths to which they've recently gone to increase skin-level diversity, which includes literally suspending all application processes for lower level positions where the applicant is white or asian, I do have to say that I am somewhat surprised by how little they've been able to move the needle.

    Kind of makes you wonder what could have nullified their efforts this heavily. I know they've had some well meaning changes that have made their minority hires feel genuinely uncomfortable, like how the traditional mentoring of new hires has been changed so that your mentor will always be of the same race, but I didn't imagine they'd be able to take as many steps backwards as forwards like this. Either that or then they've knocked some sense into their hiring practices, which should have come with such a big backlash it would be well known to people outside the organization, so I can't image anything could explain this except well meaning policies that have backfired strongly enough to make their diversity hires leave in the same numbers as they're able to shepherd them in.

    I guess that's good for them as nobody deserves to work in a place that makes you feel uncomfortable enough to make you want to quit your job. However I am somewhat worried about their remaining staff because if I know these diversity types, a setback will only cause them to double their efforts rather than take a moment to think about what they're actually doing.

    --
    "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
    1. Re:One step forwards, one step backwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps that by hiring first based on skin colour to match their equity quotas they might not be hiring the best person for the job?

    2. Re:One step forwards, one step backwards? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      No matter how hard they scrape at the bottom of the barrel, there just isn't much there. One step forward, two steps back.

    3. Re:One step forwards, one step backwards? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Considering the lengths to which they've recently gone to increase skin-level diversity, which includes literally suspending all application processes for lower level positions where the applicant is white or asian, I do have to say that I am somewhat surprised by how little they've been able to move the needle.

      Kind of makes you wonder what could have nullified their efforts this heavily.

      Well, I don't know anything about what Google may or may not be doing in terms of hiring, but I can tell you what would nullify pretty much any effort at achieving diversity through hiring practices: the fact that industry hiring is a zero-sum game.

      The problem, at its core, is this: Every company out there is saying that it wants more diversity. Every company wants more women and minorities. Anything that Google or Apple or Facebook does is immediately cancelled out by every other company doing the same thing, and vice versa. When fewer than 20% of CS grads are women, it is physically impossible for the industry, on average, to employ an equal number of men and women. And the same statistical reality exists for minorities, for precisely the same reason. The best you can hope to do at the corporate level is to hire more women and minorities at the expense of some other company that ends up hiring fewer, hence the zero-sum-game thing.

      The industry can't fix this — at least not directly. Even if they threw a pile of money at the problem, offering crazy salaries and crazy signing bonuses to women and minorities to such an extent that they all saw dollar signs at the mere mention of a tech career, it still wouldn't work. You'd get more grads, but most of the additional grads would still not be good grads, so the numbers in the industry likely would not move much, if at all.

      And at some level, I think the C*Os in the industry must understand this. That's why every major tech company spends a lot of time and money trying to come up with new ways to try to improve diversity through hiring practices and trying to find ways to retain the women and minorities that they do have, in hopes that somehow they'll be able to steal more women and minorities from the competition than the competition steals from them. These are all good things to do in terms of improving working conditions for women and minorities, certainly, but short of changing the laws of physics, they can only have a very minimal effect on any given company's numbers unless every other company is asleep at the switch and doesn't follow suit. They aren't, and they do, which is why we keep having these articles asking why things aren't improving, even though the answer is obvious to anyone with even the most basic, high-school-level grasp of statistics.

      There is only one way to improve diversity in computer science: get more women and minorities to major in computer science and stick with it through to graduation. How? Heck if I know.

      One place to start might be creating programs in which elementary school teachers from around the country come to the Bay Area to work with industry engineers to design curricula for teaching computer science in schools, starting no later than first grade. Find ways to encourage girls and minority boys to get interested in computer science in primary school, when all the white boys (stereotyping a little here) are staying inside after school playing video games, and thus getting interested in tech. Until you do that, nothing, and I do mean nothing is going to move the diversity needle much at all.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    4. Re:One step forwards, one step backwards? by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      perhaps the problem lies further down the pipeline. Google can't hire third graders, yet. There's not much Google can do in a year if the hiring pool they are pulling from has been limited before they get there.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    5. Re:One step forwards, one step backwards? by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 1

      Even assuming that attracting talent which is skin-level diverse is a zero sum game, Google has enough clout and resources, both in terms of money and HR staff ready to take advantage of their appeal, that they, if anyone, they should be able to play this zero sum game to their advantage. Regardless of how many applicable candidates there are, they should be able to hoover up an ever increasing share of these people.

      Come to think of it, it's probably not actually a zero sum game as younger graduating classes from tech programs are more skin-level diverse than those of decades ago. This can also be seen in places like the StackOverflow user survey where you can see that women and racial minorities make up a larger percentage of the less experienced user base. All things being equal companies should be getting more skin-level diverse over time and not stuck in place like Google has gotten themselves.

      --
      "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
    6. Re:One step forwards, one step backwards? by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      I know they've had some well meaning changes that have made their minority hires feel genuinely uncomfortable, like how the traditional mentoring of new hires has been changed so that your mentor will always be of the same race

      How condescending can you be? "Hey, we don't judge you by your race, so here's a person that we picked to mentor you based on your race, (who was asked to mentor based on his race, naturally) since you people all like to stick together, right? Welcome to the team!"

    7. Re:One step forwards, one step backwards? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      This can also be seen in places like the StackOverflow user survey where you can see that women and racial minorities make up a larger percentage of the less experienced user base. All things being equal companies should be getting more skin-level diverse over time and not stuck in place like Google has gotten themselves.

      Comparing the "less experienced user base" to people that a company like Google is likely to hire is misleading, because most people in that category do not have adequate skills or knowledge to get hired at any of the major tech companies. Also, you're comparing a location-neutral survey against location-specific hiring. Stack Overflow would have to break those numbers by geographical area to draw any useful comparisons, both because of the high cost of living in tech-heavy cities and because of limits on the number of people a company can bring in from other countries.

      Worth noting: the minorities where the Stack Overflow survey showed the biggest gains were Asians and Middle Easterners. Asians are already overrepresented by about a factor of four at Google, assuming you're using the U.S. population as a basis. (If you're using the world population, Asians are still probably underrepresented, but there are geopolitical reasons that make such comparisons problematic). And Google doesn't even list "Middle Eastern" as an ethnicity in their report, so I can only assume that they are all lumped in under "white", making comparisons impossible.

      That said, you're right that there is a big discrepancy between the percentage of blacks and Hispanics graduating with CS degrees and the percentage who are getting employed by major tech companies. I don't know what's going on there. It could be bias in hiring, or it could be that we're seeing the same effect among minorities now that we saw among whites in the 1990s, where everybody majored in CS even if they were bad at it, hoping to get a high-paying job. Realistically, it is probably some combination of both. The former problem is easy to test, though nontrivial to correct. The latter, of course, can be solved in basically the same way as we solve the problem of inadequate numbers of women grads — by finding ways to identify people with strong potential for programming early (like elementary school) and encouraging them to learn CS.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  24. Copycat syndrome? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Maybe because the big co's are all trying to do the same such that the pool of diversity candidates has shrank.

  25. Re:Don't worry Trump traitor, Mueller has plenty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Way to feed the troll, man! But don't sweat it. This bullcrap about 'diversity' is a giant troll, a distraction that's drawing lots of hits

  26. " grew by .1 percent to 2.5" by greenwow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That's a pretty big change in just one year since it's 4% greater. The article is misleading.

    I did a series of interviews at Google in Kirkland, WA (between Seattle and Microsoft) because I had a free place to stay a couple of blocks away for a friend that's out of the country for two years working for Microsoft in Dublin that was looking for a house sitter. I also had two other friends that are also black that did the same. All three of us gave up before the end of the process. Despite being able to get rid of $1,500 a month and live somewhere nice and have a higher paying job, Google's interview process just made it not worth it. My two friends also gave up since both of them ran out of vacation time to take off from their current jobs to keep going back to Google.

    The way I feel about the process is that if you screen resumes well, do a good phone screening, then in person interviews with three or four people, then another interview with someone more senior and you still can't make-up your mind then the problem is with your process, not the candidate. It shouldn't take six months of waffling to make a decision.

    1. Re:" grew by .1 percent to 2.5" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TBH it is unusual to have more than one on-site with Google. That generally means the candidate is borderline, leaning towards hire. Even then, you got max 2 on-sites and the decision is made within few weeks.

    2. Re:" grew by .1 percent to 2.5" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      I interviewed at that office in 2005 the year after it opened (IIRC), and I got tired of them not making a decision so I started looking for another job. I found another job, worked there for seven months then it went out of business so I started looking again. Out of a blue I got a call from Google saying they were preparing an offer. They stalled for so long that I not only was able to find a job, but I was already looking for another one.

      I'm used to working for start-ups where you interview with a couple of peers then maybe the founder then they indicate almost immediately if they want you. The idea that you should wait 8+ months for them to decide is just ridiculous.

      I turned down the offer since it was for a team that was already late on a project so they warned the usual up to 20% (assuming I remember correctly) bonus would not happen. Plus, they said vacation time would be limited to almost none for at least the first two years.

    3. Re:" grew by .1 percent to 2.5" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My neighbor that was a recruiter for Google constantly complained about them taking months to make hiring decisions. They contacted me about a position because of a project at another company I was principal engineer on. I went to their Fremont office six times, which wasn't bad because I lived within walking distance to it at the time. They also flew me to SFO twice. It sucked that I used my entire week of PTO for the year just to interview at Google. About six months later I gave them a deadline since my lease was up on my apartment and I wanted to know where I should look for a new place, and they said I was being unfair. I later found-out from my friend that was a recruiter there that the position wasn't scheduled to open until around ten months after they first contacted me. No wonder they can't find good employees. Who would put up with that?

    4. Re:" grew by .1 percent to 2.5" by greenwow · · Score: 3, Informative

      indicate almost immediately

      That's what the start-up I work for does. You don't want people to look for other jobs. I've lost many good candidates by taking more than a couple of days getting them an offer. You have to move fast. Google is so big and arrogant that they think this doesn't apply to them.

    5. Re:" grew by .1 percent to 2.5" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a pretty big change in just one year since it's 4% greater. The article is misleading.

      I did a series of interviews at Google in Kirkland, WA (between Seattle and Microsoft) because I had a free place to stay a couple of blocks away for a friend that's out of the country for two years working for Microsoft in Dublin that was looking for a house sitter. I also had two other friends that are also black that did the same. All three of us gave up before the end of the process. Despite being able to get rid of $1,500 a month and live somewhere nice and have a higher paying job, Google's interview process just made it not worth it. My two friends also gave up since both of them ran out of vacation time to take off from their current jobs to keep going back to Google.

      The way I feel about the process is that if you screen resumes well, do a good phone screening, then in person interviews with three or four people, then another interview with someone more senior and you still can't make-up your mind then the problem is with your process, not the candidate. It shouldn't take six months of waffling to make a decision.

      Amazon is the same way. The interview questions are tough for both companies. They ask questions about stuff that is not even used anymore. Lots of low level stuff. It is a complete waste of time. They watch you answer a question about coding remotely. I expect a phone screen and then a follow up in person interview. Then a decision to be made about hiring.

    6. Re:" grew by .1 percent to 2.5" by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Have to agree, and add that whiteboards or silly algorithm tests are a big warning sign too. Google is kinda known for the latter...

      Although still not as bad as Amazon's exams, and funnily enough their diversity levels are even worse.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:" grew by .1 percent to 2.5" by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but low turnover is generally a good thing, so you want your population to remain steady (I realize they might be mostly new hires and not replacements).

    8. Re:" grew by .1 percent to 2.5" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *shrug*. Google is invested in some "old" tech. C++ is one of their mainstay languages.

      They actually do care about algorithms.

      Not every job is run on one of their back ends, but if you have to code something that uses their "cloud" infrastructure, coding it relatively efficiently can make huge differences in their massive server farms.

      They have a lot of tools to make coding easier for new hires, but coding efficiency and knowing how to properly do that RPC are relatively more important at a Google or Amazon than at a place that doesn't need to worry about "at scale" computing.

    9. Re:" grew by .1 percent to 2.5" by TheSync · · Score: 1

      The way I feel about the process is that if you screen resumes well, do a good phone screening, then in person interviews with three or four people, then another interview with someone more senior and you still can't make-up your mind then the problem is with your process, not the candidate. It shouldn't take six months of waffling to make a decision.

