Bah. My son-in-law, who is a high-school dropout, not even a GED, is working as an HVAC installer for $16 per hour. He's going to do a certification course (at employer expense, and paid), and then he'll jump up to $35 per hour. My son (HS diploma) passed up a full-time job at $18 per hour doing composites fabrication to take a $10 per hour part time job at Target because he decided he needs to get his degree (wise decision) and Target will work around his school schedule. He doesn't need the money that much, though because his wife (HS diploma) is making $40K per year doing office admin work for a company that owns billboards. My other son (HS diploma) similarly passed on a decent full-time job doing cabinetry work because he wants to get his degree, so he's flipping burgers instead for $9 per hour (he lives at home). My nephew, who has nothing but a high school diploma and is somewhat slow (IQ 80 or so), is making $15 per hour working for the city maintenance crew, driving trucks and whatnot.
And then there are all of the young people I know who do have degrees. None of them are making less than $60K, except one who chose to be a public schoolteacher, but teachers have always been poorly paid, and he went into it with his eyes open. His wife is an FBI agent, currently GS-10, so they're okay.
Maybe I just live in the right area and you live in the wrong one, but around here employers -- at every level -- are begging for employees, and they're paying accordingly. And we have a moderate to low cost of living.
The biggest problem I see right now is that too many young people around me are being enticed away from school by good-paying (from their perspective) jobs. Four years of school could nearly double their income in the short term, and in the long term it will do better than that. I've got my sons convinced to take the short-term hit for the long-term reward (financial and more). I've had less success with my daughter and her husband, but there are some complications in their case.
He says hiring standards had been lowered for diversity.
FWIW, I work for Google and interview software engineering candidates. I have never, ever been told to go easier on diversity candidates, or indeed anything other than to apply the same rigorous standard to all. My colleagues on the hiring committees (who make hire/no-hire decisions) say the same, and I see no evidence of bias in which people I've interviewed got offers... maybe half of the good ones got offers, none of the borderline or below got offers, and I see no gender or racial correlations at all.
Just because you sold software on "criminal" forums does not mean you knew the person(s) were criminals.
The legal phrase is "knew or should have known". It's not necessary that you have actual knowledge of their criminal history or plans, only that a reasonable person in your place should have known. This isn't true for all criminal statutes that involve knowledge or intent, but it is true of most.
This wouldn't even have to be intentional extermination, it could simply be competition with, and lack of regard for humans by a growing system.
+1. The experts who denied this possibility because there's no reason machines would be bent on world domination apparently didn't actually readSuperintelligence. Bostrom demolishes this argument early on, pointing out -- as you did -- the rather obvious fact that they don't have to have our destruction as a goal, it's sufficient that they not have our preservation as a goal. And, even if they do have our preservation as a goal, it really, really matters whether or not they define "preservation" in a way that we would like.
By way of example, one possible goal that Bostrom considers that an AI might have (or be given by its creators) is to make humans happy. So, a rational, superintelligent and immensely capable AI might decide that the way to create the maximum amount of happiness is to cut open our skulls, extract our brains and put them on life support, and then directly stimulate our pleasure centers. Permanent, ultimate bliss for every single human being. Of course the AI would also have worked out how to make all the brains in jars immortal.
AI superintelligence is so dangerous in large part because it lacks human drives, and the limiters we call morals. It's goals may be completely alien to us, or may be goals that we gave it, but either carried to a logical extreme (remember: no limiting morals) could result in the casual extinction of the human race.
The notion that a AI can form an existential threat today is ridiculous.
It is true that we currently have no idea how to create artificial general intelligence. It's equally true that we have no idea how far we are from being able to do that. By definition, we won't know how far we are from developing the necessary theory of intelligence, until we've done it and demonstrated that it's sufficient. My guess is that we're still quite some time away. But it's only a guess.
It is vital to have people thinking about the worst case, because in principle otherwise someone on a friday makes a typo allowing their AI access to a hundred thousand times the expected resources, and on monday, it's ineradicable.
Yep. We need to have people thinking hard about it, and figuring out what we can/should be doing about it. Maybe that won't help. Maybe it will be unnecessary. But it can't hurt and it might help.
No, they're really not. As I said, they reduce the odds of getting incorrectly rejected; they don't enable people without the required talent / knowledge to succeed.
It's absolutely huge, and for you to deny it is ridiculous.
