"The doc asserted that Google has a lower bar for diversity candidates,â reads one question ranked highly by employees in an internal voting system. âoeThis is hurting minority Googlers because it creates the perception that they are less qualified. What can we do to combat that perception?"
"I am a moderately conservative Googler, and I am and have been scared to share my beliefs,â the question reads. âoeThe loud voice here is the liberal one. Conservative voices are hushed. What is leadership doing to ensure Googlers like me feel invited and accepted, not just tolerated or safe from angry mobs?"
They tried to create a forum to discuss things, but people said they were scared to participate because they feared being identified. Looking at how anyone not agreeing with this guy on Slashdot gets hammered down with -1 mods, it seems they have a point.
Also, Google never claimed to be the "greatest defenders of the First Amendment". If anything they have been quite open about not doing that, e.g. with their advanced spam filtering and PageRank system that tends to push less popular sites down the search results.
As an aside, the moderation on this post is typical of the problem with Slashdot these days. It's got equal insightful and interesting mods, but also quite a few overrated. Makes a change from the usual troll/flamebait I suppose.
But consider what this means. Many moderators find it insightful, or at least interesting and worthy of considering and further discussion. There are at least two responses addressing it, so clearly they thought it was worthy of consideration too.
So what do the moderators who hit "overrated" think? It's not interesting, all these people finding it interesting are wrong and a lower score will improve the debate? Or, more likely, "I disagree with this and think it should have a lower score". Or even worse "I don't like amimojo".
Unfortunately you can't reply without undoing your moderation, because I'd love to hear from those people who down-modded. How do they think their moderation improved Slashdot and this debate?
How would getting a job soon after being fired affect his lawsuit? If he gets a good job quickly then he can't really claim it hurt his career and cost him $$$.
How is "reverse" discrimination not discrimination?
Let's say you are fully able bodied. Your neighbour uses a wheelchair. Some fund pays for a ramp to be installed on the steps to their front door, so they can get in and out. Are you discriminated against because the funds are only available to people with certain disabilities, or is it just removing some barrier that gives your neighbour equal opportunity to get in and our of their home?
Similarly, when there is a girls-only CS class at school, is it discriminating against the boys who also have a CS class and a CS after school club that is 95% male, or is it just trying to address a hopefully short term problem and achieve equality of opportunity?
Actually, with that specific sentence I was talking about skull measurements and IQ tests as they relate to people of colour.
I have defended psychology before on Slashdot, so don't think that I dismiss it as bunk. I'm usually the one arguing that it isn't, when the same people who are now clinging to it reject it because it doesn't support their views at that moment.
The issue here is more to do with the conclusions he draws than with the research, although that too isn't quite as irrefutable as some people seem to think.
Page 85 for example, where some countries have reached parity or even favour girls in mathematics.
Imagine being a boy in one of those countries. Someone tells you that boys just aren't as good at maths, or as literate, on average. It's biology, your brain just isn't wired for those subjects. They show you the latest exam result stats as incontrovertible proof.
I'm afraid I don't have a prepared list of copy/paste links to counter all the other stuff. Did you assemble them yourself or grab them from one web site?
While both of those books accept that there is some biological element, they state that it is overblown and largely based on poor science. Results that are not reproducible, use too small sample sizes, inadequate controls and extravagant conclusions.
Do you really think that the radical feminists, an unorganized group of people mostly working in academia or posting on the internet, are really powerful enough to make Google do this?
I know there is this meme that SJWs took over the world, but actually it was the hard right who control the presidency, both houses and the supreme court. Steve Bannon, Mr. Alt-Right himself, is advising the president.
Federal government sounds like a more plausible explanation.
Question: Are there any model employers that have managed to deal with both discrimination and lack of diversity, while also tolerating people like this guy and his views?
I'm interested to see if such a place exists and how it manages to do it. Somewhere we can compare to Google, to further the discussion.