      Gee, maybe Google should use Google Hangouts for interviewing?

  27. Re:So this neckbeard faggot is a nazi, wut? by king+neckbeard · · Score: 0

    I'm not admitting nothing. I just understand how people fall into such groups.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  28. USA - Still a shithole! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for the NEWFLASH gais, the rest of the world was almost forgetting what a shithole even your "best" companies are to work for.. really.. totes forgetting that.. lulz

  29. Re: I'm pretty sure there was a memo/manifesto on by king+neckbeard · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yeah, that's the mental gymnastics of having actually read the memo, instead of regurgitating a third-hand report of how someone on Jezebel was offended.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  30. Re: You need a shower. Your balls stink. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And no girl is ever going to touch your penis with your body odor so noticable through the internet. Go take a shower fuckface.

  31. Re:Want to know why Google hasn't achieved nirvana by ScentCone · · Score: 1

    Yup. And you'd be labeled a Nazi for simply observing reality.

    As it stands right now, if Google wants to increase diversity in skin pigment for it's own sake, then what they're going to get is diversity in actual skills, instead. Less superb, and more average. And they don't want average, for obvious reasons. So the social diversity score simply follows the talent. Unforgivable, right?

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  32. Re:Trump is going to Federal Prison shortly by cdsparrow · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You do understand that all (most) these Manafort things they are looking at are from before he was associated with Trump in any way? And more to the point, he was working for the Podesta Group at the time...

    Should Trump have done better homework before he hired him? Probably, but that's about all you can put on Trump in any way for that.

  33. normal totally a classist and elitist organization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sure they let in everybody, except the lower class

    the new slaves are the poor, guess who the slave drivers are

    progress, my arse

  34. Big surprise. by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    Big surprise, and the steady descent of Google from kind of evil to really evil has not stopped either. No news here, but something to see here for those who have somehow not noticed.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    1. Re:Big surprise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're kicking that descent into overdrive by making their hiring process even more racist and sexist.

  35. Virtue Signaling BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a load a shi7 identity politics is. EMPLOY THE MOST QUALIFIED PERSON. How hard is that for a business. Going by Google's logic where is the equity statistics for black, disabled, trans men with children. Should there be the same ratio of those people to white men or asian women?

    1. Re:Virtue Signaling BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a load a shi7 identity politics is. EMPLOY THE MOST QUALIFIED PERSON. How hard is that for a business. ..

      evidently almost impossible, most of the companies I worked for, people who hired their friends / family / friends of family or the person their sleeping with or some other sycophant or crony. Merit is a myth.

  36. Re:diversity is a false god by blindseer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You mean religion in general is cancer.

    Right, because Christianity and Judaism have been so toxic that cultures that live consistent with Judaeo-Christian norms have failed miserably.

    Oh, wait, that didn't happen. Look at Israel and compare it to it's neighbors. The nation that exists, and was created, as a sanctuary for Jews in the world has the ability to produce all the water and food it needs for itself and then some. They produce some of the best technology and are able to fend off attackers which consistently have more numbers and resources but also a religion that leads them to a path of suicide. This suicide is quite literal, they will strap bombs to their bodies and detonate them to "win" a war. While Europe was looking at the stars and plotting the motion of the planets there were cultures in the Americas and Africa that were sacrificing themselves and their children to their gods.

    That's not saying that Europeans were entirely peaceful and intellectual, they had plenty of wars based on national borders and their interpretation of how to best worship a god. I will also admit that cultures in Asia prospered without a Judaeo-Christian culture. They still had their own religion and also had incredible advancements in science and technology.

    Religion is not cancer. You could argue that people can be peaceful, intellectual, and also without religion. I'd like to see an example of such a culture. Best we see of that is a culture that replaces worship of a god or gods with worship of a leader or of government. Such cultures tend to devolve into shit holes like North Korea. Islam is cancer and we see this play out every day in the news. Many of these Muslim nations exist only because of trade with nations that do not practice Islam. Had they been left to their own devices they'd slowly revert to goat herders as the infrastructure they imported decayed into dust.

    Perhaps someday Islam will evolve into a religion that is not bent on suicide. I see hints of this in Saudi Arabia, where they have begun to allow women to get an education and drive a car. A culture that keeps half their population ignorant and sheltered will continually be outdone by cultures that do not. It might also help if they don't strap bombs to their children and blow them up.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  37. Re:I'm pretty sure there was a memo/manifesto on t by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

    Have you tried reading the post you reply to? The point is that Google has mostly high-stress, high-pay jobs where you are expected to work all of the time. That's a formula for single white dudes, given our current social values

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  38. ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    diversity for diveritys sake blah

  39. Re:Trump is going to Federal Prison shortly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    did you even read your own article or the headline made you froth at the mouth so hard you forgot to scroll down and turn your brain back on? that Russian guy was a former FBI informant. i mean good fucking lord, how retarded do you have to be not to smell the FBI plant with odds like these. like they all conveniently popped out of nowhere and totally incidentally happened to have ties with or worked for the FBI for over a decade, the very same FBI that's been investigating suspicious contact with Russian agents after multiple of their field agents were found to be "with her" (sic) LMAO

  40. Good by ARos · · Score: 1

    Diversity is the least important factor when assembling a good tech team.

    1. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, diversity is very important. Just not that one. You cannot build a house only with plumbers.

  41. Re: Don't worry Trump traitor, Mueller has plenty by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google's feelings of diversity are just like that of California universities:

    Multiple skin colors, all 51 genders,* and all 187 sexual orientations.**

    * Diversity of opinion is not permitted.
    ** Cisexual cismales with white skin must choose one of the other 50 genders and/or one of the 186 other sexualities. Your skin color will be decided by your diversity officer fairly using diversity standard skin tone swatches.

  42. Re:Want to know why Google hasn't achieved nirvana by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Black American Culture you mean. Blacks in other countries don't generally have their own culture. Their skin color is different but otherwise they are just like everyone else. For some reason American blacks like to self identify to the point of even having their own language dialect (AAVE/ebonics). If I were a black American I would want to be seen as an individual and not a stereotype based on my group identity. As a jew I feel the same way. I don't want a fucking Jewish History Month. Why can't we all just see each other as unique individuals that we can get to know if we want to know more instead of stereotyping everyone from certain ethnic groups like the SJWs do. If I were an intelligent black person and I am sorry but they do really exist I would be extremely insulted and pissed off by the SJWs trying to give me a condescending helping hand.

    If Google wants to be racist and choose people based on race, but they are having trouble finding people with 10 years of experience using Common Lisp or whatever their silly requirements probably are they should just hire Jews and East Asians. Then they can rest easy about being accused of being racists (which they are since they have a fucking diversity officer who is probably a black chick and that is the only reason she was hired) by SJWs.

    It sucks that we jews are persecuted and disliked but still don't get credit for being a persecuted minority by SJWs. We are considered super-white these days. Nobody is trying to hire more jews and everyone is happy about that. Google should just refuse to hire anyone who is not East Asian or Jewish unless they are from Caltech or MIT. Not Harvard because they are obvious racists. Aren't ugly people also a persecuted minority? Just start hiring more ugly people. Or paedophiles. If you really want to be diverse you could hire deaf, blind, legless, black girls with kiddie porn on their computer from Tristan de Cunha.

    Or just fucking stop being racist and hire the most qualified candidates while doing your best to be race-blind. SJWs are racists themselves but are just too stupid to realize that fact. That is what bothers me about them. The least they could do is admit to being as racist as the KKK, but against anyone of European or East Asian descent (including jews) instead of mostly blacks and jews. Why they consider racism ok against one group but not another I don't know. We jews always get the short straw though. Even SJWs hate us.

  43. tootsie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just show up for the interview in drag and wearing blackface makeup. As a European jew that would probably be my only chance to get hired at Google. I wish I could also convince the SJWs to put a good word in for ugly people because everyone discriminates against us and we never get any sympathy from anyone.

    I am convinced that one of the reasons Hitler and the WWII Germans wanted to exterminate jews is because they saw us as ugly, which admittedly we often are. At least the SJWs don't want to murder us. They just want to keep us out of the better universities and away from the better jobs. Much like the KKK actually.

  44. It is non-sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Being a minority myself, I opposed diversity non-sense policy. America is a merit-based Capitalism country. A free enterprise knows the best who to be hired and how to hire. Otherwise, they won't survive in competition. The leftist can only apply their ideas in North Korea. Not here.

  45. Niggers not wanted. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't need no Google niggas. Step 'n' fetch it, boy.

  46. Problem is it's even worse than that by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is the goal to have a 50% female workforce even though there's almost no chance of that happening

    The goal is probably to have well above average female participation, as a kind of virtue signal.

    What no-one seems to think about is that all of these large companies offering very high salary and bonuses for the small pool of potential technical female employees, what does that do for participation in smaller companies?

    They simply have no way to complete for female employees, which means that females are inevitably poorly represented in smaller companies. That is really unfortunate because a smaller company is I think a generally nicer work environment for anyone, female or male... you simple have no room for the kind of nonsense that can get by at larger companies because everyone has to be productive and largely professional at a smaller company or they are gone.

    If you have any kids just going to college about now you'd have to be insane too have them study anything but computers or some other engineering, they can do really, really well even just on internships over the summer (I have a friend with a daughter who just finished a CS degree and she had companies fighting for her like mad all through school).

    She did sadly end up working for one of the large companies in part because of a huge bonus, that's what led me to mention that as a caution as I feel a little bit sad that will be her entry position in the technical world, when I think a smaller company would have suited her better.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Problem is it's even worse than that by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I find it hilarious that people think companies like Intel would spend $300,000,000 on "virtue signalling" and have it welcomed by shareholders because apparently that's more important to them than the short or long term profitability of the company.

      On the other hand I see a lot of virtue signalling Slashdot posts complaining about virtue signalling and SJWs.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Problem is it's even worse than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand I see a lot of virtue signalling

      Pot calling the kettle black there son.

    3. Re:Problem is it's even worse than that by Agripa · · Score: 1

      What no-one seems to think about is that all of these large companies offering very high salary and bonuses for the small pool of potential technical female employees, what does that do for participation in smaller companies?

      It means the state can fine smaller companies for not meeting industry standards for diversity.

  47. Re:At least they have 1 fewer INCEL crybaby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Headline should read: "Lack of Diversity At Google Hasn't Changed Much Over the Last Year".

    It is still a leftist group think tank.

  48. Cheaper labor by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    the goal is cheaper labor. There's a class of people who could be going into tech but who aren't. Often they go into medical, business and finance. If you can get those people to join your labor pool it drives down wages (supply/demand). That's the goal. There's no greater purpose and no SJWs at work. It's just a company trying to get the laborers they want for as little as they can.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  49. This may be self-selecting by superwiz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've seen a number of good people leave Google over the past year. The completely toxic culture that Google created by doubling down on their abusive rhetoric can very-well drive people away.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  50. And this is why ... by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    Any this is why effectively banning research and discussion of human biological diversity is bad. It would be okay to ignore the realities of differences in aptitude between groups, IF nasty policies were not going to be enacted to "correct" the disperate outcomes.

  51. Re: diversity is a false god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shitty smelly hindu-chimps are donkey balls cancer

  52. Re:However do you manage such a burden? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wumpus is not wrong; there is no criteria for indentifying as a woman. Any man could identify as a woman at any time for any reason. Diversity problem solved?

  53. Google's Look-Ma-No-Raw-Figures "Transparency" by theodp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can you find any raw figures in the Google diversity annual report 2018? "Sometimes it is percentages that are given and raw figures that are missing," warns How to Lie With Statistics , "and this can be deceptive too." And yet the lack of raw figures doesn't keep Google from boasting, "We are further increasing transparency. Google's publication of workforce representation data in 2014 helped shape the current industry conversation on diversity in tech. We aim to take the conversation-and our work to the next level as we further refine our approach, so this year we've published new and more detailed workforce representation data."

  54. Need more information by hackel · · Score: 1

    By what percentage did *applicants* in each of these categories rise or fall? What about the percentages amongst promotions? Of course we're not going to solve systemic racism and sexism in the tech industry overnight. It takes generations to undo that kind of damage. But what we *can* do is make sure that no discriminatory hiring practices are taking place.

