It's sexist to use for any practical purpose, which would cover all of those.
You're admitting that facts aren't allowed when discussing diversity programs...
This magnitude of difference doesn't exist IRL so it's not a good example
Hey man, that was your example. What about male surrogate mothers? Or the blind driving?
I'm more concerned that your ideal scenario is a pseudo-utilitarian dystopia powered by scientific bigotry
Duuuuude... It's a meritocracy. You really sure you want to come out against that?
Bigotry is intolerance of those with different opinions.... if it's scientific, it's no longer opinion, rather it's fact. (At least, you know, as good as science gets) Now, I'm a live-and-let-live kinda guy. People can believe whatever sort of magical sky-wizard they want, but when it starts to impact me and starts dictating policy at work... their fantasies are not valid justifications for fucking me over. The facts not mattering anymore is the sort of shit Trump is slinging around.
You have to ignore all kinds of social and cultural effects to attempt to justify this "spherical cow" mathematical model of aptitude.
I get that. The problem is that it's really hard to measure merit. Like IQ tests, there's a lot of bias creeps in based on who writes the questions. Language and and word choice come into play. In your example though, you stated it was a known fact that speedyLongLeg people WERE simply better. Or dudes' ability to bear children. If the differences are slight but the disparity is large (as with women in tech), then something is up. (And gee maybe we should propose some solutions like Damore did, but nobody ever gives him credit for that) But if there's a definite advantage of X over Y, there should definitely be a disparity of people choosing more X than Y, cultural and social effects be damned.
But all that is MOOT. Because women are NOT inferior. That's the basic fundamental principle of feminism. They're real people now and can vote and everything. ok.... let me slap some sugar coating on this... Imagine someone the exact opposite of Neurotic. Doesn't care about anything. They'd make TERRIBLE test engineers. You need to worry a little to make good test. Women are different, you're a god-damned fool if you try to ignore that. Slitting the throat of anyone trying to talk about it (or even talking about talking about it) and generating outrage doesn't help the situation.
A person choosing to self-select out of a career for cultural reasons can be considered a form of training bias.
Sure, but what do you want to do? Force them into the SQL pit? And regardless, Damore was explaining WHY there's a gap. And I didn't say anything about self-selecting yourself out of the pool. Presumably people want to do what they're good at in a meritocracy, as it would reward them.
A true utilitarian dystopia would actually be quite likely to artifically construct a diverse workforce in most professions, striving for an extremely diverse mixture regardless of local demographics. In real life, it has been scientifically shown that more diverse groups produce more creative ideas.
. . . If it helps the group, then there's utility there . . . There's nothing artificial about that. If it's a dystopia, then sure, it's all robo-nazi-tyrants. But that's literally just your presumption pulled from nowhere and as biased as robo-hitler) And you know what? That's finally a good argument. If being different has utility in and of itself that means a place with 99 women would hire a man over a woman just to mix it up a little. Because while the individual woman might do a better job than the man, he helps the group on the whole more than she would. Which is the sort of thing Damore is arguing against. (if you presume he's talking about hiring pr
Wisdom. China used to lean WAY more communist economically. Centrally controlled economy just like the CCCP. It was a clusterfuck. Now, economically at least... in some ways... they're a lot more capitalistic. Probably not AS capitalistic as the USA though. There's a lot of state-run business. Then again, there's also a lot less regulation.
No place is a pure democracy. Democratic... the -ic part is important. It's got some nice features pertaining to the subject at hand. The difference between saying "I'm fit" and "I'm getting fit". Also, even in Athens it was only about 30% of the populous. No women, no foreigners, no slaves.
Some people in Australia are trying it, at least trying to try it. Online direct democracy. The constituents all get to vote on how the representative votes.
Sorry for going on and on, please bear with me. I really do want to hear a response to this one.
Let's remember that this was not an academic journal, but a discussion on changes to hiring policy at Google.
Wouldn't that be better? If he's writing at the academic journal level, that would be better than feedback to a diversity class.
And remember, it's a discussion on hiring policy insofaras he's suggesting we stop discriminating against men. Presumably when hiring, sure. This is already illegal. But there are lots of ways to discriminate and he never specifies. One of my BIGGEST qualms with how this whole thing is being handled is that people have attacked him so viciously over what they THINK he said. Which is why "have you read the memo" is the standard refrain.
No matter how many times he says that they're just trends which don't apply to individuals, the context can't be forgotten.
uh... ok. That kinda sounds like you're completely dismissing his statements... just because. But, even with context, it DOES mean he's explicitly not stereotyping. You know, by definition. Which is the stated reason he was fired. Not going to comment on that?
