Believe what you want, but teams with diverse backgrounds and thoughts do actually create better software when targeting a global audience
Intuitively it should be, but there is no serious study showing significant correlation, let alone direct link.
There also are other factors at play. If you get diverse team by setting said "diversity targets" in HR, most of the time you will end up hiring people less suited for the job and there will go your "better software".
I'm sure Yahoo's stakeholders can tell you a lot more about diversity hires, how is that former CEO of theirs (who also happened to be managing things at google at some point) doing, by the way?
As in "but this time it's apparent, isn't it?". Not that long ago, it was apparent that the guy who claimed that a single drop of water contains more living organisms than entire London was crazy. Earlier than that, we surely knew that Earth was flat, else stuff would fall down from it, anyhow. Two centuries ago we believed there are better and lesser races. A century ago, we believed NOT exercising and abstaining from having sex "saves body resources" and guarantees longer life.
Do I need to continue?
Fighting ignorance with censorship is like dropping nuke on your neighbor for being too loud last night. It is a insanely dangerous tool, that can do so much more harm, than a handful of humans believing in crap ever could. Not to mention dubious effectiveness of such measures.
In an open, large enough society, any action encounters some resistance. This is the way humans work, the way evolution works, that is where pluralism largely comes from. Only state should be able to claim intellectual superiority and decide such questions one way or another, not a bunch of CA billionaires..
"isn't censoring bad crap good?" - spot on, no, it isn't, as we are far from being clear on what is and what isn't good. "so you are saying, let's promote more crap?" - no, but thanks for #youarsaying #kathynewman-ing me.
Any browser that doesn't support Most Recently Used switching is trash. Oh, and, dear Microsoft, good job following Google's trend and bombing Microsoft Edge (older versions supported MRU and so di IE), perhaps you should change your task switching to "idiotic google chrome style" too?
1) Youtube's own BS with Will Smith that was one of the most disliked videos on, well, Youtube. 2) Then Gillete's insulting "don't rape beegud" wonder that was disliked
Sometimes, people are genuinely pissed off about one's content and sometimes it happens with content that is wonderfully progressive from SJW folks perspective.
I have a simple recipe for "digital victims" of this kind: if you don't want hordes of pissed of people to downvote your content, just don't piss off people, at least en mass. Hey, look how well it worked for Edgar Watches, who has shown some respect for men, instead of pissing on them.
Also, to be blunt, women do better academically than men. The reason's really simple: girls calm down and start studying and an earlier age than boys so they get an extra year or two of education.
There are many reasons, but let me point out a couple of glaring ones: 1) There are plenty of "for women" scholarships and numerous women only programs, even though it is at least 55% girls vs 45% boys in colleges (and growing) 2) Strong gender bias among teachers who happen, hold on a second, be mostly women (it gets hilarious at times and she isn't even fired, by the way) 3) Education concept of "listen, remember and do what I say" not well suited for boys and men 4) When girls fall behind, system is being changed to address it vs no fucks given when boys are disadvantaged
The first time "but what about boys" was asked, was nearly 3 decades ago, an equity feminist (rare type), Christina Sommers wrote "The War Against Boys" book calling out lies in mainstream "myth of shortchanged girls".. She predicted the gap will only widen, and, hey, look, we are soon to hit 60% vs 40% "more equality". (UN for Women sounds alarm when there is 5% gap in boys favor (it still happens in crazy places like Sudan).
"privilege, since cherry picked stats" on slashdot, we are "progressing" fast. Now let me cherry pick some other stats for you:
About 350 firemen died on 9/11, most of them white, 100% of them men. Men earn more, but spend a fraction of earnings, yet are pointed out to have "privilege". Average US man works 30% longer hours and spends 30% more to commute to work, than working woman. Men are getting longer prison sentences and are more likely to get sentence than women, (for the same crime, both first timers) Boys are lagging behind at all stages of education, enrollment at high school soon to reach 40% vs 60%, but gender focused programs are still focused on girls. Men are times more likely to commit suicide. Men dominate at the bottom of the social pyramid, regardless of their skin color (homless, high risk jobs (90%+ of workspace fatalities) etc).
