"Economic privilege"... Interesting, that having a job is a "special" advantage. Of course whatever I don't have and you have, it might be subject to be an advantage. Although not a "special" one.
Google increasing diversity giving money "only" for girls like it was shown some days ago? Bigotry for diversity. Still I cannot understand why someone will try to mimic demographics. In the very moment you hire someone for "diversity" reasons, you're teaching them exactly the opposite of improving themselves: they just need to be a minority to be hired. Google could have helped with studies to learn more about why women choose the degrees they choose, and men choose the degrees they choose, and act on those results. Even use existing studies... But no: just pushing a % up to mimic demographics.
Is interesting that the "famous" people you talk about are college dropouts. Don't know if it could be related to the special advantage. Even for those whose parents had difficulties to pay for college: college debt as a special advantage. There is a book about these people: Outliers: The Story of Success (Malcolm Gladwell). Their privilege in the book? be born at the right time and have the opportunity to take a decision no one else had taken before.
This also links with your "head start". (Stolen from Gladwell book) Young children that are months older are smarter, they have a "head start". Being smarter, stronger, faster gives them preferential treatment in schools/teams/etc and that makes them even better. They're privileged because they were born months before the rest.
Numbers and statistics are numbers and statistics. The most common misuse is to think that correlations are causations. It is called the "texas sharpshooter" or affirming the consequent. Begging the question is about the circular argument of privilege and being privileged for not recognizing privilege.
As a summary: - There is advantage, and there is special advantage. - I don't know why on earth would anyone believe that creating special advantages: bigoted/dogmatist/prejudiced/intolerant hiring practices and education; would be the best way to increase equality and contribute towards an egalitarian society. But I guess we will discover it together (perhaps soon)
For sure someone eating every day and having a roof over his head is in a much better position from someone who don't have food or housing. But it is not a special advantage.
Worst, instead of teaching people how to be able to make 32$K a year, we attack those who do in order to make them feel "bad" for getting there.
It is a "let's feel all bad! What, are you doing something that makes you get out of the bad feelings pool? Privileged!!!! And you deny your privilege".
I don't know much about the average slahdotter geek. But if he did something right to get where he is... I might learn it too, instead of claiming he is privileged. (Shifting the burden doesn't help)
Is it a problem in the first place? Why country demographics should be mirrored in a company?
"should" might not be the right word. Although affirmative action means "push for it". Are we entering in an era where it is not important what you decide to do but how many individuals with some of your characteristics are in the country you live in order to find a job?
Are you creating other problems? Because quotas have been introduced in other countries (management quotas)" and the effects measured:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa... "the average effect of gender diversity on firm performance is negative [my emphasis]. This negative effect is driven by companies with fewer takeover defences. Our results suggest that mandating gender quotas for directors can reduce firm value for well-governed firms."
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa... "The quota led to younger and less experienced boards, increases in leverage and acquisitions, and deterioration in operating performance, consistent with less capable boards "
It is good that quotas happened. We now have studies showing their effects.
Also quotas go against many management principles, if mirroring demographics is a problem: - Don’t push growth; remove the factors limiting growth. - An underlying problem generates symptoms that demand attention. But the underlying problem is difficult for people to address, either because it is obscure or costly to confront. So people “shift the burden” of their problem to other solutions—well-intentioned, easy fixes which seem extremely efficient. ( - The harder you push, the harder the system pushes back. - The cure can be worse than the disease. (poor company performance after adding inadequate candidates). - Faster is slower. (Fixed the percentages right away, didn't fix the root cause and now it is hidden and nobody cares) - Cause and effect are not closely related in time and space. (The people being hired right now were trained and decided their careers many years ago). - Living systems have integrity. Their character depends on the whole. The same is true for organizations. (It is not just balance genders in management, it affects many other things in a company). - There is no blame. (Blame priviledge: male, white... whatever that allows you to shift the blame instead of improving to meet the requirements of the job)
Is too much to ask for men to not rape? --- This is ok
Is too much to ask blacks not to commit crimes? --- but this is pure racism
I'd say the first is pure bigotry.