  55. Re:diversity is a false god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look at Israel and compare it to it's neighbors. The nation that exists, and was created, as a sanctuary for Jews in the world

    Wait... what? Your response is to point to the country that was literally created for religious purposes by **forcefully taking land and killing/relocating the existing people**? And you think that shows Religion in a good light? Merely because the people whose land was stolen are pissed and are fighting to get it back?

    You could argue that people can be peaceful, intellectual, and also without religion. I'd like to see an example of such a culture. Best we see of that is a culture that replaces worship of a god or gods with worship of a leader or of government.

    Are you serious? Many countries have started with religious roots but moved beyond religion for a majority of the population. Here are some examples:

    China (only 7% identify as religious)
    Japan (13%)
    Sweden (19%)
    Norway (21%)
    Netherlands (26%)
    UK (30%)
    New Zealand (33%)
    Australia (34%)
    Germany (34%)

  56. What is the purpose of this effort? by davide+marney · · Score: 1

    Forget this article, ask yourself the question why some would even CARE if your skin color differs from that of your co-worker.

    Go far enough left around the circle, and you eventually end up on the right.

    --
    "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
    1. Re:What is the purpose of this effort? by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      I agree with you but get out any history book and you'll see we're in the tiny tiny tiny tiny minority.

  57. Just Fire the CDO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously, she has done nothing that changed diversity, and that doesnâ(TM)t seem to have impacted business, so she is utterly useless. Fire her and concentrate on core business.

  58. Percent does not mean what you think it means by reanjr · · Score: 1

    When the summary is corrected for mathematical reality, the numbers are:

    Women: +0.3%
    Asians: +4%
    Blacks: +4%
    Latinos: +3%

    Percent != Percentage Points

    1. Re: Percent does not mean what you think it means by reanjr · · Score: 1

      In other words, Google has demonstrated their past racism while suggesting they've hit their peak on women.

    2. Re:Percent does not mean what you think it means by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      Well, it's clear that they have at least one black guy and one Latino guy. Kudos.

  59. Re: Trump will die in Federal Prison a traitor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Translation: I lost the argument. Trump 2020. My suicide 2020.

    Kill yourself. It will solve this.

  60. What about age diversity? by locutor · · Score: 1

    Age discrimination is still rampant in Silicon Valley. I have a Stanford Ph.D. but am a baby boomer (guessable from my LinkedIn profile) and Google won’t give me the time of day. This despite the alleged scarcity of tech workers in an era of near record unemployment.

    1. Re:What about age diversity? by jcr · · Score: 2

      I don't think you're missing out on anything, frankly. Google's days as a technology innovator are long gone.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  61. Re:Want to know why Google hasn't achieved nirvana by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man, cry me a river.

    In America Jews weren't made into slaves. As far as I know, they weren't admitted into Ellis Island and recruited immediately into the army like many of the Irish. They have a much easier time making it in a traditionally white neighborhood than anybody of color, nevertheless blacks. I don't know their poverty rates, but I'd be surprised if they approach anything like poverty in black communities.

    Black Americans have a tougher history in America than any race outside of the Native American tribes. While other races have their challenges; internment camps for the Japanese, immigration issues with Mexicans and those from Central or South America, etc., most the people who make up America chose to come here. Indians were run off their land or whole tribes were simply wiped out, and blacks were slaves, then segregated, and even after segregation faced institutional poverty, crime, education, and racial profiling that most other races, including Jewish people, don't have to put up with, or at least not to the same degree.

    One could argue with gerrymandering, continued high incarceration rates for blacks, congress critters attempting to put laws back into affect that would disproportionately effect black neighborhoods that their equal rights fight isn't done, though it may be better recently than in most any other time in American history.

    We have indications that the war on drugs, at every level up to the presidency, focused on blacks. While similar % of blacks use drugs compared to white or other races, blacks were incarcerated at a much higher rate than anybody else. Their neighborhoods were broken up multiple times. Sometimes to break up ghettos, but sometimes to simply move them on to somewhere else.

    Certainly even after desegregation it took at least a generation after that to wipe out outright bigotry in hiring practices.

    While the 15th amendment gave black men the right to vote, it's arguable that they did not get to fully utilize that right until 1965 and the voting rights law.

    That's not to say that there aren't issues that they themselves should address within their communities. Violence, gangs, thug culture - which in some respects may be a push back against the institutional racism they've traditionally faced with the police - the number of young and single mothers, brain drains from impoverished neighborhoods when a black person does make it out of there, poverty itself - something Hispanics, E. Asians, and Indians arguably deal better with than white or black communities where whole extended families band together rather than each individual more or less going it alone, etc. are all challenges they'll likely need to address internally.

  62. Too many conservatives on /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wish that every 6 months, the mods would ban about 30% or so of the right-leaning posters on /. Their idiotic view points are just getting out of hand. Anyway there are two reasons why these giant man-children will never side with women on these type of matters:
    1) They have been rejected by women in whom they were sexually or romantically interested due to their filthy appearance and / or crude behavior
    2) They got their asses handed to them in divorce court

    1. Re:Too many conservatives on /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what's your sex life like? Better? You're here. :P

  63. Doesn't Google have enough money by jader3rd · · Score: 1

    I think that Google has enough money to solve this problem. If they felt like it, they could open an office in Mississippi, hire a bunch of minorities, and have them do something of no consequence. Next diversity report comes out, and they'll be looking great.

  64. Re:Trump is going to Federal Prison shortly by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    With regards to any issues with the 2016 campaign, yes.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  65. Re:Want to know why Google hasn't achieved nirvana by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man, cry me a river.

    In America Jews weren't made into slaves.

    Neither were you. The only slaves in the USA since 1865 have been those brought in by Arab "royals".

  66. Re:James Incel Damore is a snowflake loser crybaby by Z80a · · Score: 1

    You want more 4 years of trump? no?
    Then you will have to accept the fact that judging people by the color of their skin failed you miserably, and that there were enough white people in bad conditions to elect a fucking president.
    Go back to judge people individually or be blind.

  67. Re:diversity is a false god by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Right, because Christianity and Judaism have been so toxic that cultures that live consistent with Judaeo-Christian norms have failed miserably.

    What does that even mean?

    Look at Israel and compare it to it's neighbors. The nation that exists, and was created, as a sanctuary for Jews in the world

    ...after they got their asses kicked out of there, and had to be reinstalled by force substantially later? That sounds a lot like failure to me.

    has the ability to produce all the water and food it needs for itself and then some. They produce some of the best technology and are able to fend off attackers which consistently have more numbers and resources

    ...or would, if not for US foreign aid to Israel.

    but also a religion that leads them to a path of suicide.

    When you deprive people of other delivery systems, they will use their bodies. They may do this even without the influence of religion, if you take their homes away from them and subject them to an ongoing policy which looks very much like genocide.

    That's not saying that Europeans were entirely peaceful and intellectual, they had plenty of wars based on national borders and their interpretation of how to best worship a god.

    They had plenty of wars based on profit which they ascribed to national borders and their interpretation of how to best worship a god.

    Religion is not cancer.

    Of course it is. It's inefficient.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  68. Re: Don't worry Trump traitor, Mueller has plenty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it would be funny if it wasn't so scary that so many brain washed illogical idiots are being produced by universities.

  69. White males and James Damore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to their "diversity report", the % of whites and the % of males in tech jobs have decreased each of the last few years.

    I'm guessing the firing of James Damore last year accelerated that trend, by discouraging whites and males (esp. white males) from applying there.

    1. Re:White males and James Damore by russotto · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing the firing of James Damore last year accelerated that trend, by discouraging whites and males (esp. white males) from applying there.

      I'm guessing their discriminatory hiring programs accelerated that trend even more.

      Two -- the Supplemental Headcount Program for industry hires and another program which affected new grads.

  70. Define "good outcome" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "if we want a better outcome"

    What is Danielle Brown's definition of a "good outcome"? To me, a good outcome is that hiring and promotion decisions are based only on merit - not on race, gender, politics or religion.

  71. Re:diversity is a false god by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    Right, because Christianity and Judaism have been so toxic that cultures that live consistent with Judaeo-Christian norms have failed miserably.

    The only difference of import between Islam and Christianity is the REPETITIVE nature of being a practicing Muslim.

    Religion at low levels is a manageable annoyance. Religion of people who organize their life around it is how you get ISIS and heaven's gate.

    Religion is not cancer. You could argue that people can be peaceful, intellectual, and also without religion. I'd like to see an example of such a culture. Best we see of that is a culture that replaces worship of a god or gods with worship of a leader or of government.

    Religion is absolutely a cancer. Too many have leveraged religion for their own aims granting themselves legitimacy that would otherwise be denied to them without it. Religion is a dangerous vehicle of control (yet far from the only one) the world is far better off without.

    The only difference between Christianity and Islam is the volume level. It isn't the content of the religion. All of the Abrahamic religions reflect cave dwelling sensibilities of their times.

    Perhaps someday Islam will evolve into a religion that is not bent on suicide.

    The only evolutionary path for religion is the extent to which underlying theology is ignored by its adherents.

  72. Re:diversity is a false god by blindseer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Merely because the people whose land was stolen are pissed and are fighting to get it back?

    Israel, as it exists today, was created in 1947. That's over 70 years go. The people that had this land "stolen" are quite likely all dead. The few that remain, if any, are not likely in fighting form. The people fighting today are the grandchildren and great grandchildren of that generation. How many generations removed can they still call this their land?

    I grew up in the USA, as did my parents and grandparents. If I go back far enough I can find ancestors from Germany and other European nations. Does this mean I can go back and claim land there? I don't think so. What point was that right lost? Give me a number of generations. It's not "their land" any more than some piece of Germany is my land.

    Also, while 75% (give or take) of people in Israel are Jewish the rest are not. They weren't killed off or relocated out of the country. Those that can behave themselves and not be pissed about a 70 year old gripe will live in peace and prosperity within the borders of Israel. Those that can't will be imprisoned, not killed or forced out.

    And you think that shows Religion in a good light?

    I think this shows Jews in a good light. Muslims? Not so much.

    If Israel really was the bloodthirsty culture you believe it to be then they'd bomb the Gaza Strip until it glowed in the dark. The Gaza Strip is 99.9% Muslim, why is that? Could it be because the Jews and Christians were largely killed or forcefully relocated? All the rockets that go over that border originate from Gaza and land in Israel. Sure, the Israeli Army will defend it's border with lethal force so bullets and grenades do cross from Israel into Gaza. They do this because they know if the border is breached that those that cross will do so with the intent to kill as many Jews as they can. This isn't about land any more, no one fighting this war has ever set foot in Israel before.

    Israel is showing considerable restraint and diplomacy. This has not been reciprocated by its neighbors. I read my history and know of the Six Day War. Israel has a far superior military than any of its neighbors. If they wanted to take the Sinai Peninsula again, and keep it, then they could do so at any time. But they gave it back as an offering to hopefully reach peace. All they got in return was more rockets fired at them.

    This is not a political war. Maybe in 1947, or perhaps 1967, it was but no more. All those warriors from then are dead or senile. This is a one sided religious war, Muslims wanting to kill Jews or die trying.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  73. Meritocracy is a racist dogwhistle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They say that meritocracy is a racist dogwhistle though. You'd think they'd realize that reality has to come into play somewhere, but it doesn't.

    So they say that it's just a form of privilege. Some of us are smarter and more educated and somehow that's a bad thing, so we need to hire unqualified people and who cares about the cost because someone else will be forced to pay it... in theory.

    Ideally we'd find a better thing for useless people to do than identity politics, but I wish I knew how to realize that.

  74. Re:I'm pretty sure there was a memo/manifesto on t by king+neckbeard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are you talking about claims he made or just ones that seem implicit? His main actual sin that I saw was that seemed to be leaning to heavy on claims of the difference between genders being biological, when we are much better able to measure the cocktail of nature and nurture.

    Again, I feel a lot of the criticism tends to be not on what he said, but on what was implied by what he said. But drawing conclusions requires preconceptions to fill in the blanks, particularly the overall legitimacy of corporate structure and management.