All I can say is that I completely disagree, and I have a much better vantage point to judge than you do.
I'm sure you'll continue to be skeptical
Yes, of course, especially given your admitted leanings and your assessment of the opportunities given to diversity hires.
What are my "admitted leanings"? Did you read my essay?
Anyhoo, it was a good clip, though I wish that they could have found some gender "researchers" with at least attempts at some kind of data-supported refutations.
Consider that Wakefield, the guy who pushed the "Thimerosol causes autism" line, was running a scam and has a patent on a different preservative.
That puts it in a different category to your examples doesn't it?
Not really. Though it is unfortunate that he caused so much research effort to be invested in disproving his theory, rather than more productive purposes. And it's obviously very unfortunate that it fed the anti-vaxxer movement.
That is actually true. I know of three specific programs, personally, two of which I know I'm allowed to talk about in public.
Gee, now why is it that you can't talk about the third?
Because I haven't specifically been told I can. The first two were described in the decks I was given for presentations to students when I did university outreach, so I know it's okay to talk about them.
Why the secrecy?
Just general caution. Particularly in the current situation, I arguably shouldn't be posting about this at all, and definitely should not be giving out information about programs that may not already be public knowledge. I'm also not going to tell you what I'm planning to build for Android P, what any new Google Nexus / Pixel devices may be like, etc.
Diversity candidates are offered some extra opportunities
That, alone, is discriminatory. Extra opportunities are huge.
No, they're really not. As I said, they reduce the odds of getting incorrectly rejected; they don't enable people without the required talent / knowledge to succeed.
but at the end of the day either they can pass the interviews and hiring committee, or they can't
Now throw in a culture that puts pressure to hire diversity candidates
There is no such pressure. I do lots of interviews and not only have I not been told to favor anyone, I see absolutely no preference in the eventual hires. My colleagues who sit on hiring committees also deny that they have been given any instructions other than "only hire the people who you think can do the job".
and secret "diversity summit" programs
According to Damore. Although I don't know anything about the supposed summit, I will say that it's not that unusual for meetings not to be recorded. Most are, but a fair number are not.
Do you seriously think that isn't going to skewer your interview process?
I seriously do not, and I'm looking at the interview process from the inside. I'm sure you'll continue to be skeptical, but I have an excellent position from which to see what's going on, and a relatively open and bias-free mind with respect to this topic.
If you want to know where I fall on the nature/nurture question, you should read my essay at https://medium.com/@divegeek/t.... I think Damore got the science largely right, though his focus was off-base; I think gender differences in interest explain a much larger portion of the imbalance than differences in ability. I also disagree with most of his conclusions, for a variety of reasons that I'm not interested in going into here.
Well, I will mention one: I think there's ample evidence that diverse teams perform better. Given that, I think it would actually make sense for Google to reject qualified male candidates in order to hire qualified female candidates. I see no evidence of that happening, mainly because Google has a very difficult time finding enough qualified candidates, period; turning down any qualified candidate would leave a gap. I also think that since women in tech are rare, and since they bring significant diversity value, they should be paid more than their male peers. I wonder if simply paying women, say, 10% more than their male peers might not be a way to address the gender imbalance. It would be addressed initially by stealing female employees from other Silicon Valley firms, which might just end up creating a bidding war that resulted in women being paid more across the entire tech ecosystem... and maybe that would help draw more women into the field. Not so much for the money as for the respect that the money indicates.
You didn't actually check the whole video, did you? The conclusion is that the gender "researchers" are wrong, have no research to back up their claims at all, and are quite fanatical to boot.
I absolutely watched the whole thing. I my comment was by way of agreement, not disagreement. That's why I told you not to stop after he crosses off biological causes; I thought you might bail in disgust there and not see the eventual conclusion.
"The science has been settled" says the scientism expert. Did you do the experiments yourself?
Here's a simple study you can do: For each of the childhood diseases we vaccinate for routinely, examine the history of outbreaks. Compute the average number of deaths and maimings for each. Then, check current statistics. Use the data to test your hypothesis (whatever it might be) about the benefits of vaccination.
Nice lie you got there. The science has been settled about a century ago.
Thimerosol wasn't used in vaccines 100 years ago, so your claim is impossible.