Rapists rape (male and female), not men. Abusers (male and female) abuse. You better focus on finding them or at least be ready for them. The Kennesaw State University has rape aggression defense classes for women AND men.
Since there is another nice study saying that 50% college males were sexually abused. It seems it is not a "gender" problem, but someone has to explain to those abusers how things work.
Don't worry, Media only sells if women are the victim. You will never see an Ad with a male so you won't need to "violin".
- 98% of crime convicts eat bread. - 100% of crime convicts drink water.
But it was funny to see how someone could introduce rape in a gender discussion. Like somehow that money is given to the girls because... rape! Now rape is important in the conversation. It proves something. What exactly?
Talking about "Federal", the FBI doesn't consider "made to penetrate" rape. Also in the CDC’s national survey of sexual violence, for example, “made to penetrate” is not included as a form of rape. Nice skewed statistics. There were some "crazy" people trying to get the real stats in that CDC report adding the "made to penetrate": "1.267 million male victims versus 1.270 million female victims".
Nice talk about rape stats.
Now what worries me a lot is that because there are rapists who are men, men shouldn't receive help to learn to code? You have some criminals, and because they're men, then every men should be denied something because.... perhaps you're implying that all men are rapists or something like that? It is not very clear.
Only women receive societal pressure? What pressure are we talking about? It would be nice to know what you have in mind when you talk about "something" that "applies pressure" on women not to go to CS (or learn coding skills).
And that something then creates "men's education"?
Re:Yeah, that was about 75 years ago
on
Star Trek Economics
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
In socialism you get paid by your work. The difference with capitalism is that there is no big investor owning the company, doing what he wants and (the most important part) living from your work.
A cooperative is the best example of people working in those conditions.
Socialism doesn't require democracy, in fact it often dictates a lack of democracy to enact as you run the risk of the people choosing themselves over the community.
And where exactly do people choose themselves over the community and how can that be a problem in an assembly where majority wins.
History is rife with examples of socialist states that tried to solve this problem by either eliminating voting or limiting voting to one party.
Solve this problem, can you explain how people deciding is a problem? I know that after Lenin died in Russia the soviet assembly died. But how people having the control of the production means is a problem, It is an interesting idea.
The same thing goes for the right to assemble, if the masses assemble they might demand something different and socialism fails when the people don't want to go along with it.
Socialism is when the masses assembly and take control. It will be really fun that they assembly to vote not to be able to assemble again an decide their future.
Again history is full of examples of socialist states where the right to assemble was strongly curtailed.
It would be nice if you put some, just to know what do you consider a socialist state, and if you take into consideration anything else.
Because now in the US the right of assemble is strongly curtailed, not only with the "funny" law of demonstrations near the white house, but with demonstrations near the secret service or someone protected by the secret service. Let alone the "funny" (again) reasons used to stop people assembling in the wall street demonstrations. I must say that using nets to treat people like cattle was another "funny" idea. Better than shooting students like in the 70s.
Socialism doesn't have anything to do with racism, culture or genocide as a requirement or a curtailment.
I won't call this a non-sequitur, because there is nothing backing this up. You could first compare how the US or Europe evolved around the racism problem and how socialist countries did it. Just to see how constitutions where not only removing races but also equality between women and men.
But you can go to the theory. "Racism serves the interests of the capitalist or employer class by dividing black and white workers, reducing their potential unity and thus their bargaining power." (I guess you can google this and learn more about it).
Private companies were routinely seized by the Nazi's and even when companies were 'owned' in name by someone else they were effectively government owned. Such was the extant of this that they were seized as war assets and either put out of business or forced into new lines of business. BMW and Volkswagen are direct examples of the result of this (BMW used to make war planes and the blue / white propeller emblem is homage to that history). The nazi's were very anti-corporation and anti-business, traits that run counter to fascism and right wing politics.