    Now, it's quite possible that he's just a sexist jerk. But the memo is still quite readable if one operates under the assumption that traditional management and business structure is garbage that is heavily biased in favor of "rugged invididualism"-type affluent men. The jobs in question make up some of the main exceptions to overtime laws, and one biological difference between men and women is the women generally need more hours of sleep to not have impairments. Women are socially expected to be the one that takes care of a child, and these positions have horrible work-life balance. The traditions of promotion encourage aggressive behavior, which men are inculcated to engage in while women are inculcated to avoid. It's not hard to see how a lot of higher positions are deeply antagonistic towards women by design. And the obvious solution would not be to throw more women into the pool of candidates, but to alter the environment so that it's not hostile. And I believe that those changes would result in a HUGE improvement for diversity and productivity that dwarfs their current initiative.

    Like I said, it's possible that Damore didn't intend for this kind of interpretation, but this makes for a far more interesting discussion than the conventional read on it.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  75. First, who cares? Second, just kill the company. by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is mindless SJWism and everyone knows it but the cultists.

    But any company that takes this seriously should put their existential future where their stupid mouths are... and just kill their company.

    Hire people that aren't qualified merely on the basis of who is more or less statistically represented.

    Burn the company to the ground. And when there's nothing left but ashes and finger pointing... the industry can be rebuilt by people with the courage and integrity to stand their ground.

    I'm sure there are devotees of the cult that are offended by the statement, I am not an adherent to your religion.

    I find the suggestion that I should take it seriously as silly as you would take the suggestion that only Christians following christian doctrine should be hired. Its that absurd.

    But obviously fundamentalists are not known for being sensible. So this is going to continue until they burn it down. We already are seeing companies leave not only the bay area but California entirely. And not merely for tax or real estate issues but literally because the culture has gone toxic.

    I know I know... The great sage has prophesied that when the planets align your golden age will come to pass... which is why everyone else has to get on the right side of history... because these people on top of everything else think they have an accurate prophesy of the future. Literally. Otherwise how would they know what was the "right side of history"... they're saying that in the end they'll get what they want. And yet the industry is already very international and most of the international partners on top of the domestic companies that are leaving are not ascribing to this stuff.

    Its not good for any industry in which it takes over. Its even f'ing up hollywood, journalism, and academia is lousy with it.

    But these people are not open to correction. They were told the word of god at some point and anyone that disagrees is a dirty infidel. So this is just going to have to play out to the pain.

    I'm enjoying the show.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  76. Re:Trump will die in Federal Prison a traitor by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It really is fun watching the Shillaries unable to ever actually talk about the substance of any single thing. And then they wonder why they lost nearly a thousand legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, and millions of two-time Obama voters who can't stand people like you any more. Carry on! More! It will help again in the next round. Thanks!

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  77. Re: James Incel Damore is a snowflake loser crybab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need full 8 years of Trump. If you stop the chemo in the middle of the cycle, the cancer will come back.

  78. simple answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get half of the guys to "identify as a woman". They wouldn't have to change any behaviors, since it's bigoted to question gender expression.

  79. Don't worry help is on the way by erp_consultant · · Score: 2

    The University of Chicago just announced last week that going forward, SAT scores will be "optional" when determining admission standards. Others, no doubt, will follow suit.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story...

    Guess who tends to do better on SAT tests? That's right - whites and asians. Blacks and Hispanics, on average, do far less well on SAT tests. Notice I said "on average". Obviously there are some Black and Hispanic students that do exceptionally well on the SAT tests but overall, as a group, they don't do as well as whites and asians do as a group. It's just a fact.

    I suspect that at least one of the reasons that the University of Chicago chose to take this path is to "right" a supposed "wrong". Google has a very low percentage of black and Hispanic employees and Facebook and Microsoft are probably about the same. I don't know this for a fact but I would be willing to bet it is the case.

    So the U of C has now "leveled" (i.e. tilted) the playing field in favor of two groups that traditionally don't do well on standardized tests. What could possibly go wrong?

  80. In other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Still too many white males.

  81. Get woke go broke! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A phrase all businesses should be repeating to themselves before they adopt stupid SJW policies:

    Get woke, go broke.

  82. and what ? by Tom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Diversity for diversity sake is a totally misguided approach to... well, anything actually except maybe winning a diversity trophy.

    If any group faces higher obstacles than others, that needs to be addressed. If any group is statistically significantly under-represented, that might justify checking for why it is so.

    But intentionally hiring one group over another is actually the definition of discrimination, even if you do it in the name of enriching diversity.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:and what ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're right about the fundamental issue being the obstacles, like education, social opportunities. As a country we need to put more money in education rather than fighting the symptoms (like drug abuse, crime) and sweeping the growing wealth gap under the rug.

      But I think this method from the private sector could work towards correcting for socio-economic imbalances in society. Forcing a demand in the labor market should hopefully have the effect of trickling down into more under-represented students going into the right fields in universities and even education before university. It could be that some groups think they have no hope making it to tech because they see it as a white male dominated industry. So if executed by most tech companies it could have a positive long term effect.

      Still, it is a really indirect way to do it, and this country has a huge income gap problem that extends far beyond tech and far beyond race that this will not hope to address. Also the hiring stats says nothing about salary. As long as google continues to discriminate in salary (not giving raises if you are not a white male), it's not clear how much this will help things.

      Sorry for the AC post. I just don't feel comfortable posting on /. on any politically sensitive topics with my main account.

  83. How to get that ratio by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    The stats from within every company now follow every profession, not just a total count of staff and a SJW set ratio.
    Every profession within the USA now has to reflect wider US community demographics.
    50%, 10% 5% 1% as exists in cities and states all over the USA.
    Top engineering people what can keep a company globally competitive have to reflect that same US demographics.
    How can any US company work with that SJW demand?

    Offer money and a house and a free bus and the ability to earn and save more money and good food and gym and a work location in a nice community and a ... with a free... support for ... better... more of ... with .... longer.... better .. in a nice community thats clean and safe... solar ...

    The problem is the working hours, conditions and the educational demands on the top engineering people. All that free stuff and amounts of free money does not make for a happy professional person with the hours of work.
    Other nice jobs with the same/more pay, less hours, more freedom start to look much better. Not having to be work ready at 3 am any day for years.
    Smart people walk out of that job to nicer start up, create their own work, become contractors, work with a smaller brand that has much better hours.
    Brands that want new ideas, have growth. New jobs in great parts of the USA where excellence and merit is seen as good.
    In a part of the US thats safe, clean, has fast networking, has a nice community and good education. Solar.
    The SJW cant make people take work and stay at work in the ratio of workers they want to see the USA changed into.

    The USA can solve all this by:
    Remove all need for merit and skills. Only hire on demographics. Every new worker then has a professional worker look after them for years.
    Make people keep their jobs so the ratio and demographics cant change?
    For an offer of free university make workers take a job later?
    Use the tax system to keep people in a job to make up the ratio of workers needed?
    Work in a profession with a short list of brands for a better tax credit and free education?
    Escape that job and the tax credit stops, the once free education becomes a loan.
    With that gov guidance smart people will have to stay at the job offered and not look for any other jobs. Ratio of workers and demographics are then set by gov and tax laws.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  84. Re: Want to know why Google hasn't achieved nirvan by c6gunner · · Score: 2

    most the people who make up America chose to come here

    No, the vast majority of the people who make up America were born there, and had no say in the matter.

  85. More stupid people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Diversity is a lot easier if you'd just let stupid people in, amiright?

    1. Re:More stupid people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Diversity is a lot easier if you'd just let stupid people in, amiright?

      As a stupid person I resent being under-represented in key decision making areas and skilled jobs. I know people will say "look you can't be discriminated against, the POTUS is stupid" but that's mere tokenism. We won't have real equality until we have a representative number of stupid doctors, CEOs, teachers, professors, police, and judges. OK - forget the police and judges I'll concede that we already have exceed parity there

  86. Re:When Trump dies in prison, you'll know bitch lo by Chas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Tell us how you REALLY feel.

    Seriously, you're going to let something as temporal as the POTUS drive you THIS fucking bug-nuts?

    Do you ENJOY flagellating yourself this much?

    You don't like him, you don't like his supporters.
    FINE.
    He's gone in 4 years IF YOU ACT LIKE SANE PEOPLE.
    He's gone in 8 if you continue acting this way (and then gets replaced by someone just like him).

    Don't you see how this sort of crazed, bitchy, vindictive behavior is simply pushing people in the near left and center ever further right, even as you and your compatriots dash ever further left?

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  87. Anti-White Anti-Male by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One day I hope we become the monsters the left claims we were/are.

  88. Yes, according to their numbers (?) by michael.karl.coleman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A more interesting question is how they managed to go from 59.6% white techies in 2014 to 50.7% white techies in 2018. That's an 8.9% drop in four years. Presumably they're not preferentially firing white techies, nor are they preferentially quitting. That leaves hiring, which for some reason has fallen off a cliff, versus non-whites. Is there any innocent explanation for this?

    On top of that, female techies have gone from 16.6% to 21.4% over the same four years. Since many of these new hires are undoubtedly white, that means that white male techies have fallen even more than the above stats would indicate. We need more data, but I'm guessing 15 or 20% over four years.

    This seems almost beyond belief, and yet no one else seems to be discussing it. Am I all wet here? Or maybe Google screwed up their numbers?

    1. Re:Yes, according to their numbers (?) by russotto · · Score: 1

      That leaves hiring, which for some reason has fallen off a cliff, versus non-whites. Is there any innocent explanation for this?

      No, there isn't.

    2. Re:Yes, according to their numbers (?) by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Presumably they're not preferentially firing white techies, nor are they preferentially quitting.

      I would assume the opposite; they are encouraging white techies to leave (firing someone is encouragement) and preferentially hiring non-white techies.

      That leaves hiring, which for some reason has fallen off a cliff, versus non-whites. Is there any innocent explanation for this?

      Why make things complicated?

  89. Re: James Incel Damore is a snowflake loser crybab by Z80a · · Score: 1

    If the left abandon the racist as fuck social justice and go back to being "color/gender blind" and tries to find ways to improve the life of those that are in terrible conditions no matter who they are, then they're cured.
    But that probably will take more 4 years.

  90. Re:First, who cares? Second, just kill the company by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    This is mindless SJWism [ ... ] Its even f'ing up hollywood

    Huh so SJW are responsible for the continual churn of mediocre reboots, remakes and cookie cutter superhero movies?

    Is there ANYTHING SJW won't stoop to???? :clutches pearls:

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  91. Re:First, who cares? Second, just kill the company by Karmashock · · Score: 0

    Who is clutching pearls while they complain about "diversity"?

    I'm quite happy leaving the meritocracy intact. If that is offensive to you, then that's just tragic.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  92. Re:diversity is a false god by darth.hunterix · · Score: 1

    ...after they got their asses kicked out of there, and had to be reinstalled by force substantially later? That sounds a lot like failure to me.

    They got kicked out by religious, but pagan, Roman Empire. That only proves, that a religion with more gods is better than a religion with one. And I definitely second that opinion - paganism caused significantly less religious wars than monotheism and produced much funnier mythology.

    As to the rest of your points... religion was created on the fly as a tool used by witch doctors and such to keep their less enlightened tribesmen from eating poisonous mushrooms and wandering off from safe camps, and kinda snowballed from there. All things considered it's a miracle in itself it didn't turn out even worse, and actually managed to create something good.

    --
    What is best in life? Hot water, good dentishtry and shoft lavatory paper.
  93. Re:Damore is a crybaby Incel faggot by mapkinase · · Score: 0

    I wish I could track your piece of shit ghetto ass and personally feed you your genitals.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  94. Re:I'm pretty sure there was a memo/manifesto on t by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0, Troll

    His main actual sin that I saw was that seemed to be leaning to heavy on claims of the difference between genders being biological, when we are much better able to measure the cocktail of nature and nurture.

    Yeah, that's basically it. Interesting that we said the same thing and you were modded "insightful" while I got "troll".

    The authors of the studies he cited have publicly refuted his conclusions. That's bound to come up in court. He is going to have a hard time justifying his position as rational and science based when the scientists whose work he is relying on contradict him.

    But the memo is still quite readable if one operates under the assumption that traditional management and business structure is garbage that is heavily biased in favor of "rugged invididualism"-type affluent men.

    Yes, although he also seems to think that Google is the opposite of that at the same time... But in any case, the suggestions he makes are sometimes in line with what Google is actually trying to do, namely change the culture and make the environment less hostile. But he also opposes programmes with a proven track record of fixing those issues, because of reverse-sexism.