Right to be forgotten is about asking fucking companies to stop fucking remembering you. E.g. facebook to leave you alone, once you've decided you don't needed. A goddamn online shop to stop remembering you, just because you once ordered shit from them and forgot to uncheck "annoy me with all kinds of spam".
In no way is the "right to be forgotten" about manipulating search results. This case has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
There were female soldiers on both the Russian side and the in french resistance.
Resistance is not relevant to this context. USSR employed women in large (although quite small, compared to number of men) numbers, but mostly as medics, a bit as snipers, pilots, sappers.
Western Allies did not, let alone didn't let women get close to the front lines.
So, face recognition technology, with a number of alternatives in the wilds and, even though rather a complex subject by no means something exclusively google or something that any [insert major evils here] could not develop on its own.
But the most bizarre part is that not only [evil regimes] are to be avoided, but even own law enforcement agencies of the own country.
My gut feeling is that this lunacy bodes well with some mainstream theory (the kind of theory that wins, because any opposition to it is labeled/silenced/mobbed) out there somewhere and that's why it's even a thing.
Of course that would have been around 1950, some 70 years ago.
No, it was after 1970, nothing shows she has ever changed her opinion, but good try.
It seems like you must be aware of this because you linked to her Wikipedia page that explains it.
Lies. Although mentioned wiki page does try to elaborate how peaceful and non-hateful of her that idea is, as it would have been achieved by "reproduction technologies", she was "a pacifist" after all.
The two other pieces in her speech are also notable, with all the "The Force is Female", "The Future is Female" and "wait, why are rebels ruled exclusively by women in Star Wars" going on, some, perhaps would understand why it could be, from the same speech:
I) Every culture must begin to affirm a female future. II) Species responsibility must be returned to women in every culture.
When she suggested reducing population of men to 10%, she meant non-brutal methods.
In her early career, Gearhart took part in a series of seminars at San Francisco State University, where feminist scholars were critically discussed issues of rape, slavery, and the possibility of nuclear annihilation. Gearhart outlines and justifies a three-step proposal for female-led social change:
I) Every culture must begin to affirm a female future. II) Species responsibility must be returned to women in every culture. III) The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race. Gearhart does not base this radical proposal on the idea that men are innately violent or oppressive, but rather on the "real danger is in the phenomenon of male-bonding, that commitment of groups of men to each other whether in an army, a gang, a service club, a lodge, a monastic order, a corporation, or a competitive sport." Gearhart identifies the self-perpetuating, male-exclusive reinforcement of power within these groups as corrosive to female-led social change. Thus, if "men were reduced in number, the threat would not be so great and the placement of species responsibility with the female would be assured." Gearhart, a dedicated pacifist, recognized that this kind of change could not be achieved through mass violence. On the critical question of how women could achieve this, Gearhart argues that it is by women's own capacity for reproduction that the ratio of men to women can be changed though the technologies of cloning or ovular merging, both of which would only produce female births. She argues that as women take advantage of these reproductive technologies, the sex ratio would change over generations.[13]
Slashdot Mirror
Believe what you want, but teams with diverse backgrounds and thoughts do actually create better software when targeting a global audience
Intuitively it should be, but there is no serious study showing significant correlation, let alone direct link.
There also are other factors at play. If you get diverse team by setting said "diversity targets" in HR, most of the time you will end up hiring people less suited for the job and there will go your "better software".
I'm sure Yahoo's stakeholders can tell you a lot more about diversity hires, how is that former CEO of theirs (who also happened to be managing things at google at some point) doing, by the way?
Why is it always gender studies used as the example?
Because one of its founders suggested reducing population of men to 10%
and, perhaps, because one of the G. Studies journals managed to publish re-phrased "Main Kampf".
Doesn't sound like something practical. One could argue that neither is literature, but at least there are people who enjoy that.
It won't, but the wonderful tools one develops while oppressing crazy folks, can be used on not so crazy too.