To be clear I know that there is abundant evidence that Thimerosol, in the quantities used in vaccines, at least, does not cause autism or any other problem, and that even though vaccines aren't risk free, not vaccinating is vastly more risky. But to say that all possible concerns about modern vaccines were laid to rest 100 years ago is ridiculous. 100 years ago, we still thought smoking tobacco was fine, if not actually *good* for you.
It would not be shocking to learn of newly-identified problems with vaccines, particularly in newer formulations. Though it would be shocking indeed to learn of problems worse than polio, measles, mumps, rubella, etc. because we know that without vaccines those will kill and maim large numbers of people every year.
That's just one study, of hundreds. Of course it doesn't refute your refutation of his anecdote, but it addresses the underlying point that there really are difference.
If they're passing up talented hires due to a quota system, then yes they are. Also, from what some other posters have said in previous/. stories related to this, affirmative action is illegal in California, so they may be running afoul of the law.
I was at Google for 14 years, and over that time I interviewed hundreds of candidates and worked with many groups, and if there is some sort of diversity quota system in place there, it is VERY well hidden. So I think the OP's point still stands.
I still work for Google, interview candidates virtually every week and work with many groups... and if there is some sort of diversity quota system in place here, it is VERY well hidden.
FWIW, Damore never claimed there was a quota system. He just said that Google had affirmative action programs in place designed to reduce the probability of false negatives for diversity candidates.
That is actually true. I know of three specific programs, personally, two of which I know I'm allowed to talk about in public. The first takes freshmen and sophomores who are of underrepresented classes (which aren't necessarily gender or racial classes; anyone from a small university like my alma mater qualifies, regardless of race or gender), who couldn't normally pass the interview for a Google internship and gives them a 12-week internship that includes CS courses as well as work with product teams.
The second does something similar for new grads who are on the edge of being able to pass the Google interview process, but aren't quite there. They're brought in on a one-year contract which includes mentoring and training as well as work. At the end they're run through the regular Google interview process and if they pass they get converted to full-time.
I don't know if I can talk about the third, so I won't. But it also does not involve any lowering of the bar. Diversity candidates are offered some extra opportunities but at the end of the day either they can pass the interviews and hiring committee, or they can't. And if they can't, no job offer.
I said "given", not granted. Until your option or stock vests, ask you own is a piece of paper.
You should use unambiguous language.
And RSUs are uncommon in general. They are recently popular in Sili Valley, but otherwise about as common as defined-benefit pensions in private companies.
I've had them at three companies, only one of which is in SV, or has any relation to SV.
"Googlers are writing in, concerned about their safety and worried they may be 'outed' publicly for asking a question in the Town Hall...
Given that the original manifesto was originally published to a supposedly anonymous internal forum, I think being "outed" publicly is a valid concern for someone who dares to have a different perspective.
Assuming of course, Damore didn't leak it himself. He seems to be very much bent on becoming a martyr.
The idea that it was initially anonymous is false. Damore's memo was written on and shared via Google Docs, and the owner/author's name is inextricably attached to it.
Biological essentialism is not left wing. It's what the left has been fighting against since there was a left, the idea that a person is defined by and the sum of their biology.
But what the left *should* fight against isn't the idea that people's biology is relevant to their abilities and interests, but the idea that anyone should be pigeonholed by their biology and therefore have their opportunities artificially restricted.
There are two questions, one scientific and one moral.
The scientific question is whether biology has an effect on outcome, on average, and all else being equal. That question has no moral implications, it is merely the search for ground truth. The truth can never be racist, sexist, etc., it just is what it is. Fighting the truth (and note that I'm not making any claims about what the truth is) leads to foolishness like the Catholic church telling Galileo that he couldn't talk about heliocentrism even though he had ironclad evidence of it, because religious doctrine and social order were bound up in geocentrism.
The moral question is whether it's right to restrict peoples' opportunities based on their biology, or even whether it's acceptable to simply shrug off inequality of outcomes as an inevitable result of biology. The answer to the first part of that is clearly "absolutely not". The second is a bit less clear, but at a minimum we have a moral responsibility to ensure that all people feel like they're being given a fair opportunity to pursue whatever they're interested in. And, actually, the science of human nature and how it differs can inform that effort and help us to ensure that people are free to achieve their fullest potential and happiness... and that does, I think, lead us to affirmative action, though that's a longer argument than I want to type here.
Maybe you should realize that there were employees/former employees of google openly threatening with physical violence anyone that even remotely agrees with Damore. Some even saying the sorts of things internally in writing.