    It really seems like he wrote that memo with little understanding of historic efforts to address these problems or of the decades of study done around them, which resulted in rather fundamental mistakes and him dragging up a lot of long debunked ideas that are now exclusively used by genuine sexists. It's a shame he didn't do more research... His selection of sources looks very much like the result of a google search for papers supporting his established view which he then skimmed rather than trying to carefully understand in context.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  95. Re:diversity is a false god by JabrTheHut · · Score: 2

    How many generations removed can they still call this their land?

    Wait - you’re claiming that the religious zealots from Europe who said they have an eternal homeland after 2000 years are reasonable but the second and third generation of the people displaced are not, even though they are still stateless and occupied by said European religious zealots?

    Those that can behave themselves and not be pissed about a 70 year old gripe will live in peace and prosperity within the borders of Israel. Those that can't will be imprisoned, not killed or forced out.

    You seem to not know a heck of a lot about this, so it’s unsurprising you are parroting propaganda, but the Palestinians both in Gaza and the West Bank face starvation rations and no clean water in one case and dispossession in the other, and both face near-daily violence from Israelis. You should open a newspaper or two, or maybe read a book.

    If Israel really was the bloodthirsty culture you believe it to be then they'd bomb the Gaza Strip until it glowed in the dark. The Gaza Strip is 99.9% Muslim, why is that? Could it be because the Jews and Christians were largely killed or forcefully relocated? All the rockets that go over that border originate from Gaza and land in Israel. Sure, the Israeli Army will defend it's border with lethal force so bullets and grenades do cross from Israel into Gaza. They do this because they know if the border is breached that those that cross will do so with the intent to kill as many Jews as they can. This isn't about land any more, no one fighting this war has ever set foot in Israel before.

    I think you’ll find it’s about occupation and Israeli brutality. Seriously, the level of ignorance you’re showing here is embarrassing. Even the Israelis admit that they have a brutal occupation with the intent of starving the Palestinians into acquiescence. They just can’t mass murder the Palestinians because then they’d be subjected to sanctions, and they rely on massive aid handouts from the EU and US just to survive.

    I read my history and know of the Six Day War. Israel has a far superior military than any of its neighbors. If they wanted to take the Sinai Peninsula again, and keep it, then they could do so at any time. But they gave it back as an offering to hopefully reach peace. All they got in return was more rockets fired at them.

    Ouch! You really should open a book about the Yom Kippur war, where Egypt steamrolled over Israeli forces almost by accident, and discovered that they could do that again and again if they had better preparation. Isarel and Egypt were discussing peace a year later, and a peace treaty was signed shortly after that. What rockets do you think go from Egypt to Israel, or vice versa? Egypt was Israel’s second Middle East ally.

    --
    Work like no one is watching. Dance like you've never been hurt. Make love like you don't need the money.
  96. FUCK DIVERSITY... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stupid idiots with their diversity, I want to work with people that are very good in their job, not because they have a different color than white, or a vagina.

  97. Re:Trump will die in Federal Prison a traitor by stealth_finger · · Score: 0

    It really is fun watching the Shillaries unable to ever actually talk about the substance of any single thing.

    About as much fun as watching the shit show that is trump lurch from one awkward ill advised tweet to the next spewing all kinds of bullshit. The guy is taking baby steps to becoming the first and eternal king of americaland and you guys will still be focusing on hillary when it happens. Are you ready to sit up and pay attention when he talks like the norks do for kim jong dickhead?

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  98. Re:Don't worry Trump traitor, Mueller has plenty by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    how about to start

    A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official.

    5 U.S. Code 3110

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  99. Re:diversity is a false god by blindseer · · Score: 1

    Wait - youâ(TM)re claiming that the religious zealots from Europe who said they have an eternal homeland after 2000 years are reasonable but the second and third generation of the people displaced are not, even though they are still stateless and occupied by said European religious zealots?

    I'm saying that after 70 years of the borders of Israel being where they are there is no one alive today on either side with any claims for land except that under their feet. For the most part all of the people were born on the land they live on. We can rehash all the history of who possessed this land all the way back to before Judaism existed if we want but that changes nothing on who owns it now. Israel owns this land and they can keep it as long as they can defend it. These 20 year old punks that toss fire bombs at Israeli border guards can claim that the land on the other side of the fence is there's but it's not. They never set foot there and therefore can claim no ownership. These "European religious zealots" have never been to Europe, and have no citizenship in any European country.

    Here's an idea, send the Palestinians to Europe. They have just as much right to be in Europe as the Israeli Jews. Oh, that's right, these Arabs are going to Europe. Seems that they are as poorly behaved in Europe as they are at home, being as they have a tendency to rape the women, drive trucks over children, and hack the men to pieces with machetes. Has Europe been "mean" to the Arabs too and somehow deserve this treatment? Was this land also "stolen" from the Arabs and they just want the land back? Is this all just a political dispute? I say not. This is religious zealotry from the Muslims and they are willing to "convert or kill" everyone or die trying. I'm willing to grant their wish, they can die trying and get their 72 virgins.

    You seem to not know a heck of a lot about this, so itâ(TM)s unsurprising you are parroting propaganda, but the Palestinians both in Gaza and the West Bank face starvation rations and no clean water in one case and dispossession in the other, and both face near-daily violence from Israelis. You should open a newspaper or two, or maybe read a book.

    They could have better conditions if they wanted it more than to kill Jews. I have no sympathy for the living conditions of those that threaten the lives of Jews for being Jews. I have read a book or two, and I see the news. The Israeli authorities give those in Gaza pipes to fix their water supply, fertilizer to grow crops, and sugar to can their food. What they do is weld the pipes into makeshift rocket casings, use the sugar and fertilizer to make rocket propellant, then send the unguided rockets to kill random innocent people. Had they instead used this material to improve their own living conditions they'd have food and clean water. I'm impressed by their ability to improvise these weapons but saddened by their inability to use those resources for improving their living conditions.

    I think youâ(TM)ll find itâ(TM)s about occupation and Israeli brutality. Seriously, the level of ignorance youâ(TM)re showing here is embarrassing. Even the Israelis admit that they have a brutal occupation with the intent of starving the Palestinians into acquiescence. They just canâ(TM)t mass murder the Palestinians because then theyâ(TM)d be subjected to sanctions, and they rely on massive aid handouts from the EU and US just to survive.

    Israel has nuclear weapons. As I recall VP Biden let this slip as before it was merely speculated. Iran has stated openly that if they get a nuclear weapon they fully intend to drop it on Israel. If Israel was equally brutal then they'd drop nukes on Iran, Gaza, and wherever else they thought it necessary. Iran faces sanctions now, precisely because they have more hate than intelligence. Israel is smart enough to hold back their brutality on their neighbors to avoid these san

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  100. How hard is it to meet an outcome, simple math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Employees = (left + right) * lgbtqiapsn-b/oo~^oo

  101. Endemic undiversity by ElitistWhiner · · Score: 1

    Mostly, GOOG wants a well oiled machine. Diversity is not engineering. So GOOG continues engineering its workplace to achieve error-free outcomes. A good design parameter - for a machine.

    Unique, individual, counter-intuitives and creatives are not the COGS in the machine but exceptions. Exceptions interrupt the flow, disrupt the running of the machine. Females in a minority have no voice, other than to accept GOOG's very generous offer to FREEZE their eggs. Which fits nicely with their FREE lunch that keeps people working –– like a machine.

    And when the machine doesn't work who do you think they fire ' for cause' in an 'at will' state like CA? Yep...unique, individual, counter-intuitives and creatives. SO females can grab their frozen eggs and run to the nursery after they've been shown their pink slips. BUT the untold story remains here...Google's diversity doesn't change because that's NOT the machine that they built.

    NOT until the US.gov makes them.

  102. Re:When Trump dies in prison, you'll know bitch lo by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

    Democrats are mostly just keeping quiet at the moment, letting Trump ruin his own chances. They have the endless scandals, the lack of progress on key election promises, the tariffs that will soon bite American workers, the Mueller investigation...

    All they have to do is shut up and not create any problems of their own for a couple of years, and Trump will still be ranting about Crooked Hillary and fake news.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  103. Re:diversity is a false god by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    "All things considered it's a miracle in itself it didn't turn out even worse, and actually managed to create something good."

    It's unsustainable, that is the opposite of good.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  104. Diversity of what? Skin tone? Sex junk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who is the dumbass thinks that those will make anything better?
    Lose the SJW crap and pick the best for the job.

  105. Re: Trump will die in Federal Prison a traitor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why must you be a GOP Trump supporter of our see all of this as intensely racist and sexist?

    You can be for equal rights and against initiatives like these.

  106. Re:Lol Manafort is already in jail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do realize the Admins can see past the Anonymous Coward post selection right?

  107. Re:When Trump dies in prison, you'll know bitch lo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the lack of progress on key election promises,

    BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAH

    Has kept more campaign promises than any other president in modern history.

    democrats are keeping quiet as in. They bet the farm on the Mueller investigation and that isn't going to well so their mantra of 'Russian hax0rz.' is falling apart to the point they latched on a porn star in desperation.

    Democrats are keeping quiet because everything they have done and said has been a failure.

  108. Re:Want to know why Google hasn't achieved nirvana by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

    Oriental? Are you 80 years old?

  109. Re:Lol Manafort is already in jail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are not logged in, it wont help them much. That is unless /. keeps logs of who logs in from what IP address and when. Then you might be able to find a pattern. I would find that disturbing if they saved those types of logs.

  110. "better outcome"? by ooloorie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The US population is 62% white. Google's employee population is 53.1% white and new hires are 45.2% white. That seems like a pretty serious bias to me, but it's a private business and they can do what they want. What I don't understand is what "better outcome" they actually want to achieve. Dose Google want to become a "majority minority" company?

  111. Re:When Trump dies in prison, you'll know bitch lo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't you see how this sort of crazed, bitchy, vindictive behavior is simply pushing people in the near left and center ever further right, even as you and your compatriots dash ever further left?

    Anyone whose political leanings can be swayed by childish vapid rhetoric like the GP's are not thinking rationally.

    Being called "Libtard" or "lefty" or whatever has no effect on me. But I do judge the person making such comments.

    The folks who dug their heals in and voted for Trump just because of Clinton's "deplorables" comment acted quite childishly and not in the best interest of this country.

    It's one thing to like a candidate for what they stand for, but it's another to support them for vindictive reasons.

    This whole "pissing off the libs" and "sticking it to the libs" is going to bite those people in the ass real hard later on.

  112. affinity tests in disguise by doom · · Score: 1

    Skipping past the usual dueling SJW and ASJW's, I'm going to propose that what's going on is something a bit different than people usually suggest:

    Google pays lip service to the idea that a diverse workforce corresponds to a diverse range of intellectual approaches to the job, but they're also famous for a "tough" application process that I submit is actually a series of affinity tests in disguise. For example, you can be a very good programmer and still not qualify as google material if you can't show you're up on a lot of computer science trivia [1] which isn't actually used that much by working programmers-- hence the trend toward computer science cram classes to get you through the job application process (much like the SAT preparation racket).

    [1] Before you object to this point and start telling me about "fundamentals": if you can actually prove that an algorithm is correct, the algorithm will be embodied in standard libraries, and knowing it in much more than outline form will become unnecessary for anyone outside of the tiny fraction of people working on those standard libraries. I really and truly don't need to know how to code up a postgresql index, because there's some really good code that does this already-- I could learn to do this if it were needed, I need to know enough about indexing to choose appropriate ones, but beyond that, no.

  113. Diversity win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know the number of psychopaths is down by 1. Good job google?

  114. So, should we all get fired from our jobs? by Targon · · Score: 1

    So, in the name of diversity, should all of us get fired, just so our employers can get closer to that "perfect" mix of different genders/races/whatever? Think about it, if you work for an employer and there are only five employees, who happen to be male, or female, or fit a certain demographic, if the employer is only looking at the best candidates for the job, no matter what, is there a problem? Should most of us lose our jobs just to force our employers to give the job to someone else who may not be as qualified/experienced, just to fill some "quota" that is seen as politically correct?