The ethically right thing to do is to ignore average preferences, strengths or weaknesses based on a person's immutable traits, and give everyone a fair shot.
In hiring? Yes, give every individual a fair shot. Something along the lines of acknowledging that sociological trends have a ton of overlap and you can't infer anything about the individual based on the stereotype. I agree. James Damore agrees. He stated as such in the memo. "you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions." You can't just ignore that.
But if the context isn't "should we hire this person". Is it sexist to point out what is legitimately true? Let's say specifically in the context of how a company runs their diversity training class, or who gets made fun of in the office, or who is shamed into silence.
Let's say for the sake of argument that it were scientifically proven that black people, on average, are better at running. Solid fact, it's not bigoted to simply state it. But if you use that information for any practical purpose, such as making hiring decisions in a job that involves a lot of running, it would be scientific racism. If you say "It's not a problem that most people working here at company X in running-heavy profession Y are black, black people are on average better at running after all, so there's probably no need to try to improve workplace diversity," that's scientific racism. It would make every non-black employee at company X out to be less fit for their jobs, based on trends which don't apply to individuals, that person might add...but were just advocated for use on individuals. If the non-black people at company X think there's an institutional bias toward hiring black people, it trivializes their concerns. Do you see why this is wrong?
I see the concern. They're concerned that the hiring practice is stereotyping them as not as good at their job. That would suck. And racism and sexism are very much still around today. That sucks. It's unfair. These people are just as good as anybody else.
But in this scenario, the reason they're concerned is kinda bullshit. In a scenario where 1 out of 10 non-speedyLongLegs people is as good at the job as those of the speedyLongLegs tribe, and lo and behold the ratio is about 1:10. But they want a diversity program to FIX that!? There's nothing to fix. That's ideal. In a pure meritocracy that's exactly how the nonLeggyRace gap would play out. And if they got such a program.... You're suggesting one is allowed to question it? In this scenario, it is perfectly valid to have little diversity because there are actual real legitimate differences in abilty. In this scenario, forcing diversity would be unfair, unjust,
Heeeeey, you're actually quoting the memo. That's super. A lot of these sort of discussions go off into the weed where they fight a strawman. This is great.
[Women on average have more] Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics
Do you think this makes women less equal to men? Is this being sexist? Different, sure, but I don't see this as shooting down women in any way. Damore used that as an explanation for why there aren't as many women coding. Not that they shouldn't be, but that they don't want to be. He cited psychological journals. (Personally, I think E-S theory sounds like bullshit, people's feelings are just a different sort of system)
[Women on average have more] Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
I would actually say this is a net positive towards working in a team and developing software. Nobody likes to work with assholes. Why are you claiming that this makes women less equal to men?
Damore used this one to explain why women have lower salaries, ie, they're not assholes enough to demand a higher wage. Not that they are worth less. Not that they should earn less. But rather WHY they earn less. He doesn't cite anything for this one, and I'd question it, but the "failing to demand a larger wage" thing comes up a lot in these discussions.
[Women on average have more] Neuroticism
Yeah this one seemed a bit brutal. But apparently he's got psychological science journals to back him up on this one. Feel free to go edit wikipiedia's citations.
1) Is it sexist to point out what is legitimately true? Blind people aren't as good at driving. Black people are better at resisting sunburn. That's true. Is it some sort of bigotry to say that? Would blind people take offense? If you're trying to say that it is, then you are opposing the truth of the world and are anti-science. If it's true, but taboo and don't want him to talk about it, that's a pretty bad place to try and make an argument from and history is not typically kind. Now, a perfectly valid counter-point, which I've yet to see anyone make, is asking WHY are women more neurotic? Nobody argues that Africa isn't poorer than Europe. But there are historical reasons for that. Colonialism fucked them over pretty hard. Here's where Damore and that lot should back off and admit acknowledge that it might not be biological but cultural. But Google's not going fix that.
2) I completely understand that it's taken as a negative thing. It doesn't sound good at all. But he's not pointing it out as a means to say women are less equal. These bullet points are trying to explain the wage gap. Why there are less women coding. He then goes on to suggest we promote women in tech by making it less stressful! He is suggesting we accommodate women and promote their inclusion. How to make the job more appealing to women. Just.... Why does everyone ignore this part? Why is everyone up in arms and so desperate to demonize him? People have spun so many false statements about how, when, and why he wrote this thing and who he sent it to and they've tried to characterize him as the shittiest sort of asshat Trump supporter.