Cite?
But in any case the cancellation wasn't about that, but about leaks of employee identities to alt-right communities outside of the company.
They've basically built a company populated with rabid malcontents that are prepared to harm or kill their co-workers.
You misunderstood. The fear for employee safety was due to the leak of the names and locations of employees to alt-right communities outside of the company. Employees who entered questions into the Q&A system for the meeting found their questions and identities published in blogs, with lots of comments suggesting they be doxxed, or worse. It was the leaks to non-employees that created the danger, not the communication within the company.
That is the problem with affirmative action: by definition some candidates are less qualified.
Depends on the nature of the affirmative action.
As Damore's doc said, Google's approach to it is to attempt to reduce false negatives for "diversity" candidates. Google's hiring process is strongly tilted towards rejecting candidates, because everyone knows that no one knows how to really identify the good ones in a cost-effective way, and it's been found that if you reject anyone who even might not be qualified, you'll end up rejecting a lot of good people, but you'll hire very, very few bad ones.
The consensus among Google engineers is that you could take any successful, proven engineer in the company and run them through the hiring process and they might have a 50% chance of getting a job offer. The scale is biased that heavily towards rejection.
So, the diversity programs aim to adjust the amount of effort put into evaluating "diversity" candidates (which, BTW, aren't just defined by gender and race, but also by things like school: Google has hired very few people from my university, so anyone from it is considered a "diversity" hire, regardless of race or gender), to reduce the false negative rate by increasing the number of interviews (to reduce the impact of one interviewer who doesn't "click"), doing interviews on multiple days (to reduce the likelihood that the candidate was just having a bad day), or in some cases even hiring people on a short-term contract, and observing their performance before making the final evaluation.
This form of affirmative action doesn't lower the bar. Everyone hired is still held to the same standards... it's just that qualified non-diversity candidates can more easily fail to be hired due to the effects of random chance.
Slashdot Mirror
The kind that have vanished.
Bah. My son-in-law, who is a high-school dropout, not even a GED, is working as an HVAC installer for $16 per hour. He's going to do a certification course (at employer expense, and paid), and then he'll jump up to $35 per hour. My son (HS diploma) passed up a full-time job at $18 per hour doing composites fabrication to take a $10 per hour part time job at Target because he decided he needs to get his degree (wise decision) and Target will work around his school schedule. He doesn't need the money that much, though because his wife (HS diploma) is making $40K per year doing office admin work for a company that owns billboards. My other son (HS diploma) similarly passed on a decent full-time job doing cabinetry work because he wants to get his degree, so he's flipping burgers instead for $9 per hour (he lives at home). My nephew, who has nothing but a high school diploma and is somewhat slow (IQ 80 or so), is making $15 per hour working for the city maintenance crew, driving trucks and whatnot.
And then there are all of the young people I know who do have degrees. None of them are making less than $60K, except one who chose to be a public schoolteacher, but teachers have always been poorly paid, and he went into it with his eyes open. His wife is an FBI agent, currently GS-10, so they're okay.
Maybe I just live in the right area and you live in the wrong one, but around here employers -- at every level -- are begging for employees, and they're paying accordingly. And we have a moderate to low cost of living.
The biggest problem I see right now is that too many young people around me are being enticed away from school by good-paying (from their perspective) jobs. Four years of school could nearly double their income in the short term, and in the long term it will do better than that. I've got my sons convinced to take the short-term hit for the long-term reward (financial and more). I've had less success with my daughter and her husband, but there are some complications in their case.
He says hiring standards had been lowered for diversity.
FWIW, I work for Google and interview software engineering candidates. I have never, ever been told to go easier on diversity candidates, or indeed anything other than to apply the same rigorous standard to all. My colleagues on the hiring committees (who make hire/no-hire decisions) say the same, and I see no evidence of bias in which people I've interviewed got offers... maybe half of the good ones got offers, none of the borderline or below got offers, and I see no gender or racial correlations at all.
Just because you sold software on "criminal" forums does not mean you knew the person(s) were criminals.
The legal phrase is "knew or should have known". It's not necessary that you have actual knowledge of their criminal history or plans, only that a reasonable person in your place should have known. This isn't true for all criminal statutes that involve knowledge or intent, but it is true of most.
This wouldn't even have to be intentional extermination, it could simply be competition with, and lack of regard for humans by a growing system.