Yes, and you won't get any argument from me that a reduction in stress is a good thing for everyone. The problem is the reason why he advocates it.
For example, he says that women are on average less able to deal with stress, and that it's likely biological. Studies looking at this tend to show that women on average have more stressors, e.g. social expectations regarding child care, ticking biological clock, difficulty maintaining a good work/life balance, and yes even discrimination. There is also the perception that people who communicate their feelings more are less able to "deal" with stress, as if dealing is some purely internal process. It's worth saying that such perceptions are harmful to men too.
I don't think women are worse at handling stress as it happens, men are just better at hiding it. Look at the awfully high rate of male suicide.
So really this argument that there is a major biological component doesn't help anyone. All it's likely to do is make people write off women experiencing stress as biologically unable to handle it. "Better not promote Sarah to management level, women just can't hack it. John never complains." Not good for either of them.
The Wirecutter is good at sounding like it properly evaluated the products, but I don't think it really does. Any the advice is all too often "buy the expensive one" when it's not really the best.
Symbol Size(bits) = 1 Shannon IID Entropy = 1.000000 bits per symbol Optimal compression would compress by 0.000000 percent Chi square: symbol count=1677721593, distribution=0.92, randomly exceeds 33.86 percent of the time Mean = 0.499988 Monte Carlo value for Pi is 3.141438 (error 0.00 percent). Serial Correlation = 0.000056
Your python code allocated 6GB of RAM, ran for a bit and was killed. I tried it with a smaller file and got
TEST: frequency_within_block_test Traceback (most recent call last): File "./sp800_22_tests.py", line 129, in <module> m = __import__ ("sp800_22_"+testname) File "/-------/sp800_22_frequency_within_block_test.py", line 25, in <module> from scipy.special import gamma, gammainc, gammaincc ImportError: No module named scipy.special
Looks like I'm going to need to generate a lot more numbers to really get much out of that test. I'll grab the hardware and give it a try, as well as the other software tools you linked.
To win he will have to prove more than one of a few things.
- There is discrimination (presumably against men) resulting from Google's policies, or affirmative action which is illegal in California, and thus he is a whistleblower.
- He was forced out for a protected trait. Exactly how far does protection of political views go in that state?
- His actions didn't create a hostile workplace or make his position untenable, i.e. that women working with and for him wouldn't be able to make complaints or question his decisions and evaluations of them based on the memo.
I kind of wonder if he intended to get fired and the sue... It wasn't exactly hard to predict. He could have published it anonymously, but didn't. It just seems like he wanted to martyr himself.
People are mis-characterizing the criticism of his memo and the reason he was fired.
We have been here before. "Black people are poor because they have less developed intelligence, and these skull measurements and IQ test scores provide incontrovertible scientific proof". Apart from being a misrepresentation of the science, it ignores the fact that the situation improves when they have an equal opportunity.
If he had said "we have reached a plateau and I think this is the reason why things are not continuing to improve for women at Google" it would have been fine. Instead he ignores that things are getting better, and that things used to be even better when the proportion of women in CS was much higher. He ignores that in some cultures women and girls don't fit these averages that he maintains are likely biological.
He does make a few valid points, but I think at best you could say that show shows some naivety, with his apparent unfamiliarity with decades of research and how these arguments were considered and rejected multiple times in the relatively recent past. If he brought something new to the table it would be different, but it's all old hat.
Some of the stuff on the packaging is reliable, like the nutritional information that is regulated by law. The problem is that the regulation is too limited and they can plaster all sort of other bullshit on there too.
Slashdot Mirror
Both sides of the argument who are worried. Here are the questions that Wired leaked: https://www.wired.com/story/go...
"The doc asserted that Google has a lower bar for diversity candidates,â reads one question ranked highly by employees in an internal voting system. âoeThis is hurting minority Googlers because it creates the perception that they are less qualified. What can we do to combat that perception?"