He was fired for promoting stereotypes, but he was pretty damn explicit that sociological trends do not infer anything on individuals. Like wtf, does no one at google know the definition of stereotypes? If the truth no longer matters, if the definitions of words is subjective and whatever's convenient.... then it's getting late, my drink is empty, and I'm not so sure I want to be in this party any more.
Hey, I know this might be a bit weird, but could you play along with me?
Could I ask you for a couple of quotes out of the memo where he's being sexist?
I'm not saying you're wrong. I personally think he went completely overboard in a couple areas. But the media has demonized him so bad that I'm not sure if you're taking about something he said or something somebody said he said.
Not sure why you put "training seminar" in scare quotes
Because the entire memo was about how the training seminar was a net negative. Come on, follow the context. This is probably why he asked if you read the memo.
Nonetheless, he wrote something which got leaked and gave google some very bad press indeed.
He did not cause google to get negative press. It wasn't he who "shouted it on a rooftop" nor "widely disseminated it" and he's probably not the person who leaked it. Are you arguing that writing any negative feedback when the company asks for feedback should be a fire-able offense?
Google and the Department of Labor which makes it illegal to fire people for a list of reasons.
These types of discrimination are against the law A program that is covered by one of the laws mentioned at the top of this poster is not allowed to discriminate on any of the following bases (types of discrimination):
For customers, applicants, employees, and the general public:
race color national origin religion
sex age disability political affiliation or belief
I think the article is 90% clickbaity hyperboleish bullshit....But this was one of the insightful bits.
You DO know that the web is just a subset of the Internet, right? The Internet does a lot more than serve webpages. File transfers, email, and all the data that goes into phone apps. When you load facebook on a phone, you're not using http (I think. I'm trusting the article a bit here, which I acknowledge is dangerous). The insightful part was that blue and yellow graph about where traffic to facebook is coming from, cellphones, desktop PC's, or a mix. I didn't expect that the bulk was cellphones. I'm part of the minority in the solid blue PC section. Now, I'm largely out of facebook, but I know how popular it is. This is.... if not the way things are going, it's one way things could go.
But... it hardly matters. Http or whateverthefuck facebook uses on the backend, it's still Internet traffic. But this walled garden of the Internet is hardly web-traffic anymore. Which caught me by surprise.
But when it comes to search, there is no real vendor lock-in. Don't like Google's search? Think they are blocking relevant results? You can use DuckDuckGo, or Bing, or Yahoo
It's more like... "no longer enforced at the federal level". But yeah, that still sucks. And it sucks for Europe as well because you're currently reading text that was served to you from the United States.
Oh Hey! I saw this on reddit. Someone linked to the initial posting on the dude's site. I shot it full of holes and he actually responded down in the comments. Looks like he didn't take any of my criticisms and is continuing to push it. He also posted it up on/r/technology.
Lemme see... the highlights of all that bullshit....
1) This is hyperbole in the extreme. He's lying to you to generate traffic and controversy. Clickbait.
2) He makes up bullshit terms like "closed web" and "Wirenet".
3) He's somehow trying to blame IPv4 and NAT for the rise of Google and Amazon as middlemen. This is crazy.
4) Oh, and "wires" in general. No, seriously, did you read that line:
It is possible to escape middlemen businesses by decreasing reliance on the infrastructure that plugs their systems together: wires.
I can't make this shit up
5) He mentions "scuttlebutt" which legitimately looks interesting as a way to harvest and cache parts of the Internet when your connection is intermittent.
6) He also mentions DAT, but doesn't know how it works. He thinks it would remove the need for the IP layer. Also DAT would be TERRIBLE for a mesh network.
7) After cutting away all the salespitch bullshit and technological misconceptions, I think he's imagining a bunch of Africans walking around with cellphones hosting their own webpage that gets harvested by their friends cellphones when they're in wifi range of each other. With some mesh networking to help extend that range a little. Which is a cool idea.
The big takeaway from that whole ordeal was when he admitted:
I have never used a MANET myself, I have basically no practical experience with its concrete problems.
I have no idea why he would then write an article about how they would save the world.
I have to agree with the others above, it's drivel.
That's a good argument for the believers. I like it. But it's not going to sway non-believers because it's taking too many liberties with history.
They're going to scoff at "NASA paid back at least 5:1 every investment ever made in it." and ask how that could possibly be true given NASA's ~$580 billion since it's inception. When you try and give NASA credit for:
computer era: They'll say that it would have happened with or without NASA, and I have to agree.
memory foam mattresses and velcro: Ok, but those are pretty minor things, and haven't paid out $2.5 Trillion.
insulin pumps: That's a more legit example.