That is not the case here though is it
As in "but this time it's apparent, isn't it?". Not that long ago, it was apparent that the guy who claimed that a single drop of water contains more living organisms than entire London was crazy. Earlier than that, we surely knew that Earth was flat, else stuff would fall down from it, anyhow. Two centuries ago we believed there are better and lesser races. A century ago, we believed NOT exercising and abstaining from having sex "saves body resources" and guarantees longer life.
Do I need to continue?
Fighting ignorance with censorship is like dropping nuke on your neighbor for being too loud last night. It is a insanely dangerous tool, that can do so much more harm, than a handful of humans believing in crap ever could. Not to mention dubious effectiveness of such measures.
In an open, large enough society, any action encounters some resistance. This is the way humans work, the way evolution works, that is where pluralism largely comes from. Only state should be able to claim intellectual superiority and decide such questions one way or another, not a bunch of CA billionaires..
"isn't censoring bad crap good?" - spot on, no, it isn't, as we are far from being clear on what is and what isn't good.
"so you are saying, let's promote more crap?" - no, but thanks for #youarsaying #kathynewman-ing me.
What is worse than government deciding on your behalf what is wrong and what is right?
Private transnational company doing that.
The harm that acceptance of this kind of "filtering" could do far outweighs anything uneducated conspiracy theorists could.
Any browser that doesn't support Most Recently Used switching is trash.
Oh, and, dear Microsoft, good job following Google's trend and bombing Microsoft Edge (older versions supported MRU and so di IE), perhaps you should change your task switching to "idiotic google chrome style" too?
1) Youtube's own BS with Will Smith that was one of the most disliked videos on, well, Youtube.
2) Then Gillete's insulting "don't rape beegud" wonder that was disliked
Sometimes, people are genuinely pissed off about one's content and sometimes it happens with content that is wonderfully progressive from SJW folks perspective.
I have a simple recipe for "digital victims" of this kind: if you don't want hordes of pissed of people to downvote your content, just don't piss off people, at least en mass. Hey, look how well it worked for Edgar Watches, who has shown some respect for men, instead of pissing on them.
Also, to be blunt, women do better academically than men. The reason's really simple: girls calm down and start studying and an earlier age than boys so they get an extra year or two of education.
There are many reasons, but let me point out a couple of glaring ones:
1) There are plenty of "for women" scholarships and numerous women only programs, even though it is at least 55% girls vs 45% boys in colleges (and growing)
2) Strong gender bias among teachers who happen, hold on a second, be mostly women (it gets hilarious at times and she isn't even fired, by the way)
3) Education concept of "listen, remember and do what I say" not well suited for boys and men
4) When girls fall behind, system is being changed to address it vs no fucks given when boys are disadvantaged
The first time "but what about boys" was asked, was nearly 3 decades ago, an equity feminist (rare type), Christina Sommers wrote "The War Against Boys" book calling out lies in mainstream "myth of shortchanged girls".. She predicted the gap will only widen, and, hey, look, we are soon to hit 60% vs 40% "more equality". (UN for Women sounds alarm when there is 5% gap in boys favor (it still happens in crazy places like Sudan).
"privilege, since cherry picked stats" on slashdot, we are "progressing" fast.
Now let me cherry pick some other stats for you:
About 350 firemen died on 9/11, most of them white, 100% of them men.
Men earn more, but spend a fraction of earnings, yet are pointed out to have "privilege".
Average US man works 30% longer hours and spends 30% more to commute to work, than working woman.
Men are getting longer prison sentences and are more likely to get sentence than women, (for the same crime, both first timers)
Boys are lagging behind at all stages of education, enrollment at high school soon to reach 40% vs 60%, but gender focused programs are still focused on girls.
Men are times more likely to commit suicide.
Men dominate at the bottom of the social pyramid, regardless of their skin color (homless, high risk jobs (90%+ of workspace fatalities) etc).
So, what you were saying again?
and just as intelligent.
And with brains bigger than those of modern humans.