+1. The experts who denied this possibility because there's no reason machines would be bent on world domination apparently didn't actually read Superintelligence. Bostrom demolishes this argument early on, pointing out -- as you did -- the rather obvious fact that they don't have to have our destruction as a goal, it's sufficient that they not have our preservation as a goal. And, even if they do have our preservation as a goal, it really, really matters whether or not they define "preservation" in a way that we would like.
By way of example, one possible goal that Bostrom considers that an AI might have (or be given by its creators) is to make humans happy. So, a rational, superintelligent and immensely capable AI might decide that the way to create the maximum amount of happiness is to cut open our skulls, extract our brains and put them on life support, and then directly stimulate our pleasure centers. Permanent, ultimate bliss for every single human being. Of course the AI would also have worked out how to make all the brains in jars immortal.
AI superintelligence is so dangerous in large part because it lacks human drives, and the limiters we call morals. It's goals may be completely alien to us, or may be goals that we gave it, but either carried to a logical extreme (remember: no limiting morals) could result in the casual extinction of the human race.
The notion that a AI can form an existential threat today is ridiculous.
It is true that we currently have no idea how to create artificial general intelligence. It's equally true that we have no idea how far we are from being able to do that. By definition, we won't know how far we are from developing the necessary theory of intelligence, until we've done it and demonstrated that it's sufficient. My guess is that we're still quite some time away. But it's only a guess.
It is vital to have people thinking about the worst case, because in principle otherwise someone on a friday makes a typo allowing their AI access to a hundred thousand times the expected resources, and on monday, it's ineradicable.
Yep. We need to have people thinking hard about it, and figuring out what we can/should be doing about it. Maybe that won't help. Maybe it will be unnecessary. But it can't hurt and it might help.
No, they're really not. As I said, they reduce the odds of getting incorrectly rejected; they don't enable people without the required talent / knowledge to succeed.
It's absolutely huge, and for you to deny it is ridiculous.
All I can say is that I completely disagree, and I have a much better vantage point to judge than you do.
I'm sure you'll continue to be skeptical
Yes, of course, especially given your admitted leanings and your assessment of the opportunities given to diversity hires.
What are my "admitted leanings"? Did you read my essay?
Anyhoo, it was a good clip, though I wish that they could have found some gender "researchers" with at least attempts at some kind of data-supported refutations.
True, it comes off pretty one-sided as-is.
His bullshit "studies" literally started the anti-vaccine movement.
You're wrong. HIs BS massively increased it, but there were anti-vaxxers before.
That is not the claim.
It was the claim, go back and read it.
It started the fucking anti-vaxxer movement.
No, it didn't. There were anti-vaxxers before that.
Consider that Wakefield, the guy who pushed the "Thimerosol causes autism" line, was running a scam and has a patent on a different preservative. That puts it in a different category to your examples doesn't it?
Not really. Though it is unfortunate that he caused so much research effort to be invested in disproving his theory, rather than more productive purposes. And it's obviously very unfortunate that it fed the anti-vaxxer movement.
Okay, but that's not what you said.
I see you are non-rational. Okay, there's no point in talking to you.
That is actually true. I know of three specific programs, personally, two of which I know I'm allowed to talk about in public.
Gee, now why is it that you can't talk about the third?
Because I haven't specifically been told I can. The first two were described in the decks I was given for presentations to students when I did university outreach, so I know it's okay to talk about them.
Why the secrecy?
Just general caution. Particularly in the current situation, I arguably shouldn't be posting about this at all, and definitely should not be giving out information about programs that may not already be public knowledge. I'm also not going to tell you what I'm planning to build for Android P, what any new Google Nexus / Pixel devices may be like, etc.
Diversity candidates are offered some extra opportunities
That, alone, is discriminatory. Extra opportunities are huge.
No, they're really not. As I said, they reduce the odds of getting incorrectly rejected; they don't enable people without the required talent / knowledge to succeed.
but at the end of the day either they can pass the interviews and hiring committee, or they can't
Now throw in a culture that puts pressure to hire diversity candidates
There is no such pressure. I do lots of interviews and not only have I not been told to favor anyone, I see absolutely no preference in the eventual hires. My colleagues who sit on hiring committees also deny that they have been given any instructions other than "only hire the people who you think can do the job".
and secret "diversity summit" programs
According to Damore. Although I don't know anything about the supposed summit, I will say that it's not that unusual for meetings not to be recorded. Most are, but a fair number are not.