Yep, Bayer and Josef Mengele, and of course inside IG Farben wasn't a capitalist conglomerate. But the worst of all of this is this fact "The Bayer executive Fritz ter Meer, sentenced to seven years in prison during the IG Farben Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, was made head of the supervisory board of Bayer in 1956, after his release".
So can you tell me when BMW was seized by the government?
I am not putting a flag in the Reichstag, I am simply stating an inconvenient truth, one that the youth of today tend to be unaware of. What are the elements of socialism? You will find all of those elements in Nazi Germany.
You're defending so much the Nazi that it feels that you would like them to come back. In that case, don't worry there will be people willing to put a different flag in the Reichstag.
A bunch of non-sequitur is called now truth?. Why? You know more about yourself. But I guess I'll remember for some months your comment about "Socialism is not democracy".
WTF1: From the moment labor unions disappear, you cannot call it socialism. Socialism is the ownership of the production means by the workers. Removing the assemblies defeats socialism.
WTF2: The USSR "treaty" was a non attack treaty, like the one signed with Denmark, Estonia, and Latvia. It gave Stalin enough time to prepare for what was next. On the other side, France an the UK were accepting Germany invasions by paper: "Ohh, I want this country. Ok it is yours" (Austria and Czechoslovakia). Also the US was selling the stuff needed. They all wanted Hitler to attack the soviet union (Nazis offered peace with the Allies in 1941 but only if they were allowed to invade Russia. Article from dailymail). Very socialist.
If my grandma had an engine, she would be a car. So Nazi Germany was socialist but you need: To remove racism, genocide, add democracy, add people assemblies, add culture, remove the focus of the government in the private companies (Bayer anyone?) and focus on working with the people. And yes, you're right, it will be a quite socialist state.
Remember that there will be always people to put another flag in the Reichstag.
In socialism workers own the production means. So they can decide by themselves what to do next. Communism can be best explained with this sentence: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (Karl Marx 1875).
Back to capitalist systems where you got the FED or the ECB + EU. We must not forget how central those systems are and how far from the real world are the solutions and ideas they have. And the most important part of all of this: it reaches beyond borders. In order to be in the first world, there should be other lesser worlds.
So when the ECB injects cheap money in the EU, or US forces all oil to be bought in dollars or injects even more money. You have economic decisions with the same effects that the ones that you can find in Cuba or Venezuela. In all cases they might fail.
One important difference, even if in both cases solutions seem disconnected from the real world (of course you might argue that some are not, that's why the "some" is there). The difference in the end is who are they trying to help, besides their own image.
At the end of the road you can find the Anarchists who will tell you that any structure of authority has to justify itself. If not needed, it should be replaced by something better, more free.
Summary: if a central economic authority is needed, better to be chosen by us.
This summer a team of 2 greeks, 1 swiss and 1 spanish (all devs) was having an afternoon swim in the sea after a long day hacking some code in a close mountain.
We thought that if we could bring more people, that would be a nice income for the country: sell Greece's weather not for tourism but for remote workers.
Renting a 2 floors flat is 500-600 euro. Internet around 20-30 euro for ADSL or 25 euro for a 30GB 4G contract. Today's lunch in a restaurant for 4, 35 euro. Of course there are some things a bit expensive: coffee in a trendy cafeteria 4 euro, or 1,5L of fresh milk 2,1 euro.
You cannot get accurate information of today's problems for X, from people that today the don't work on X. You will get yesterday's problems on X or today's problems on Z. That's the basic rule of "asking the people that do the job about their job".
I understand is simply speculation. Also I can point companies that do not follow that rule and they do well. But that's the difference between just doing, and doing very well.
I'm saying that if the people having a problem are not asked for that problem, if the same people do not think on solutions... you are going to create two worlds: the world of people having a problem, and the world of people that believe they have a solution. Like politics in modern countries were politicians seem to live in a parallel world.
Again there are many countries like that, and it doesn't mean that they cannot be governed. But the quality of their job is very different from countries that allow people do their thinking and vote on that.