    For a long time, women were not encouraged to go into science/technology, not just because of jobs, but because their parents had the culture that encouraged these gender roles. It takes generations to change things, not because children are not able or interested in a subject, but because their parents encourage their children, and will generally hope that their children in most cases are like them when it comes to interests. How many generations will it take to get from the 1940s-1950s culture where "a womans place is in the home" and to the point where it should be a very normal thing to see women in just about any field? Remember, we are talking generations, not years. Those in their 50s at this point still come from the culture of the old-school gender norms for many careers, and even when the older crowd enjoys seeing change, it is such a part of the cultural upbringing that many want their children to have similar interests.

    When it comes to race, and you know that education in the USA has a huge split between schools in wealthy areas compared to poor or middle class areas, and you also know that there is a much larger percentage of non-whites in poor areas, that means the schools will not be at the same level, meaning there will be a lower percentage of non-white people who will get the education needed for high end careers. Like it or not, and I do NOT like that the USA is like this, it means that relatively speaking, there will be a lower percentage of African-American people who are qualified for many high end jobs. It isn't about race as much as it is the education system being unfairly designed to keep those in poor areas from getting a good education compared to areas with more wealth. At that point, diversity is difficult, because your percentage of qualified applicants of given races will make it more of a challenge. We are not talking about diversity in retail jobs, we are talking about jobs that are NOT all that easy to get, even for those qualified.

  115. Re:I'm pretty sure there was a memo/manifesto on t by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

    Yeah, that's basically it. Interesting that we said the same thing and you were modded "insightful" while I got "troll".

    Perhaps because I said that his conclusions are still right for all practical purposes, he just focused too much on one factor as to why. The authors of the studies he cited have publicly refuted his conclusions. That's bound to come up in court. He is going to have a hard time justifying his position as rational and science based when the scientists whose work he is relying on contradict him.

    But he also opposes programmes with a proven track record of fixing those issues, because of reverse-sexism.

    To my recollection, he mainly opposed efforts that simply brought in more diverse workers, without changing the job itself.

    It really seems like he wrote that memo with little understanding of historic efforts to address these problems or of the decades of study done around them, which resulted in rather fundamental mistakes and him dragging up a lot of long debunked ideas that are now exclusively used by genuine sexists.

    I would agree that his arguments do have an overlap with what sexists have to say. However, that's precisely why I prefer my interpretation. If you use arguments that sexists have made, they have a hard time arguing against those policies, because they've already bought into those arguments. Genuinely ask yourself which is more subversive to a male-dominated industry, token diversity outreach or completely rethinking the structure of power within an organization?

    Even if Damore is a sexist asshole, turning his words into disruptive feminist rhetoric would do more damage than firing him, so he can be embraced and coddled by clear misogynists and racists, would make for better revenge.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  116. Unsettled Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've made up your mind and damn everyone that disagrees with you. Good luck with that.

  117. Re:However do you manage such a burden? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow for a lame troll that's...a product of chocolate schools?
    (naw you're probably jusy posing as a brudder, a white provocateur).
    Let's see, +50% Black hires for Goggles in a possible pool that's under 13% less the males. That's actually not enough people to fill the Unicorn...
    There aren't enough non-whites to blot us us yet and for the foreseeable future...

    Maybe your indoctrination didn't include the fact that White people have invented almost everything you benefit from, and we're fine...although we're the minority on the planet (less than 7%). But if you insist on your black on white racism our nutjobs will respond while we sit on our hands...I'm colorblind, not stupid.

  118. Re:I'm pretty sure there was a memo/manifesto on t by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    Perhaps because I said that his conclusions are still right for all practical purposes, he just focused too much on one factor as to why.

    Yeah, anyone who suggests he was wrong gets modded "troll". Someone is very concerned about enforcing the narrative that he was right and is the victim in all this.

    To my recollection, he mainly opposed efforts that simply brought in more diverse workers, without changing the job itself.

    One of his recommendations is to "[s]top restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races" and "reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees", both things which are considered to be effective. I suppose how important those are relative to the rest is debatable but the rest are not that great either.

    Consider his suggestions to stop alienating conservatives. I'd like to hear an explanation of what exactly that means in practice, because the only examples I've seen mentioned are things that would clearly be unacceptable in almost any company. Things like expressing the view that some people's marriages are not legitimate or as valid as others, or that some people should stick to traditional gender roles. What conservative values and ideas are actually oppressed at Google that it would be beneficial to hear?

    Perhaps he just means the appeal to biology, as I know some people consider "science" to be a conservative thing now since they believe that progressive attitudes on things like gender are not scientifically justifiable. However, it's already well established that such views are simply incorrect and biology does not support them.

    Genuinely ask yourself which is more subversive to a male-dominated industry, token diversity outreach or completely rethinking the structure of power within an organization?

    The latter, but that's what Google is attempting to do. In fact Damore complains about it a lot, saying that it creates a hostile environment for conservatives.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  119. Re:I'm pretty sure there was a memo/manifesto on t by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

    I'd like to hear an explanation of what exactly that means in practice, because the only examples I've seen mentioned are things that would clearly be unacceptable in almost any company.

    Mostly, you just have to consider how you sell ideas. You can sell many of the same ideas to conservatives if you bother to speak their language. You can also do what I did here, and instead of outright rejecting their ideas, apply the principle of charity to some core statements they made, and argue them as supporting your ideas and views. People often cling more to identity than ideas, and react instinctively more than cognitively. The bonus is that the most effective method of doing so is understanding a group of people, what they want, and what they believe. In such a case, you can genuinely find what will feel like a victory for them, while still getting your agenda across.

    The latter, but that's what Google is attempting to do.

    AFAIK, they aren't even rethinking their overtime policies, likely because the way their business currently functions is very dependent on them. The overall hierarchy is fundamentally unchanged. And there's very little chance that stockholders would tolerate the kind of genuinely radical change needed. So, their efforts are restricted to more anemic methods. Even if those methods have some degree of efficacy, they are little more than a band-aid on a serious wound. This is all pretty obvious if you talk to people who are actually on the left, instead of the really watered down version of it you'll find in corporate environments like Google.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  120. Re:I'm pretty sure there was a memo/manifesto on t by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    Mostly, you just have to consider how you sell ideas.

    Okay, but Damore complains that conservatives feel that they can't express themselves and have to keep quiet for fear of reprisal. What specifically does he, or anyone for that matter, think they are not allowed to say but should be?

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  121. Re:I'm pretty sure there was a memo/manifesto on t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What specifically does he, or anyone for that matter, think they are not allowed to say but should be?

    It isn't a specific problem. It isn't about what conservatives are not "allowed" to say.

    It's a systematic issue, like the gender pay gap. There isn't a specific law or policy that allows women to be paid less than men. In fact, many places have laws that makes discrimination based on gender illegal

    Your question is akin to some anti-SJW asking "what specific company is paying women less than men (for the same work, and getting away with it)?", and queue the usual argument about "well why don't every company only hire women save a lot of money"

    Any specific example cited by either side are merely symptoms to the problem.

  122. Re:I'm pretty sure there was a memo/manifesto on t by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

    The memo itself is a good example. He stated a lot of important points about diversity in the workplace, even if he did so in a way that was not all that considerate. Google's response was firing him, while my response is to apply the principle of charity and use his arguments to construct more effective methods of addressing these issues. Of course, I also have the advantage of being on the outside of the machine, so suggesting things like "pay executives less money" or "make managers less powerful" are things I can freely say.

    I also take great joy in the potential of trolling both McFeminists and actual misogynists at the same time.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  123. Re:I'm pretty sure there was a memo/manifesto on t by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    Hmm, I'm not really buying it. He was fired because while some of his points were not that unreasonable, some of it clearly was and demonstrably created a hostile environment.

    Still, I expect we will hear more about this when the court case starts. Doubtless both sides will put forward more detailed arguments and much more evidence.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  124. How do you improve? by shaitand · · Score: 1

    How can you improve diversity among categories that are entirely defined by having proved invalid ways to categorize people in the past? Seriously, the discrimination model that explains why you have to feel guilty for something at this point isn't even thought crime, it claims that you are wrong... in your thoughts... about your reasons because of things other people who shared this invalid classification did to people whose only relationship is one of these invalid relationships.

    Having the same junk doesn't relate you to anyone else with the same junk, any crime, or any thought, and nobody knows your motives better than you. Stop pretending psychology is or ever was science.

  125. Re: Don't worry Trump traitor, Mueller has plenty by Alypius · · Score: 1

    The Diana Moon Glampers of the world smile upon you.

  126. You guys don't get diversity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It isn't about social justice. It's about economics.

    If Google/Facebook/Wal-Mart/whomever want to sell their products and services to ALL available consumers, then they have to make it more attractive than just for white or asian males. Otherwise you're going to be stuck selling your services to only 60% of the population. To sell to the entire population, you must have a diverse staff to cater to various cultures.
    America isn't comprised of 70% white males, so when you run a company exclusively that way, you run the backlash risk of being vilified as not being an inclusive company. See: Oil Industry in the 1990s, Wall Street bankers in 2009. They've since fixed their image mostly through diversity hiring. The oil industry was nearly 90% white males in 1995 and now the ratios are much more reflective of modern day America. And people wondered why they hated rich oil companies every time the price of gas rose!

    Case in point: Revlon (the makeup company) has nearly gone bankrupt and they finally hired their first female CEO who they hope will turnaround the company since their competitors (whom all are ran by female CEOs) have basically eaten their lunch over the past decade. What the hell does a guy know about selling makeup to females? They previously only used white females in their marketing materials, but buyers of makeup products are no longer 100% white (or female for that matter).

  127. Re:Trump is going to Federal Prison shortly by farble1670 · · Score: 0

    Is it the same legal territory you might discuss when the DNC/Clinton machine spent money to hire foreign agents to spend time in Russia obtaining phony info from government agents there?

    Your "facts". My "facts".

    If H committed such atrocious crimes, why isn't she in jail or at least being prosecuted. We have an executive branch that won with chants of "lock her up". We have republicans controlling all branches of government. Republicans that have been foaming at the mouth to have H burned at the stake for going on a decade now. Why?

    The answer, of course, is that there's no evidence to LOCK HER UP. If there was it'd have been done or being done.

    But wait, maybe it's the justice dept that are letting her escape? You know, the FBI that organization full of tree hugging, gluten intolerant homosexual left-wing commies that would naturally support someone like H?

    Common sense is your friend.

  128. Re:When Trump dies in prison, you'll know bitch lo by farble1670 · · Score: 0

    He's gone in 8 if you continue acting this way (and then gets replaced by someone just like him).

    Are you sure?

    Poll: More than half of Republicans would support postponing 2020 election

    https://www.usatoday.com/story...

    Welcome to the New America, where conservatives care more about putting SJWs in their place than little things like terms limits.

  129. Re:I'm pretty sure there was a memo/manifesto on t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No Ami, quite your bullshit:

    Damore's main issue was that he tried to claim he had a better understanding of the science he cited than the people who wrote the papers.

    Is not the same thing as

    His main actual sin that I saw was that seemed to be leaning to heavy on claims of the difference between genders being biological, when we are much better able to measure the cocktail of nature and nurture.

    Your bias is showing.

    Furthermore, what he DID say was:

    Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.

    Personally, I don't even think the criticism is on what was implied by what he said, but rather a completely fabricated pile of bullshit. If all you have is a hammer, you'll see nails everywhere. Damore was trying to fix things and specifically made suggestions trying to make Google attractive to women. Nope, let's hit that thumb with a hammer. That'll teach'em.

  130. Re:When Trump dies in prison, you'll know bitch lo by ScentCone · · Score: 1

    Welcome to the New America, where conservatives care more about putting SJWs in their place than little things like terms limits.

    Sure! Because if we weren't plagued by people like the SJWs infecting both local and national politics, term limits would have very little appeal. Why treat the symptom when you can treat the problem itself?

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  131. Re:When Trump dies in prison, you'll know bitch lo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you had one ounce of snap you'd realize that pushing more people further right is the exact goal of they who swing the pendulum...

    The powers that be are not stupid, but the commoners are. I love them all.
    captcha: Finally

  132. Re:I'm pretty sure there was a memo/manifesto on t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone is very concerned about enforcing the narrative that he was right and is the victim in all this.

    Yeeeeaaaaaahhhh....

    Someone sure is very concerned about enforcing the narrative:

    WOW, so insightful! A neckbeard agrees with Damore that white male conservative culture is at dangerous risk at Google, when a year after the event and white male conservative culture still prevails. And you wonder why you are doomed to be forever alone.