LCD displays: I'd put that more at the feet of RCA. Just because the space shuttle had LCD displays doesn't mean they were exclusively developed for NASA.
photovoltaic cells: They'll point out that solar cells certainly existed prior to NASA. Of course NASA developed them further and has a practical application. The argument is that without that basic research to make them more viable, solar cells would not have been anywhere near commercially viable and private industry wouldn't have wanted to sink in the money to get it there.
humanity's expansion into the cosmos slowed and then stopped (not counting robots)
Why wouldn't we count robots?
Hey, it's a great photo op to get a human on a different rock and plant a flag. There's potential political points being gained there. But there is no space-race. If we go up there and do it, there's no one to rub their face in it. Maaaaybe we show up Elon Musk? Is that even a fair fight? The US government, NASA, and all the taxpayers vs one rich boi? No, even if we get long-term "we were first" bragging rights when it comes to putting people far away from Earth, it doesn't help us today. Because there is no space race. Because there are no other competitors. Maybe if someone else gets footprints on the moon then there will be a race to Mars.
The political, PR, advertising aspect aside, putting people into space has next to zero scientific advantages (that they couldn't get on the ISS). Engineering and logistic-wise, it adds a TON of cost and it doesn't gain us much of anything. While I would love to get off this rock, I don't think we should send people until they can step into a functional habitat that could support them. The first martian colonists will be robots digging holes and planting seeds.
What solutions DO you propose if not shaming predators who are caught?
What would you say about equal punishment for false accusations?
I don't think the fear comes from justice being served to those caught red-handed, but rather from injustice from those who are automatically lumped in with he rest on a baseless accusation. Imagine someone you dislike, someone politically active, an openly proud clansmen or MAGA type, had the power to simply name you and get you fired. To have your rights taken away in court. Maybe have your kids taken away. To force you to pay ~$5,000 to $50,000 in legal fees just to defend yourself. With no hope of retaliation or justice in the end. All just by saying your name and making a claim about something you did. Imagine that world. How you'd live in it. How it would make you feel.
Don't harass or assault women and don't be sexist if you're worried. It's that fucking simple.
Are you going to pretend that false accusations don't happen?
Right, but the ISP, the umph you get per kg of fuel, is fantastic compared to chemical engines. "VASIMR could reduce the amount spent of fuel for maintaining ISS altitude, using as little as 300 kg of argon gas instead of 7.5 tonnes of chemical fuel". In short, your fuel tank lasts a lot longer.
The bigger problem is that their thrust is so small. To scale that up you need a fuckton of watts. To make that many watts, you need a bigger power source, BOOM, you get into the exact same rocket equation you have with chemical engines. Well... not exact. When you're not scooting about the solar system you could use that power for other things. But you're typically always using it.
This is appalling, and pretty much means civility and reason are dead in America.
It's bad. Nearly as bad as it's ever been. There was some real nasty politics in the past.
But let's not forget how bad it could be. We could be in open rebellion with sectarian violence. The reds vs the blues with murder and violence in the streets. Like the failed state of Iraq we created and got ~300,000 civilians killed in religious purges, or Syria whose population peaked in 2010. It's a very low bar, but not murdering each other IS a modicum of civility.
They essentially own everything between 148th ave, 51st, and Bel-Red Rd. Interestingly, Pactera Technologies, Honeywell, and Nintendo are all allowed in their turf. Ha, and "Posh Consulting" is right next door.
Don't worry, the corporate run city-state arcologies aren't a problem until they employ their own military. That's the point we hit full cyberpunk corprocracy dystopia.
This is a laughably bad introduction chapter to a cyberpunk dystopian hellscape where corporations employ their own hit-squads, hackers, and armies.
There's no real difference from breaking into a hotel lobby at night and trashing it, peeking a the guest registry, and robbing the cash drawer. Should corporations be able to break into a person's home, trash it, peek at their mail, and rob their wallet? Just because they suspect you might have been the one to throw paint around in their lobby? No? Then this too is a bad idea.
Slashdot Mirror
It's sexist to use for any practical purpose, which would cover all of those.
You're admitting that facts aren't allowed when discussing diversity programs...
This magnitude of difference doesn't exist IRL so it's not a good example
Hey man, that was your example. What about male surrogate mothers? Or the blind driving?
I'm more concerned that your ideal scenario is a pseudo-utilitarian dystopia powered by scientific bigotry
Duuuuude... It's a meritocracy. You really sure you want to come out against that?
Bigotry is intolerance of those with different opinions.... if it's scientific, it's no longer opinion, rather it's fact. (At least, you know, as good as science gets) Now, I'm a live-and-let-live kinda guy. People can believe whatever sort of magical sky-wizard they want, but when it starts to impact me and starts dictating policy at work... their fantasies are not valid justifications for fucking me over. The facts not mattering anymore is the sort of shit Trump is slinging around.