So you're asking the same people that created/allowed that problem to fix it. That is usually a problem by itself. It is good that a new CEO is there to give some light, and thinking again on that.... It seems natural that Yahoo did what it did.
I mean, you have a bunch of managers that cannot manage something, don't let them fix it. Just remove it, they won't fix it anyway. Yes, it seems the best option to take.
Also it's true that we didn't know exactly what happened and we're talking over some hints and news. I'm sure they had their reason. Just a pity they weren't able to fix those problems.
- Senior devs and dev managers do a different job than a dev. So what you're going to get instead of a reality check is a "my usage" or "what I'd like" - Carefully considered, means that somehow someone did some thinking and pulled a metric from his...:? - Also are you asking the same managers that haven't detected the lack of productivity till now? Are you the European Union that believes that the same politicians that stole Greece money are going to fix the problem? +1 to this one.
After that, anything else seems quite irrational to me. Of course consistent with what they say (they can promise you the moon), and it doesn't require you to be an idiot. Analysing it in first place is a good start.
Many stupid things are public, and in mass media you'll find more stupid things and lies that you can imagine. That doesn't make any point, but using this as a base for a theory might be a good -1.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point.
Reference or you're a bigot.
"Economic privilege"... Interesting, that having a job is a "special" advantage. Of course whatever I don't have and you have, it might be subject to be an advantage. Although not a "special" one.
Google increasing diversity giving money "only" for girls like it was shown some days ago? Bigotry for diversity. Still I cannot understand why someone will try to mimic demographics. In the very moment you hire someone for "diversity" reasons, you're teaching them exactly the opposite of improving themselves: they just need to be a minority to be hired. Google could have helped with studies to learn more about why women choose the degrees they choose, and men choose the degrees they choose, and act on those results. Even use existing studies... But no: just pushing a % up to mimic demographics.
Is interesting that the "famous" people you talk about are college dropouts. Don't know if it could be related to the special advantage. Even for those whose parents had difficulties to pay for college: college debt as a special advantage. There is a book about these people: Outliers: The Story of Success (Malcolm Gladwell). Their privilege in the book? be born at the right time and have the opportunity to take a decision no one else had taken before.
This also links with your "head start". (Stolen from Gladwell book) Young children that are months older are smarter, they have a "head start". Being smarter, stronger, faster gives them preferential treatment in schools/teams/etc and that makes them even better. They're privileged because they were born months before the rest.
Numbers and statistics are numbers and statistics. The most common misuse is to think that correlations are causations. It is called the "texas sharpshooter" or affirming the consequent. Begging the question is about the circular argument of privilege and being privileged for not recognizing privilege.
As a summary:
- There is advantage, and there is special advantage.
- I don't know why on earth would anyone believe that creating special advantages: bigoted/dogmatist/prejudiced/intolerant hiring practices and education; would be the best way to increase equality and contribute towards an egalitarian society. But I guess we will discover it together (perhaps soon)
Making 32$K per year is not a special advantage.
For sure someone eating every day and having a roof over his head is in a much better position from someone who don't have food or housing. But it is not a special advantage.
Worst, instead of teaching people how to be able to make 32$K a year, we attack those who do in order to make them feel "bad" for getting there.
It is a "let's feel all bad! What, are you doing something that makes you get out of the bad feelings pool? Privileged!!!! And you deny your privilege".
I don't know much about the average slahdotter geek. But if he did something right to get where he is... I might learn it too, instead of claiming he is privileged. (Shifting the burden doesn't help)
IMHO you have fallacy there: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...
Is it a problem in the first place? Why country demographics should be mirrored in a company?
"should" might not be the right word. Although affirmative action means "push for it". Are we entering in an era where it is not important what you decide to do but how many individuals with some of your characteristics are in the country you live in order to find a job?
Are you creating other problems? Because quotas have been introduced in other countries (management quotas)" and the effects measured:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa...