Do you seriously think that isn't going to skewer your interview process?
I seriously do not, and I'm looking at the interview process from the inside. I'm sure you'll continue to be skeptical, but I have an excellent position from which to see what's going on, and a relatively open and bias-free mind with respect to this topic.
If you want to know where I fall on the nature/nurture question, you should read my essay at https://medium.com/@divegeek/t.... I think Damore got the science largely right, though his focus was off-base; I think gender differences in interest explain a much larger portion of the imbalance than differences in ability. I also disagree with most of his conclusions, for a variety of reasons that I'm not interested in going into here.
Well, I will mention one: I think there's ample evidence that diverse teams perform better. Given that, I think it would actually make sense for Google to reject qualified male candidates in order to hire qualified female candidates. I see no evidence of that happening, mainly because Google has a very difficult time finding enough qualified candidates, period; turning down any qualified candidate would leave a gap. I also think that since women in tech are rare, and since they bring significant diversity value, they should be paid more than their male peers. I wonder if simply paying women, say, 10% more than their male peers might not be a way to address the gender imbalance. It would be addressed initially by stealing female employees from other Silicon Valley firms, which might just end up creating a bidding war that resulted in women being paid more across the entire tech ecosystem... and maybe that would help draw more women into the field. Not so much for the money as for the respect that the money indicates.
You didn't actually check the whole video, did you? The conclusion is that the gender "researchers" are wrong, have no research to back up their claims at all, and are quite fanatical to boot.
I absolutely watched the whole thing. I my comment was by way of agreement, not disagreement. That's why I told you not to stop after he crosses off biological causes; I thought you might bail in disgust there and not see the eventual conclusion.
"The science has been settled" says the scientism expert. Did you do the experiments yourself?
Here's a simple study you can do: For each of the childhood diseases we vaccinate for routinely, examine the history of outbreaks. Compute the average number of deaths and maimings for each. Then, check current statistics. Use the data to test your hypothesis (whatever it might be) about the benefits of vaccination.
Report your findings to the class.
Nice lie you got there. The science has been settled about a century ago.
Thimerosol wasn't used in vaccines 100 years ago, so your claim is impossible.
To be clear I know that there is abundant evidence that Thimerosol, in the quantities used in vaccines, at least, does not cause autism or any other problem, and that even though vaccines aren't risk free, not vaccinating is vastly more risky. But to say that all possible concerns about modern vaccines were laid to rest 100 years ago is ridiculous. 100 years ago, we still thought smoking tobacco was fine, if not actually *good* for you.
It would not be shocking to learn of newly-identified problems with vaccines, particularly in newer formulations. Though it would be shocking indeed to learn of problems worse than polio, measles, mumps, rubella, etc. because we know that without vaccines those will kill and maim large numbers of people every year.
Is you daughter growing up in isolation? If not then your conclusions don't really amount to much.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.627.1904&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
That's just one study, of hundreds. Of course it doesn't refute your refutation of his anecdote, but it addresses the underlying point that there really are difference.
You may find this interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (don't give up partway, when he crosses off biological causes)
Is Google being harmed by its gender policies?
If they're passing up talented hires due to a quota system, then yes they are. Also, from what some other posters have said in previous /. stories related to this, affirmative action is illegal in California, so they may be running afoul of the law.
I was at Google for 14 years, and over that time I interviewed hundreds of candidates and worked with many groups, and if there is some sort of diversity quota system in place there, it is VERY well hidden. So I think the OP's point still stands.
I still work for Google, interview candidates virtually every week and work with many groups... and if there is some sort of diversity quota system in place here, it is VERY well hidden.
FWIW, Damore never claimed there was a quota system. He just said that Google had affirmative action programs in place designed to reduce the probability of false negatives for diversity candidates.
That is actually true. I know of three specific programs, personally, two of which I know I'm allowed to talk about in public. The first takes freshmen and sophomores who are of underrepresented classes (which aren't necessarily gender or racial classes; anyone from a small university like my alma mater qualifies, regardless of race or gender), who couldn't normally pass the interview for a Google internship and gives them a 12-week internship that includes CS courses as well as work with product teams.
The second does something similar for new grads who are on the edge of being able to pass the Google interview process, but aren't quite there. They're brought in on a one-year contract which includes mentoring and training as well as work. At the end they're run through the regular Google interview process and if they pass they get converted to full-time.