You have to ignore all kinds of social and cultural effects to attempt to justify this "spherical cow" mathematical model of aptitude.
I get that. The problem is that it's really hard to measure merit. Like IQ tests, there's a lot of bias creeps in based on who writes the questions. Language and and word choice come into play. In your example though, you stated it was a known fact that speedyLongLeg people WERE simply better. Or dudes' ability to bear children. If the differences are slight but the disparity is large (as with women in tech), then something is up. (And gee maybe we should propose some solutions like Damore did, but nobody ever gives him credit for that) But if there's a definite advantage of X over Y, there should definitely be a disparity of people choosing more X than Y, cultural and social effects be damned.
But all that is MOOT. Because women are NOT inferior. That's the basic fundamental principle of feminism. They're real people now and can vote and everything. ok.... let me slap some sugar coating on this... Imagine someone the exact opposite of Neurotic. Doesn't care about anything. They'd make TERRIBLE test engineers. You need to worry a little to make good test. Women are different, you're a god-damned fool if you try to ignore that. Slitting the throat of anyone trying to talk about it (or even talking about talking about it) and generating outrage doesn't help the situation.
A person choosing to self-select out of a career for cultural reasons can be considered a form of training bias.
Sure, but what do you want to do? Force them into the SQL pit? And regardless, Damore was explaining WHY there's a gap. And I didn't say anything about self-selecting yourself out of the pool. Presumably people want to do what they're good at in a meritocracy, as it would reward them.
A true utilitarian dystopia would actually be quite likely to artifically construct a diverse workforce in most professions, striving for an extremely diverse mixture regardless of local demographics. In real life, it has been scientifically shown that more diverse groups produce more creative ideas.
. . . If it helps the group, then there's utility there . . . There's nothing artificial about that. If it's a dystopia, then sure, it's all robo-nazi-tyrants. But that's literally just your presumption pulled from nowhere and as biased as robo-hitler) And you know what? That's finally a good argument. If being different has utility in and of itself that means a place with 99 women would hire a man over a woman just to mix it up a little. Because while the individual woman might do a better job than the man, he helps the group on the whole more than she would. Which is the sort of thing Damore is arguing against. (if you presume he's talking about hiring pr
Wisdom. China used to lean WAY more communist economically. Centrally controlled economy just like the CCCP. It was a clusterfuck. Now, economically at least... in some ways... they're a lot more capitalistic. Probably not AS capitalistic as the USA though. There's a lot of state-run business. Then again, there's also a lot less regulation.
No place is a pure democracy. Democratic... the -ic part is important. It's got some nice features pertaining to the subject at hand. The difference between saying "I'm fit" and "I'm getting fit". Also, even in Athens it was only about 30% of the populous. No women, no foreigners, no slaves.
Some people in Australia are trying it, at least trying to try it. Online direct democracy. The constituents all get to vote on how the representative votes.
Sorry for going on and on, please bear with me. I really do want to hear a response to this one.
Let's remember that this was not an academic journal, but a discussion on changes to hiring policy at Google.
Wouldn't that be better? If he's writing at the academic journal level, that would be better than feedback to a diversity class.
And remember, it's a discussion on hiring policy insofaras he's suggesting we stop discriminating against men. Presumably when hiring, sure. This is already illegal. But there are lots of ways to discriminate and he never specifies. One of my BIGGEST qualms with how this whole thing is being handled is that people have attacked him so viciously over what they THINK he said. Which is why "have you read the memo" is the standard refrain.
No matter how many times he says that they're just trends which don't apply to individuals, the context can't be forgotten.
uh... ok. That kinda sounds like you're completely dismissing his statements... just because. But, even with context, it DOES mean he's explicitly not stereotyping. You know, by definition. Which is the stated reason he was fired. Not going to comment on that?
The ethically right thing to do is to ignore average preferences, strengths or weaknesses based on a person's immutable traits, and give everyone a fair shot.
In hiring? Yes, give every individual a fair shot. Something along the lines of acknowledging that sociological trends have a ton of overlap and you can't infer anything about the individual based on the stereotype. I agree. James Damore agrees. He stated as such in the memo. "you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions." You can't just ignore that.
But if the context isn't "should we hire this person". Is it sexist to point out what is legitimately true? Let's say specifically in the context of how a company runs their diversity training class, or who gets made fun of in the office, or who is shamed into silence.