"the average effect of gender diversity on firm performance is negative [my emphasis]. This negative effect is driven by companies with fewer takeover defences. Our results suggest that mandating gender quotas for directors can reduce firm value for well-governed firms."
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa...
"The quota led to younger and less experienced boards, increases in leverage and acquisitions, and deterioration in operating performance, consistent with less capable boards "
It is good that quotas happened. We now have studies showing their effects.
Also quotas go against many management principles, if mirroring demographics is a problem:
- Don’t push growth; remove the factors limiting growth.
- An underlying problem generates symptoms that demand attention. But the underlying problem is difficult for people to address, either because it is obscure or costly to confront. So people “shift the burden” of their problem to other solutions—well-intentioned, easy fixes which seem extremely efficient. (
- The harder you push, the harder the system pushes back.
- The cure can be worse than the disease. (poor company performance after adding inadequate candidates).
- Faster is slower. (Fixed the percentages right away, didn't fix the root cause and now it is hidden and nobody cares)
- Cause and effect are not closely related in time and space. (The people being hired right now were trained and decided their careers many years ago).
- Living systems have integrity. Their character depends on the whole. The same is true for organizations. (It is not just balance genders in management, it affects many other things in a company).
- There is no blame. (Blame priviledge: male, white... whatever that allows you to shift the blame instead of improving to meet the requirements of the job)
Could you care to explain what is that "generally hostile" attitude?
Is too much to ask for men to not rape? --- This is ok
Is too much to ask blacks not to commit crimes? --- but this is pure racism
I'd say the first is pure bigotry.
Rapists rape (male and female), not men. Abusers (male and female) abuse. You better focus on finding them or at least be ready for them. The Kennesaw State University has rape aggression defense classes for women AND men.
Since there is another nice study saying that 50% college males were sexually abused. It seems it is not a "gender" problem, but someone has to explain to those abusers how things work.
Don't worry, Media only sells if women are the victim. You will never see an Ad with a male so you won't need to "violin".
- 98% of crime convicts eat bread.
- 100% of crime convicts drink water.
But it was funny to see how someone could introduce rape in a gender discussion. Like somehow that money is given to the girls because... rape! Now rape is important in the conversation. It proves something. What exactly?
Talking about "Federal", the FBI doesn't consider "made to penetrate" rape. Also in the CDC’s national survey of sexual violence, for example, “made to penetrate” is not included as a form of rape. Nice skewed statistics. There were some "crazy" people trying to get the real stats in that CDC report adding the "made to penetrate": "1.267 million male victims versus 1.270 million female victims".
Nice talk about rape stats.
Now what worries me a lot is that because there are rapists who are men, men shouldn't receive help to learn to code? You have some criminals, and because they're men, then every men should be denied something because.... perhaps you're implying that all men are rapists or something like that? It is not very clear.
It is happening. This 50 million US dollars is an example of affirmative action. Quotas in management in some countries in Europe is another example.
Are quotas a bad idea? Upper management being hired not because their characteristics but because... hey I need to fill my quota so, join us.
Only women receive societal pressure? What pressure are we talking about? It would be nice to know what you have in mind when you talk about "something" that "applies pressure" on women not to go to CS (or learn coding skills).
And that something then creates "men's education"?
Taking into account that this help is only for girls/women. How does this sound:
What's wrong with funding for programs that teach only WHITE people how to code? Do you read what you write before you press submit?
But it is a nice move in the politically correct world of diversity and social justice.
The program, as it is explained int the link, it is about support for women's programs.
So it is not to find out why. They don't care about the why. But they care a lot in their politically correct speech.
A big push is two web sites when we're talking about 50 million dollars? Who is moving the goal post?
For sure "big" can be understood in many ways, but we're commenting in a post about 50 million US dollars.
Unions are made from employees. I'd like to see a worker's union in the SF bubble.
Sorry, I forgot to add an example to my previous comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
In socialism you get paid by your work. The difference with capitalism is that there is no big investor owning the company, doing what he wants and (the most important part) living from your work.