I don't know if I can talk about the third, so I won't. But it also does not involve any lowering of the bar. Diversity candidates are offered some extra opportunities but at the end of the day either they can pass the interviews and hiring committee, or they can't. And if they can't, no job offer.
I said "given", not granted. Until your option or stock vests, ask you own is a piece of paper.
You should use unambiguous language.
And RSUs are uncommon in general. They are recently popular in Sili Valley, but otherwise about as common as defined-benefit pensions in private companies.
I've had them at three companies, only one of which is in SV, or has any relation to SV.
Given that the original manifesto was originally published to a supposedly anonymous internal forum, I think being "outed" publicly is a valid concern for someone who dares to have a different perspective.
Assuming of course, Damore didn't leak it himself. He seems to be very much bent on becoming a martyr.
The idea that it was initially anonymous is false. Damore's memo was written on and shared via Google Docs, and the owner/author's name is inextricably attached to it.
Biological essentialism is not left wing. It's what the left has been fighting against since there was a left, the idea that a person is defined by and the sum of their biology.
But what the left *should* fight against isn't the idea that people's biology is relevant to their abilities and interests, but the idea that anyone should be pigeonholed by their biology and therefore have their opportunities artificially restricted.
There are two questions, one scientific and one moral.
The scientific question is whether biology has an effect on outcome, on average, and all else being equal. That question has no moral implications, it is merely the search for ground truth. The truth can never be racist, sexist, etc., it just is what it is. Fighting the truth (and note that I'm not making any claims about what the truth is) leads to foolishness like the Catholic church telling Galileo that he couldn't talk about heliocentrism even though he had ironclad evidence of it, because religious doctrine and social order were bound up in geocentrism.
The moral question is whether it's right to restrict peoples' opportunities based on their biology, or even whether it's acceptable to simply shrug off inequality of outcomes as an inevitable result of biology. The answer to the first part of that is clearly "absolutely not". The second is a bit less clear, but at a minimum we have a moral responsibility to ensure that all people feel like they're being given a fair opportunity to pursue whatever they're interested in. And, actually, the science of human nature and how it differs can inform that effort and help us to ensure that people are free to achieve their fullest potential and happiness... and that does, I think, lead us to affirmative action, though that's a longer argument than I want to type here.
Maybe you should realize that there were employees/former employees of google openly threatening with physical violence anyone that even remotely agrees with Damore. Some even saying the sorts of things internally in writing.
Cite?
But in any case the cancellation wasn't about that, but about leaks of employee identities to alt-right communities outside of the company.
They've basically built a company populated with rabid malcontents that are prepared to harm or kill their co-workers.
You misunderstood. The fear for employee safety was due to the leak of the names and locations of employees to alt-right communities outside of the company. Employees who entered questions into the Q&A system for the meeting found their questions and identities published in blogs, with lots of comments suggesting they be doxxed, or worse. It was the leaks to non-employees that created the danger, not the communication within the company.
That is the problem with affirmative action: by definition some candidates are less qualified.
Depends on the nature of the affirmative action.
As Damore's doc said, Google's approach to it is to attempt to reduce false negatives for "diversity" candidates. Google's hiring process is strongly tilted towards rejecting candidates, because everyone knows that no one knows how to really identify the good ones in a cost-effective way, and it's been found that if you reject anyone who even might not be qualified, you'll end up rejecting a lot of good people, but you'll hire very, very few bad ones.
The consensus among Google engineers is that you could take any successful, proven engineer in the company and run them through the hiring process and they might have a 50% chance of getting a job offer. The scale is biased that heavily towards rejection.
So, the diversity programs aim to adjust the amount of effort put into evaluating "diversity" candidates (which, BTW, aren't just defined by gender and race, but also by things like school: Google has hired very few people from my university, so anyone from it is considered a "diversity" hire, regardless of race or gender), to reduce the false negative rate by increasing the number of interviews (to reduce the impact of one interviewer who doesn't "click"), doing interviews on multiple days (to reduce the likelihood that the candidate was just having a bad day), or in some cases even hiring people on a short-term contract, and observing their performance before making the final evaluation.
This form of affirmative action doesn't lower the bar. Everyone hired is still held to the same standards... it's just that qualified non-diversity candidates can more easily fail to be hired due to the effects of random chance.