Let's say for the sake of argument that it were scientifically proven that black people, on average, are better at running. Solid fact, it's not bigoted to simply state it. But if you use that information for any practical purpose, such as making hiring decisions in a job that involves a lot of running, it would be scientific racism. If you say "It's not a problem that most people working here at company X in running-heavy profession Y are black, black people are on average better at running after all, so there's probably no need to try to improve workplace diversity," that's scientific racism. It would make every non-black employee at company X out to be less fit for their jobs, based on trends which don't apply to individuals, that person might add...but were just advocated for use on individuals. If the non-black people at company X think there's an institutional bias toward hiring black people, it trivializes their concerns. Do you see why this is wrong?
I see the concern. They're concerned that the hiring practice is stereotyping them as not as good at their job. That would suck. And racism and sexism are very much still around today. That sucks. It's unfair. These people are just as good as anybody else.
But in this scenario, the reason they're concerned is kinda bullshit. In a scenario where 1 out of 10 non-speedyLongLegs people is as good at the job as those of the speedyLongLegs tribe, and lo and behold the ratio is about 1:10. But they want a diversity program to FIX that!? There's nothing to fix. That's ideal. In a pure meritocracy that's exactly how the nonLeggyRace gap would play out. And if they got such a program.... You're suggesting one is allowed to question it? In this scenario, it is perfectly valid to have little diversity because there are actual real legitimate differences in abilty. In this scenario, forcing diversity would be unfair, unjust,
Heeeeey, you're actually quoting the memo. That's super. A lot of these sort of discussions go off into the weed where they fight a strawman. This is great.
[Women on average have more] Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics
Do you think this makes women less equal to men? Is this being sexist? Different, sure, but I don't see this as shooting down women in any way.
Damore used that as an explanation for why there aren't as many women coding. Not that they shouldn't be, but that they don't want to be. He cited psychological journals. (Personally, I think E-S theory sounds like bullshit, people's feelings are just a different sort of system)
[Women on average have more] Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
I would actually say this is a net positive towards working in a team and developing software. Nobody likes to work with assholes. Why are you claiming that this makes women less equal to men?
Damore used this one to explain why women have lower salaries, ie, they're not assholes enough to demand a higher wage. Not that they are worth less. Not that they should earn less. But rather WHY they earn less. He doesn't cite anything for this one, and I'd question it, but the "failing to demand a larger wage" thing comes up a lot in these discussions.
[Women on average have more] Neuroticism
Yeah this one seemed a bit brutal. But apparently he's got psychological science journals to back him up on this one. Feel free to go edit wikipiedia's citations.
1) Is it sexist to point out what is legitimately true? Blind people aren't as good at driving. Black people are better at resisting sunburn. That's true. Is it some sort of bigotry to say that? Would blind people take offense? If you're trying to say that it is, then you are opposing the truth of the world and are anti-science. If it's true, but taboo and don't want him to talk about it, that's a pretty bad place to try and make an argument from and history is not typically kind. Now, a perfectly valid counter-point, which I've yet to see anyone make, is asking WHY are women more neurotic? Nobody argues that Africa isn't poorer than Europe. But there are historical reasons for that. Colonialism fucked them over pretty hard. Here's where Damore and that lot should back off and admit acknowledge that it might not be biological but cultural. But Google's not going fix that.
2) I completely understand that it's taken as a negative thing. It doesn't sound good at all. But he's not pointing it out as a means to say women are less equal. These bullet points are trying to explain the wage gap. Why there are less women coding. He then goes on to suggest we promote women in tech by making it less stressful! He is suggesting we accommodate women and promote their inclusion. How to make the job more appealing to women. Just.... Why does everyone ignore this part? Why is everyone up in arms and so desperate to demonize him? People have spun so many false statements about how, when, and why he wrote this thing and who he sent it to and they've tried to characterize him as the shittiest sort of asshat Trump supporter.
He was fired for promoting stereotypes, but he was pretty damn explicit that sociological trends do not infer anything on individuals. Like wtf, does no one at google know the definition of stereotypes? If the truth no longer matters, if the definitions of words is subjective and whatever's convenient.... then it's getting late, my drink is empty, and I'm not so sure I want to be in this party any more.
The Department of Labor includes political affiliation under the list of discrimination.
California also protects political affiliation when it comes to employment.
Hey, I know this might be a bit weird, but could you play along with me?
Could I ask you for a couple of quotes out of the memo where he's being sexist?
I'm not saying you're wrong. I personally think he went completely overboard in a couple areas. But the media has demonized him so bad that I'm not sure if you're taking about something he said or something somebody said he said.