A cooperative is the best example of people working in those conditions.
Socialism doesn't require democracy, in fact it often dictates a lack of democracy to enact as you run the risk of the people choosing themselves over the community.
And where exactly do people choose themselves over the community and how can that be a problem in an assembly where majority wins.
History is rife with examples of socialist states that tried to solve this problem by either eliminating voting or limiting voting to one party.
Solve this problem, can you explain how people deciding is a problem? I know that after Lenin died in Russia the soviet assembly died. But how people having the control of the production means is a problem, It is an interesting idea.
The same thing goes for the right to assemble, if the masses assemble they might demand something different and socialism fails when the people don't want to go along with it.
Socialism is when the masses assembly and take control. It will be really fun that they assembly to vote not to be able to assemble again an decide their future.
Again history is full of examples of socialist states where the right to assemble was strongly curtailed.
It would be nice if you put some, just to know what do you consider a socialist state, and if you take into consideration anything else.
Because now in the US the right of assemble is strongly curtailed, not only with the "funny" law of demonstrations near the white house, but with demonstrations near the secret service or someone protected by the secret service. Let alone the "funny" (again) reasons used to stop people assembling in the wall street demonstrations. I must say that using nets to treat people like cattle was another "funny" idea. Better than shooting students like in the 70s.
Socialism doesn't have anything to do with racism, culture or genocide as a requirement or a curtailment.
I won't call this a non-sequitur, because there is nothing backing this up. You could first compare how the US or Europe evolved around the racism problem and how socialist countries did it. Just to see how constitutions where not only removing races but also equality between women and men.
But you can go to the theory. "Racism serves the interests of the capitalist or employer class by dividing black and white workers, reducing their potential unity and thus their bargaining power." (I guess you can google this and learn more about it).
Private companies were routinely seized by the Nazi's and even when companies were 'owned' in name by someone else they were effectively government owned. Such was the extant of this that they were seized as war assets and either put out of business or forced into new lines of business. BMW and Volkswagen are direct examples of the result of this (BMW used to make war planes and the blue / white propeller emblem is homage to that history). The nazi's were very anti-corporation and anti-business, traits that run counter to fascism and right wing politics.
Yep, Bayer and Josef Mengele, and of course inside IG Farben wasn't a capitalist conglomerate. But the worst of all of this is this fact "The Bayer executive Fritz ter Meer, sentenced to seven years in prison during the IG Farben Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, was made head of the supervisory board of Bayer in 1956, after his release".
So can you tell me when BMW was seized by the government?
I am not putting a flag in the Reichstag, I am simply stating an inconvenient truth, one that the youth of today tend to be unaware of. What are the elements of socialism? You will find all of those elements in Nazi Germany.
You're defending so much the Nazi that it feels that you would like them to come back. In that case, don't worry there will be people willing to put a different flag in the Reichstag.
A bunch of non-sequitur is called now truth?. Why? You know more about yourself. But I guess I'll remember for some months your comment about "Socialism is not democracy".
Have fun with your democracy :P
WTF1: From the moment labor unions disappear, you cannot call it socialism. Socialism is the ownership of the production means by the workers. Removing the assemblies defeats socialism.
WTF2: The USSR "treaty" was a non attack treaty, like the one signed with Denmark, Estonia, and Latvia. It gave Stalin enough time to prepare for what was next. On the other side, France an the UK were accepting Germany invasions by paper: "Ohh, I want this country. Ok it is yours" (Austria and Czechoslovakia). Also the US was selling the stuff needed. They all wanted Hitler to attack the soviet union (Nazis offered peace with the Allies in 1941 but only if they were allowed to invade Russia. Article from dailymail). Very socialist.
If my grandma had an engine, she would be a car. So Nazi Germany was socialist but you need: To remove racism, genocide, add democracy, add people assemblies, add culture, remove the focus of the government in the private companies (Bayer anyone?) and focus on working with the people. And yes, you're right, it will be a quite socialist state.