    LOL, the mental gymnastics you had to do to pull that explanation off deserve some kind of "Twister" gold medal. Damore insightful. Haha

    Wow so this neckbeard INCEL faggot is admitting to be a NAZI basically out loud, how brave she is lol.

    He deserved to be fired just for being a whiny entitled republican incel faggot, frankly. None of you are employable in the long term, let's get serious. You're snowflakes in the light of day, exposed.

    He was fired because while some of his points were not that unreasonable, some of it clearly was and demonstrably created a hostile environment.

    Not that anyone on slashdot would comment as an anonymous coward when it's politically convenient.

    Now... you might feel that it's a pretty shitty thing to be judged NOT by your actions but rather by the company you keep... YEEAAH! That IS pretty shitty, isn't it? With that in mind, what did Damore, himself, say exactly that pissed everyone off and got him fired?

  133. Fine Them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sick and tired of these snotty, pompous asses telling everyone else that they are disgustingly deplorable.

    Fine them. Protest them. Boycott their products. Boycott the products of any companies that advertise with them. Isn't that what the SJWs would do if the company weren't a liberal darling?

    It just goes to show that all these fundamentalist freaks care about is virtue signalling, not real change.

  134. "better outcome" by fche · · Score: 1

    "if we want a better outcome, we need to evolve our approach"

    Note the way in which "better outcome" is just oh-so-casually identified with a factor other than something material to the business like "profit". I guess the "chief diversity & inclusion officer" just measures & affects what she can. It falls to someone else to bridge the logical chasm between those and useful business metrics.

  135. Re:When Trump dies in prison, you'll know bitch lo by farble1670 · · Score: 0

    term limits would have very little appeal

    You make my point well.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Willing to throw the constitution out the window, to burn a few SJWs.

  136. Re:Trump will die in Federal Prison a traitor by Trondheim · · Score: 1

    King? Oh good grief, you guys used to say this about Bush 2. And Bush 1. And Reagan. Give it a rest. Please.

  137. Re:When Trump dies in prison, you'll know bitch lo by Trondheim · · Score: 1

    Endless scandals? You mean the ones created by the Democrats out of whole cloth?

    Lack of progress on campaign progress? You might want to take a look at this website that tracks all of the progress Trump has made. It's fairly extensive. https://www.promiseskept.com/

    Or you can just keep your head buried in the sand. Your choice.

  138. Re:Want to know why Google hasn't achieved nirvana by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nazi (noun) - A person that rejects political correctness in favour of actual correctness.

  139. Re:However do you manage such a burden? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fuck u racist scum

  140. Re:Trump will die in Federal Prison a traitor by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    Just imagine Obama did half the shit Trump has done you'd be frothing at the mouth. Trump was quite vocal in his anti Obamaness and by extension anti the current president. Now he's the current president its all fake news and trying to shut down people who criticise him and everyone should respect the president regardless because hes the president and that makes him right apparently. How long do you think it will be before he tweets out how term limits are a democrat ploy to hinder him and wonders if they can be removed? Probably punctuated with the word sad and full of random capitalisation.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  141. Re:I'm pretty sure there was a memo/manifesto on t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unconscious Bias training...considered to be effective

    [citation needed]

  142. Have you spotted the elephant in the room? by Kartu · · Score: 1

    Asian americans, 6% of the population, are at 36% at Google.

    Harvard faced the same "Asians have higher scores than any other race" problem, tried to address it with "personality" scores, got sued.

    It is interesting to note that Asian-American SAT scores improved by 54 points since 2006, while for other races they dropped (for whites only modestly, by 6 points);
    source

  143. Re:diversity is a false god by JabrTheHut · · Score: 1

    I'm saying that after 70 years of the borders of Israel being where they are ...

    So you’re unaware that the borders moved in the first 10 years of the state of Israel, plus the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and Golan began in 1967. Why am I even discussing this with someone who doesn’t know the basics?

    ... there is no one alive today on either side with any claims for land except that under their feet.

    The settlements are expanding. You seem unaware of that fact, or maybe you support it. It’s hard to tell, frankly, so I’m wondering what your point is.

    For the most part all of the people were born on the land they live on. We can rehash all the history of who possessed this land all the way back to before Judaism existed if we want but that changes nothing on who owns it now. Israel owns this land and they can keep it as long as they can defend it. These 20 year old punks that toss fire bombs at Israeli border guards can claim that the land on the other side of the fence is there's but it's not.

    Well, the people you detest are under belligerent occupation by Israel, hence why they toss incendiaries and fire crackers over the fence, sometimes hurting people. But the key point is that you are being inconsistent. You claim might makes right, but then you object to someone challenging that might. The rest of that paragraph is just the usual racist driven so I will ignore it.

    They could have better conditions if they wanted it more than to kill Jews. I have no sympathy for the living conditions of those that threaten the lives of Jews for being Jews. I have read a book or two, and I see the news. The Israeli authorities give those in Gaza pipes to fix their water supply, fertilizer to grow crops, and sugar to can their food. What they do is weld the pipes into makeshift rocket casings, use the sugar and fertilizer to make rocket propellant, then send the unguided rockets to kill random innocent people. Had they instead used this material to improve their own living conditions they'd have food and clean water. I'm impressed by their ability to improvise these weapons but saddened by their inability to use those resources for improving their living conditions.

    Yes, that’s the Israeli line, however what the Israelis actually did - and they admitted it - was, after they were forced out of Gaza, blockade it almost completely, stop trade and goods going out, put the people on starvation rations, and bomb the electricity and sewerage so that the people would suffer. The Palestinians dug tunnels and smuggled food, essentials and then luxuries to survive, and smuggled out goods. Israelis got really mad and bombed the tunnels. Far from letting the Palestinians live in peace, they wanted them to suffer. They even boasted about it.

    Israel has nuclear weapons. As I recall VP Biden let this slip as before it was merely speculated. Iran has stated openly that if they get a nuclear weapon they fully intend to drop it on Israel.

    Blah blah blah. None of that is on topic, Palestinians are not Persians, and Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons. It’s just meaningless blather.

    The Palestinians were offered land for peace FIVE TIMES since 1900. These offers were accepted by the Jews every time, but the Arabs in the area refused. If they honestly wanted land and peace then they had plenty of time to do so. The last offer was in 2008, far from ancient history. Israel is seeking peace but the Palestinians are not. They will not accept anything less than the total destruction of Israel.

    Ignorance isn’t bliss in this case. In 1946 Ben Gurion wrote that he would appear to accept Partition of Palestine, but he always intended to expand it’s borders and drive out the Arabs. By the 1980s Isarel had occupie

    --
    Work like no one is watching. Dance like you've never been hurt. Make love like you don't need the money.
  144. They believed in DIFFERENT gods. EACH ONE. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They believed in DIFFERENT gods. EACH ONE.

    Their interpretations were NOT the same.

    1. Re:They believed in DIFFERENT gods. EACH ONE. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't seem to understand Christianity.

    2. Re:They believed in DIFFERENT gods. EACH ONE. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You don't seem to understand Christianity.

      Heh. Name someone who does. :)

      Do you know how many "Christian" churches have existed up til now? Thousands. Probably more than 10,000.

      "It makes no sense to anyone... That's why you have to have faith; I mean, if it made sense, it wouldn't have to be a religion, would it?"
        – Charlie McMannus, Nuns on the Run

    3. Re:They believed in DIFFERENT gods. EACH ONE. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If "Nuns on the Run" is your point of reference I can understand why you might be confused.

      The basic doctrines of orthodox (small "o") Christianity are derived from the Bible and represented in two creeds nearly two thousand years old: the Apostles’ Creed and Nicene Creed. Those are still commonly taught and recited today, just as the teachings from the Bible have been in those many thousands of churches. There are churches that go off the rails, or teach false things, but that generally becomes apparent from studying the Bible.

      Rather than believing random nonsense or the results of zany antics, faith in God is more of matter of believing God is who He says He is, will do what He says He will do, and obeying even when you don't see the reason or understand why. There are some things you'll never know in this life, and others will be apparently only years later.

      You'll gain more insight listening here than from "Nuns on the Run."

    4. Re:They believed in DIFFERENT gods. EACH ONE. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet there are people who did read the Bible and concluded that the Nicene Creed had "run off the rails." Funny if God didn't see that coming...

      Anyway, "Nuns on the Run" is hardly a spiritual guide, it's just that quote puts it candidly, succinctly and humorously what everybody knows deep down.

      The notion of an all-knowing, all-powerful God who created a world that isn't quite what He wanted is nonsensical!

    5. Re:They believed in DIFFERENT gods. EACH ONE. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      . . . it's just that quote puts it candidly, succinctly and humorously what everybody knows deep down.

      What nearly everyone if not in fact everyone actually knows deep down is that God exists. Some people refuse to acknowledge God because they want to live according to their own will, and not God's will. That is being permitted for a time, but that time will come to an end. In the end every knee shall bow to God.

      It is entirely possible that there is some miniscule number of people that actually believe that "the Nicene Creed had "run off the rails."" After all, it isn't actually scripture, and many foolish things happen. I can't even imagine who those people might be, although it is highly unlikely that they are orthodox Christians and if they exist they probably embrace some mistaken or heretical belief. I doubt they are even as "important" as "flat earthers".

      God created the world and gave humanity free will. Some use it for good, some for evil purposes. God had a plan to redeem the world from the start for those that would accept it. You see it presaged early in the Bible, in Genesis 3:15: " He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel." As stated in John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."

      We have one life on this earth in these bodies, and a soul. How will you tend to yours before death and judgement?

    6. Re:They believed in DIFFERENT gods. EACH ONE. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What nearly everyone if not in fact everyone actually knows deep down is that God exists.

      Well, I don't believe anyone "knows" any such thing, seeing as even direct experience is explainable by hallucination. I can never be 100% sure there is no God.

      However, I do know that the Christian God does not exist, because such a being as described is impossibly self-contradictory. The fact that you and I can read the same book (the Bible) and you may conclude such a being is perfect and worthy of worship, while I conclude that he is a total fuckup as described, is prima facie evidence the the Bible is NOT the word of God, if one exists.

    7. Re:They believed in DIFFERENT gods. EACH ONE. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people refuse to acknowledge God because they want to live according to their own will, and not God's will. ...
      God created the world and gave humanity free will. Some use it for good, some for evil purposes.

      So which is it? Do we have free will, or are we required to live according to God's will?

      "You have free will, you can choose to believe in me or burn forever in hell." Yeah, some choice.

  145. Re:When Trump dies in prison, you'll know bitch lo by Chas · · Score: 1

    Democrats are mostly just keeping quiet at the moment

    OH REALLY?

    So we've been IMAGINING them falling all over themselves for the last 18 months to potshot the administration?

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  146. Re:When Trump dies in prison, you'll know bitch lo by Chas · · Score: 1

    Maybe it'll bite them in the ass.

    However, there comes a point when some people just have nothing to lose.

    So, if they're screwed no matter what, they're going to get a "fuck you" in on their way out.

    And I'm sorry, but I SERIOUSLY disagree that putting Clinton in the Oval Office was "in the best interests of this country".

    She's an influence peddler, a kleptocrat and has botched every job she's been given.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  147. Re:When Trump dies in prison, you'll know bitch lo by Chas · · Score: 1

    I'd have to see how that poll was formulated. Because my first reaction to that is "bullshit!"

    Enough laws were already violated by previous administrations who shall remain nameless.
    Violating more laws just to get at them isn't an answer.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  148. Re:When Trump dies in prison, you'll know bitch lo by farble1670 · · Score: 1

    I'd have to see how that poll was formulated. Because my first reaction to that is "bullshit!"

    Exactly. Anything you don't like or doesn't fit your narrative: BULLSHIT.

    Trump HIMSELF was quoted as saying that the US should consider abolishing term limits (like China):
    http://www.businessinsider.com...

    It's a quote dude. He said it. There's no dispute on that.

    Enough laws were already violated by previous administrations who shall remain nameless.

    That's called "whataboutism". You dismiss things like suggesting the constitution should be changed to allow Trump to be king with "well, OBAMA DID OTHER STUFF!!!". Seriously, how about just judging each situation on it's merits? I learned when I was 4 that two wrongs don't make a right. If you think Obama committed some terrible crimes, GO GET HIM. What's stopping the Republican house, senate, and presidency from opening an investigation into Obama? Aren't you upset with your R elected officials that they are letting Obama off the hook after he committed all those crimes? Why are you voting for people that let criminals like Obama go free?