Not sure why you put "training seminar" in scare quotes
Because the entire memo was about how the training seminar was a net negative. Come on, follow the context. This is probably why he asked if you read the memo.
Nonetheless, he wrote something which got leaked and gave google some very bad press indeed.
He did not cause google to get negative press. It wasn't he who "shouted it on a rooftop" nor "widely disseminated it" and he's probably not the person who leaked it. Are you arguing that writing any negative feedback when the company asks for feedback should be a fire-able offense?
For housing and rent? Sure. Maybe.
But discrimination for race, color, sex, and political affiliation when it comes to employment is illegal and managed by the Department of Labor.
So... that's a bit of a non-sequitur and doesn't matter.
Google and the Department of Labor which makes it illegal to fire people for a list of reasons.
These types of discrimination are against the law
A program that is covered by one of the laws mentioned at the top of this
poster is not allowed to discriminate on any of the following bases (types
of discrimination):
For customers, applicants, employees, and the general public:
race color national origin religion
sex age disability political affiliation or belief
I think the article is 90% clickbaity hyperboleish bullshit. ...But this was one of the insightful bits.
You DO know that the web is just a subset of the Internet, right? The Internet does a lot more than serve webpages. File transfers, email, and all the data that goes into phone apps. When you load facebook on a phone, you're not using http (I think. I'm trusting the article a bit here, which I acknowledge is dangerous). The insightful part was that blue and yellow graph about where traffic to facebook is coming from, cellphones, desktop PC's, or a mix. I didn't expect that the bulk was cellphones. I'm part of the minority in the solid blue PC section. Now, I'm largely out of facebook, but I know how popular it is. This is.... if not the way things are going, it's one way things could go.
But... it hardly matters. Http or whateverthefuck facebook uses on the backend, it's still Internet traffic. But this walled garden of the Internet is hardly web-traffic anymore. Which caught me by surprise.
But when it comes to search, there is no real vendor lock-in. Don't like Google's search? Think they are blocking relevant results? You can use DuckDuckGo, or Bing, or Yahoo
Or Startpage!
Net Neutrality is only dead in the United States.
It's more like... "no longer enforced at the federal level". But yeah, that still sucks. And it sucks for Europe as well because you're currently reading text that was served to you from the United States.
Oh Hey! I saw this on reddit. Someone linked to the initial posting on the dude's site. I shot it full of holes and he actually responded down in the comments. Looks like he didn't take any of my criticisms and is continuing to push it. He also posted it up on /r/technology.
Lemme see... the highlights of all that bullshit....
1) This is hyperbole in the extreme. He's lying to you to generate traffic and controversy. Clickbait.
2) He makes up bullshit terms like "closed web" and "Wirenet".
3) He's somehow trying to blame IPv4 and NAT for the rise of Google and Amazon as middlemen. This is crazy.
4) Oh, and "wires" in general. No, seriously, did you read that line:
It is possible to escape middlemen businesses by decreasing reliance on the infrastructure that plugs their systems together: wires.
I can't make this shit up
5) He mentions "scuttlebutt" which legitimately looks interesting as a way to harvest and cache parts of the Internet when your connection is intermittent.
6) He also mentions DAT, but doesn't know how it works. He thinks it would remove the need for the IP layer. Also DAT would be TERRIBLE for a mesh network.
7) After cutting away all the salespitch bullshit and technological misconceptions, I think he's imagining a bunch of Africans walking around with cellphones
hosting their own webpage that gets harvested by their friends cellphones when they're in wifi range of each other. With some mesh networking to help extend that range a little. Which is a cool idea.
The big takeaway from that whole ordeal was when he admitted:
I have never used a MANET myself, I have basically no practical experience with its concrete problems.
I have no idea why he would then write an article about how they would save the world.
I have to agree with the others above, it's drivel.
That's a good argument for the believers. I like it. But it's not going to sway non-believers because it's taking too many liberties with history.
They're going to scoff at "NASA paid back at least 5:1 every investment ever made in it." and ask how that could possibly be true given NASA's ~$580 billion since it's inception. When you try and give NASA credit for:
computer era: They'll say that it would have happened with or without NASA, and I have to agree.
memory foam mattresses and velcro: Ok, but those are pretty minor things, and haven't paid out $2.5 Trillion.
insulin pumps: That's a more legit example.
LCD displays: I'd put that more at the feet of RCA. Just because the space shuttle had LCD displays doesn't mean they were exclusively developed for NASA.
photovoltaic cells: They'll point out that solar cells certainly existed prior to NASA. Of course NASA developed them further and has a practical application. The argument is that without that basic research to make them more viable, solar cells would not have been anywhere near commercially viable and private industry wouldn't have wanted to sink in the money to get it there.