Curious, huh?
Right to be forgotten is about asking fucking companies to stop fucking remembering you.
E.g. facebook to leave you alone, once you've decided you don't needed.
A goddamn online shop to stop remembering you, just because you once ordered shit from them and forgot to uncheck "annoy me with all kinds of spam".
In no way is the "right to be forgotten" about manipulating search results. This case has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
There were female soldiers on both the Russian side and the in french resistance.
Resistance is not relevant to this context.
USSR employed women in large (although quite small, compared to number of men) numbers, but mostly as medics, a bit as snipers, pilots, sappers.
Western Allies did not, let alone didn't let women get close to the front lines.
Because:
16G vs 8G
3 games
not nVidia
Even 580 was more than 7% faster than 480 and here you have major clock bump.
Define "pointless" tunnels, as Shinkansen surely does use tunnels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So, face recognition technology, with a number of alternatives in the wilds and, even though rather a complex subject by no means something exclusively google or something that any [insert major evils here] could not develop on its own.
But the most bizarre part is that not only [evil regimes] are to be avoided, but even own law enforcement agencies of the own country.
My gut feeling is that this lunacy bodes well with some mainstream theory (the kind of theory that wins, because any opposition to it is labeled/silenced/mobbed) out there somewhere and that's why it's even a thing.
So what?
So that we are commenting on an article that is based on how inventive Apple was.
That's not how most trans people are (there would be no argument, if they were).
Vast majority are XX and XY (the latter outnumber the former 3 to 1)
I thought sex and gender were not the same thing.
Not simply grown ups, but majority of grown ups.
No, wait, not simply majority of grown ups, but majority of grown ups WORKING IN IT!
So, exactly what is news here?
Could it be that they are simply narcissistic? Maybe they are apathetic towards their fellow man and really don't care 'how they are doing'?
How is asking "how are you" while not caring and not expecting anything but short positive answer somehow showing that you care about someone?
That's an ironic side effect of the evolution, that also hints why both women and men like women more than men.
Of course that would have been around 1950, some 70 years ago.
No, it was after 1970, nothing shows she has ever changed her opinion, but good try.
It seems like you must be aware of this because you linked to her Wikipedia page that explains it.
Lies. Although mentioned wiki page does try to elaborate how peaceful and non-hateful of her that idea is, as it would have been achieved by "reproduction technologies", she was "a pacifist" after all.
The two other pieces in her speech are also notable, with all the "The Force is Female", "The Future is Female" and "wait, why are rebels ruled exclusively by women in Star Wars" going on, some, perhaps would understand why it could be, from the same speech:
I) Every culture must begin to affirm a female future.
II) Species responsibility must be returned to women in every culture.
When she suggested reducing population of men to 10%, she meant non-brutal methods.
In her early career, Gearhart took part in a series of seminars at San Francisco State University, where feminist scholars were critically discussed issues of rape, slavery, and the possibility of nuclear annihilation. Gearhart outlines and justifies a three-step proposal for female-led social change:
I) Every culture must begin to affirm a female future.
II) Species responsibility must be returned to women in every culture.
III) The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.
Gearhart does not base this radical proposal on the idea that men are innately violent or oppressive, but rather on the "real danger is in the phenomenon of male-bonding, that commitment of groups of men to each other whether in an army, a gang, a service club, a lodge, a monastic order, a corporation, or a competitive sport." Gearhart identifies the self-perpetuating, male-exclusive reinforcement of power within these groups as corrosive to female-led social change. Thus, if "men were reduced in number, the threat would not be so great and the placement of species responsibility with the female would be assured." Gearhart, a dedicated pacifist, recognized that this kind of change could not be achieved through mass violence. On the critical question of how women could achieve this, Gearhart argues that it is by women's own capacity for reproduction that the ratio of men to women can be changed though the technologies of cloning or ovular merging, both of which would only produce female births. She argues that as women take advantage of these reproductive technologies, the sex ratio would change over generations.[13]
Sally Miller Gearhart, one of the founders of gender studies`