  149. Re:When Trump dies in prison, you'll know bitch lo by farble1670 · · Score: 1

    Downvote if you want, the fact remains you support a president that said publicly that the US should "give it a try" abolishing term limits, using China as the shining example.
    http://www.businessinsider.com...

  150. Re:When Trump dies in prison, you'll know bitch lo by Chas · · Score: 1

    I'd have to see how that poll was formulated. Because my first reaction to that is "bullshit!"

    Exactly. Anything you don't like or doesn't fit your narrative: BULLSHIT.

    Trump HIMSELF was quoted as saying that the US should consider abolishing term limits (like China):
    http://www.businessinsider.com...

    It's a quote dude. He said it. There's no dispute on that.

    No. I said my first reaction was "bullshit".

    But, as I said, I'd like to see how the poll was formulated.

    There's a difference between dismissing it and wanting to know more.

    Enough laws were already violated by previous administrations who shall remain nameless.

    That's called "whataboutism". You dismiss things like suggesting the constitution should be changed to allow Trump to be king with "well, OBAMA DID OTHER STUFF!!!". Seriously, how about just judging each situation on it's merits? I learned when I was 4 that two wrongs don't make a right. If you think Obama committed some terrible crimes, GO GET HIM. What's stopping the Republican house, senate, and presidency from opening an investigation into Obama? Aren't you upset with your R elected officials that they are letting Obama off the hook after he committed all those crimes? Why are you voting for people that let criminals like Obama go free?

    Oh for fuck's sake.

    My POINT is that violating laws simply because OTHERS have violated laws IS NOT OKAY!

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  151. How to crack the Google interview process. by ponraul · · Score: 1

    Go in black face!

    1. Re:How to crack the Google interview process. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We live in a society where you're applauded if you change your sex (Bruce Jenner) and reviled if you change your race (Rachel Dolezal).

  152. Re:When Trump dies in prison, you'll know bitch lo by farble1670 · · Score: 1

    Not sure if you are being intentionally obtuse or just unaware of your own language.

    Enough laws were already violated by previous administrations who shall remain nameless.
    Violating more laws just to get at them isn't an answer.

    You are softening the issues with Trump by at the same time pointing out that the previous admin did it also, and did it a lot. That's "whataboutism". If you have issues with the previous admin, lobby your elected officials to investigate, prosecute and sentence. Don't use it to soften or excuse Trumps's dealings.

  153. Re:When Trump dies in prison, you'll know bitch lo by Chas · · Score: 1

    What I'm SAYING is that I've had enough of it and I'm not prepared to countenance any more.
    And using previous administrations misconduct as an excuse for more misconduct is unacceptable.

    PERIOD. Anything beyond that is something you are reading into it.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  154. Re:diversity is a false god by blindseer · · Score: 1

    Imagine how unconvincing it will be when theyâ(TM)re sniping kids in 10 years and claiming that theyâ(TM)re being forced to, because they kids got too close to a fence, and their only defence is the fence, tanks, airplanes and nukes?

    Given the history of these "freedom fighters" to strap bombs to children and send them running into crowds, fences, and such I can't blame the Israel border guards. They built a wall, they posted signs, these people know that if they get too close to the wall that they will face lethal force. It's unfortunate, extremely so, if a lost child wanders too close to a fence and gets shot for it out of the fog of war.

    So long as we are placing blame here lets not forget that the reason the border guards shoot children and the disabled is because they have seen compassion for these people, quite literally, blow up in their face. In World War 2 the Japanese would fly a white flag indicating surrender but when American soldiers went to accept the surrender they'd get cut down by machine guns. After that the white flag is meaningless, by their own actions they've indicated that they have no intention to surrender. Decades later we still hear idiots talking of American brutality for ignoring Japanese surrender. Well, had the Japanese not redrawn the rules then the Americans in the Pacific Theater would have respected their surrender.

    The Palestinians drew up their own rules. They sent children strapped with bombs to the border fence in an attempt to make a hole in it. Well, Israel now knows the rules that people in Gaza are playing under. If they are willing to use children as soldiers in their holy war then they can expect to lose these soldiers in war.

    You claim might makes right, but then you object to someone challenging that might.

    I'm objecting to them claiming ownership to this land as justification for this use of force. I've read the interviews of people in Gaza. It's some sad story of a young man in Gaza that pines to see "his homeland" on the other side of the fence. He's so determined to set foot on this land that he's willing to die fighting for the "right" for this land. Here's my question, what makes him think that "his land" is on the other side of that fence? He admits that he's never been there. It's likely his parents haven't been there. It's quite possible that his grandparents have never been there.

    If this were a political fight as many often claim then that was lost long ago. This is a religious fight now. Perhaps not "religious" in the truest definition as it's not about deities being worshiped. This is a religious war in that they are fighting over this land over many generations out of a belief being passed down over generations that they have a "promised land" on the other side of the fence and that they must kill the people that "stole" the land from them.

    In some of the stories I've read the "freedom fighters" in Gaza are being totally honest. They admit to taking people in wheelchairs to the border fence as human shields. They admit that this is about killing Jews. If the Jews are as brutal as you claim then what's keeping Israel from shelling and bombing the entire Gaza strip until the sand glows in the dark? You can claim its because of sanctions they'd get from other nations. Well, Israel is continuously being sanctioned by other nations. How would bombing Gaza change anything? The UN already made statements of Israel violating human rights, but they do nothing about it. So the UN isn't going to stop them. What's stopping Israel from just pushing everyone in Gaza into the sea is that they have compassion.

    I believe that Israel has this compassion because they've read their scripture. They may not view Jesus as the son of God but they view him as a prophet. Jesus was a carpenter, he built things. He never lead an army or fought in a war. Mohammad was a warlord, he killed people. If you think using Jesus as an example for Je

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  155. Race based quotas by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

    Have you been following the news about the selective enrollment schools in New York? Asian groups are up in arms about attempts to diversify the schools by forcing them to set aside seats for certain groups.

    Asian Groups See Bias in Plan to Diversify New York's Elite Schools

    "The test is the most unbiased way to get into a school," said Peter Koo, a city councilman whose district includes Flushing, Queens, on Tuesday. "It doesn't require an interview. It doesn't require a resume. It doesn't even require connections. The mayor's son just graduated from Brooklyn Tech and got into Yale. Now he wants to stop this and build a barrier to Asian-Americans -- especially our children."

    The schools, which admit students based on a single test, look starkly different from the school system overall. While black and Hispanic students represent nearly 70 percent of public school students, they make up just 10 percent of students at the specialized high schools, a vast underrepresentation that has long been considered an injustice and a symbol of the city's extreme school segregation.

    Mayor Bill de Blasio offered a two-pronged plan on Saturday to address this, first by setting aside 20 percent of the seats at each of the specialized schools for students from high-poverty schools -- which tend to have a high share of black and Hispanic students -- who score just below the cutoff score.

    But his administration's ultimate goal, he said, is to eliminate the test entirely.

    If you want to make people equal it's much easier to knock some down than it is to build the others up.

  156. Re:diversity is a false god by JabrTheHut · · Score: 1

    Given the history of these "freedom fighters" to strap bombs to children and send them running into crowds, fences, and such I can't blame the Israel border guards. They built a wall, they posted signs, these people know that if they get too close to the wall that they will face lethal force. It's unfortunate, extremely so, if a lost child wanders too close to a fence and gets shot for it out of the fog of war.

    The problem with making stuff up, like you just did, is that inevitably someone who knows better will call you out. You can provide proof, admit you're a liar, double-down, hotly angry, or just stop posting. Strapping bombs to kids? Just bullshit.

    So long as we are placing blame here lets not forget that the reason the border guards shoot children and the disabled is because they have seen compassion for these people, quite literally, blow up in their face. In World War 2 the Japanese would fly a white flag indicating surrender but when American soldiers went to accept the surrender they'd get cut down by machine guns. After that the white flag is meaningless, by their own actions they've indicated that they have no intention to surrender. Decades later we still hear idiots talking of American brutality for ignoring Japanese surrender. Well, had the Japanese not redrawn the rules then the Americans in the Pacific Theater would have respected their surrender.

    The Palestinians drew up their own rules. They sent children strapped with bombs to the border fence in an attempt to make a hole in it. Well, Israel now knows the rules that people in Gaza are playing under. If they are willing to use children as soldiers in their holy war then they can expect to lose these soldiers in war.

    Yeah, let's blame the Palestinian Kamikaze pilots, I mean the Japanese suicide bombers, I mean, LOOK OVER THERE!!! How many Israelis fought the Japanese in WWII?

    I'm objecting to them claiming ownership to this land as justification for this use of force.

    And yet you have no issue whatsoever with Israelis using eternal ownership of the land as justification for the force used, both past and present. Surely some consistency is desired? No? Didn't think so.

    I've read the interviews of people in Gaza. It's some sad story of a young man in Gaza that pines to see "his homeland" on the other side of the fence. He's so determined to set foot on this land that he's willing to die fighting for the "right" for this land. Here's my question, what makes him think that "his land" is on the other side of that fence? He admits that he's never been there. It's likely his parents haven't been there. It's quite possible that his grandparents have never been there.

    Even the Israelis admit they ethnically cleansed and mass murdered Palestinians. If the Israelis admit it, isn't it time for you to as well? You're as bad as a holocaust denier, just on 1/6th the scale. I love how the standard response of Israel's defenders, when presented with proof of Israelis murdering kids, doctors, nurses and people in wheelchairs, is to blather on about religion and how some guy 1500 years ago was bad, but the guy before him was good. Sigh. It's not about religion, it's about force, taking land, and wanting to be cruel to people because you've taken their land. Israelis are addicted to occupation now. There's no way for them to stop. The whole state would become impoverished and fall apart, even under the best case scenario, if the occupation were to end and an equitable solution found.

    --
    Work like no one is watching. Dance like you've never been hurt. Make love like you don't need the money.
  157. Re:diversity is a false god by blindseer · · Score: 1

    The problem with making stuff up, like you just did, is that inevitably someone who knows better will call you out. You can provide proof, admit you're a liar, double-down, hotly angry, or just stop posting. Strapping bombs to kids? Just bullshit.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...â"Palestinian_conflict

    The use of children as suicide bombers by Palestinians is well documented. There's plenty of links to news sources in the Wikipedia article. It took me about 2 minutes to find that article, had you bothered to take 2 minutes yourself to check before you posted then you wouldn't look like an idiot right now.

    I love how the standard response of Israel's defenders, when presented with proof of Israelis murdering kids, doctors, nurses and people in wheelchairs, is to blather on...

    The Palestinians have been caught lying many times about the Israel forces killing Palestinians.
    https://www.christianpost.com/...
    https://www.jpost.com/Arab-Isr...

    These deaths by IDF gunfire and tear gas always happen during a protest along the border fence. If these people know that the Israelis are so brutal then why are they bringing children and people in wheelchairs to the protests? Can you explain that? Assuming that the report of a child killed by tear gas was true, what kind of idiot parent brings an infant to a protest? I don't care if the protest was "peaceful". I don't care if they had no reason to expect IDF to gas them. No one wants to bring a child to a protest, out in the desert, so the child can be miserable and cry and therefore make the parents miserable. They brought the kid there knowing that the IDF would be using lethal force, knowing that the child could die, and therefore carry the blame for the death.

    I have no sympathy for a culture that uses children as soldiers. I cannot blame the IDF for shooting children that get too close to the border fence when there is a history of children being used as suicide bombers to breach the fence or kill IDF soldiers. If there are wheelchair bound people and children suffocating in gas attacks by the IDF then that's because someone brought them to the border knowing that it's possible they could die in a gas attack.

    If the Palestinians want to wage a war with Israel over the land they occupy then they can't claim to be victims of "brutality" when Israel defends their borders.

    Sigh. It's not about religion, it's about force, taking land, and wanting to be cruel to people because you've taken their land.

    It's not "their land" if they've never set foot on it. These young Palestinians admit that they've never been there before. Maybe instead of expending this effort in fighting for land that they've never seen before they should make the best of what they got.

    The whole state would become impoverished and fall apart, even under the best case scenario, if the occupation were to end and an equitable solution found.

    I don't even know what that means.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.