NASA has a list of spinoff technologies. A lot of these aren't all that well known, but they're more concrete examples.
humanity's expansion into the cosmos slowed and then stopped (not counting robots)
Why wouldn't we count robots?
Hey, it's a great photo op to get a human on a different rock and plant a flag. There's potential political points being gained there. But there is no space-race. If we go up there and do it, there's no one to rub their face in it. Maaaaybe we show up Elon Musk? Is that even a fair fight? The US government, NASA, and all the taxpayers vs one rich boi? No, even if we get long-term "we were first" bragging rights when it comes to putting people far away from Earth, it doesn't help us today. Because there is no space race. Because there are no other competitors. Maybe if someone else gets footprints on the moon then there will be a race to Mars.
The political, PR, advertising aspect aside, putting people into space has next to zero scientific advantages (that they couldn't get on the ISS). Engineering and logistic-wise, it adds a TON of cost and it doesn't gain us much of anything. While I would love to get off this rock, I don't think we should send people until they can step into a functional habitat that could support them. The first martian colonists will be robots digging holes and planting seeds.
What solutions DO you propose if not shaming predators who are caught?
What would you say about equal punishment for false accusations?
I don't think the fear comes from justice being served to those caught red-handed, but rather from injustice from those who are automatically lumped in with he rest on a baseless accusation. Imagine someone you dislike, someone politically active, an openly proud clansmen or MAGA type, had the power to simply name you and get you fired. To have your rights taken away in court. Maybe have your kids taken away. To force you to pay ~$5,000 to $50,000 in legal fees just to defend yourself. With no hope of retaliation or justice in the end. All just by saying your name and making a claim about something you did. Imagine that world. How you'd live in it. How it would make you feel.
Don't harass or assault women and don't be sexist if you're worried. It's that fucking simple.
Are you going to pretend that false accusations don't happen?
Right, but the ISP, the umph you get per kg of fuel, is fantastic compared to chemical engines. "VASIMR could reduce the amount spent of fuel for maintaining ISS altitude, using as little as 300 kg of argon gas instead of 7.5 tonnes of chemical fuel". In short, your fuel tank lasts a lot longer.
The bigger problem is that their thrust is so small. To scale that up you need a fuckton of watts. To make that many watts, you need a bigger power source, BOOM, you get into the exact same rocket equation you have with chemical engines. Well... not exact. When you're not scooting about the solar system you could use that power for other things. But you're typically always using it.
No one is being followed on Twitter.
No one gets upvoted on Reddit.
And no one on Slashdot reads the article.
This is appalling, and pretty much means civility and reason are dead in America.
It's bad. Nearly as bad as it's ever been. There was some real nasty politics in the past.
But let's not forget how bad it could be. We could be in open rebellion with sectarian violence. The reds vs the blues with murder and violence in the streets. Like the failed state of Iraq we created and got ~300,000 civilians killed in religious purges, or Syria whose population peaked in 2010. It's a very low bar, but not murdering each other IS a modicum of civility.
You can just look at their current campus. They already have a baseball diamond and two soccer fields.
They essentially own everything between 148th ave, 51st, and Bel-Red Rd. Interestingly, Pactera Technologies, Honeywell, and Nintendo are all allowed in their turf. Ha, and "Posh Consulting" is right next door.
And they can pay the teachers, police, and firemen in company script, exchangeable at the company store.
In other news, how are those C-class non-voting stock options treating you?
Don't worry, the corporate run city-state arcologies aren't a problem until they employ their own military. That's the point we hit full cyberpunk corprocracy dystopia.
Think of what can be done when launch costs are much less than spacecraft development costs:
I think a lot of software devs are going to be.... wait for it...... "upset".
eh? EH? Shout-out to the one over-worked RF engineer in the back who gets it. I'm here all week. Try the veal.
Not that guy, but I'm going to go with..... People are the product, rather than the customer.
Right, and if you find anyone on your "cyber" ground threatening you, you can kill..... their connection.
Even stand your ground laws don't let you drive 4 hours back to their home, kick in their door, and shoot their family.
And double Fuck No!
This is a laughably bad introduction chapter to a cyberpunk dystopian hellscape where corporations employ their own hit-squads, hackers, and armies.
There's no real difference from breaking into a hotel lobby at night and trashing it, peeking a the guest registry, and robbing the cash drawer. Should corporations be able to break into a person's home, trash it, peek at their mail, and rob their wallet? Just because they suspect you might have been the one to throw paint around in their lobby? No? Then this too is a bad idea.