Remember that there will be always people to put another flag in the Reichstag.
In socialism workers own the production means. So they can decide by themselves what to do next. Communism can be best explained with this sentence: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (Karl Marx 1875).
Back to capitalist systems where you got the FED or the ECB + EU. We must not forget how central those systems are and how far from the real world are the solutions and ideas they have. And the most important part of all of this: it reaches beyond borders. In order to be in the first world, there should be other lesser worlds.
So when the ECB injects cheap money in the EU, or US forces all oil to be bought in dollars or injects even more money. You have economic decisions with the same effects that the ones that you can find in Cuba or Venezuela. In all cases they might fail.
One important difference, even if in both cases solutions seem disconnected from the real world (of course you might argue that some are not, that's why the "some" is there). The difference in the end is who are they trying to help, besides their own image.
At the end of the road you can find the Anarchists who will tell you that any structure of authority has to justify itself. If not needed, it should be replaced by something better, more free.
Summary: if a central economic authority is needed, better to be chosen by us.
I couldn't find anything better: http://elan.plexapp.com/2012/03/29/this-aint-your-grandfathers-dlna/
And unfortunately in that article I guess they're right :(
Each device implements DLNA in it's own way. Each DLNA tries to solve problems in the best way they can.
The best solutions I've seen is a: computer playing movies (VLC plays everything). Plex app + plex server in your NAS/PC.
It is called capitalism.
This summer a team of 2 greeks, 1 swiss and 1 spanish (all devs) was having an afternoon swim in the sea after a long day hacking some code in a close mountain.
http://pic.twitter.com/I7mLKZXf
We thought that if we could bring more people, that would be a nice income for the country: sell Greece's weather not for tourism but for remote workers.
Renting a 2 floors flat is 500-600 euro. Internet around 20-30 euro for ADSL or 25 euro for a 30GB 4G contract. Today's lunch in a restaurant for 4, 35 euro. Of course there are some things a bit expensive: coffee in a trendy cafeteria 4 euro, or 1,5L of fresh milk 2,1 euro.
Still a nice place to stay.
You cannot get accurate information of today's problems for X, from people that today the don't work on X. You will get yesterday's problems on X or today's problems on Z. That's the basic rule of "asking the people that do the job about their job".
I understand is simply speculation. Also I can point companies that do not follow that rule and they do well. But that's the difference between just doing, and doing very well.
I'm saying that if the people having a problem are not asked for that problem, if the same people do not think on solutions... you are going to create two worlds: the world of people having a problem, and the world of people that believe they have a solution. Like politics in modern countries were politicians seem to live in a parallel world.
Again there are many countries like that, and it doesn't mean that they cannot be governed. But the quality of their job is very different from countries that allow people do their thinking and vote on that.
So you're asking the same people that created/allowed that problem to fix it. That is usually a problem by itself. It is good that a new CEO is there to give some light, and thinking again on that.... It seems natural that Yahoo did what it did.
I mean, you have a bunch of managers that cannot manage something, don't let them fix it. Just remove it, they won't fix it anyway. Yes, it seems the best option to take.
Also it's true that we didn't know exactly what happened and we're talking over some hints and news. I'm sure they had their reason. Just a pity they weren't able to fix those problems.
Let's explore some factual errors.
- Senior devs and dev managers do a different job than a dev. So what you're going to get instead of a reality check is a "my usage" or "what I'd like" ... :?
- Carefully considered, means that somehow someone did some thinking and pulled a metric from his
- Also are you asking the same managers that haven't detected the lack of productivity till now? Are you the European Union that believes that the same politicians that stole Greece money are going to fix the problem? +1 to this one.
After that, anything else seems quite irrational to me. Of course consistent with what they say (they can promise you the moon), and it doesn't require you to be an idiot. Analysing it in first place is a good start.
Many stupid things are public, and in mass media you'll find more stupid things and lies that you can imagine. That doesn't make any point, but using this as a base for a theory might be a good -1.