"I am a moderately conservative Googler, and I am and have been scared to share my beliefs,â the question reads. âoeThe loud voice here is the liberal one. Conservative voices are hushed. What is leadership doing to ensure Googlers like me feel invited and accepted, not just tolerated or safe from angry mobs?"
They tried to create a forum to discuss things, but people said they were scared to participate because they feared being identified. Looking at how anyone not agreeing with this guy on Slashdot gets hammered down with -1 mods, it seems they have a point.
Also, Google never claimed to be the "greatest defenders of the First Amendment". If anything they have been quite open about not doing that, e.g. with their advanced spam filtering and PageRank system that tends to push less popular sites down the search results.
It depends where you are. At Google you might get fired, on Slashdot you will get modded up.
I'm saddened that such a great site is now so anti-free-speech and has effectively become an echo chamber monoculture.
https://slashdot.org/comments....
https://slashdot.org/comments....
https://slashdot.org/comments....
https://slashdot.org/comments....
The text you quoted says that the book exposes poor quality research conclusions. It doesn't "debunk" anything, it says it has merit.
As an aside, the moderation on this post is typical of the problem with Slashdot these days. It's got equal insightful and interesting mods, but also quite a few overrated. Makes a change from the usual troll/flamebait I suppose.
But consider what this means. Many moderators find it insightful, or at least interesting and worthy of considering and further discussion. There are at least two responses addressing it, so clearly they thought it was worthy of consideration too.
So what do the moderators who hit "overrated" think? It's not interesting, all these people finding it interesting are wrong and a lower score will improve the debate? Or, more likely, "I disagree with this and think it should have a lower score". Or even worse "I don't like amimojo".
Unfortunately you can't reply without undoing your moderation, because I'd love to hear from those people who down-modded. How do they think their moderation improved Slashdot and this debate?
How would getting a job soon after being fired affect his lawsuit? If he gets a good job quickly then he can't really claim it hurt his career and cost him $$$.
How is "reverse" discrimination not discrimination?
Let's say you are fully able bodied. Your neighbour uses a wheelchair. Some fund pays for a ramp to be installed on the steps to their front door, so they can get in and out. Are you discriminated against because the funds are only available to people with certain disabilities, or is it just removing some barrier that gives your neighbour equal opportunity to get in and our of their home?
Similarly, when there is a girls-only CS class at school, is it discriminating against the boys who also have a CS class and a CS after school club that is 95% male, or is it just trying to address a hopefully short term problem and achieve equality of opportunity?
It's a slightly odd name, but it just means discrimination that results from actions taken to reduce discrimination.
Actually, with that specific sentence I was talking about skull measurements and IQ tests as they relate to people of colour.
I have defended psychology before on Slashdot, so don't think that I dismiss it as bunk. I'm usually the one arguing that it isn't, when the same people who are now clinging to it reject it because it doesn't support their views at that moment.
The issue here is more to do with the conclusions he draws than with the research, although that too isn't quite as irrefutable as some people seem to think.
Fun fact: many countries have been successful at eliminating the gap.
http://webarchive.nationalarch...
Page 85 for example, where some countries have reached parity or even favour girls in mathematics.
Imagine being a boy in one of those countries. Someone tells you that boys just aren't as good at maths, or as literate, on average. It's biology, your brain just isn't wired for those subjects. They show you the latest exam result stats as incontrovertible proof.
I'm afraid I don't have a prepared list of copy/paste links to counter all the other stuff. Did you assemble them yourself or grab them from one web site?
Not all experts agree on this matter.
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/cat...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
While both of those books accept that there is some biological element, they state that it is overblown and largely based on poor science. Results that are not reproducible, use too small sample sizes, inadequate controls and extravagant conclusions.
Do you really think that the radical feminists, an unorganized group of people mostly working in academia or posting on the internet, are really powerful enough to make Google do this?
I know there is this meme that SJWs took over the world, but actually it was the hard right who control the presidency, both houses and the supreme court. Steve Bannon, Mr. Alt-Right himself, is advising the president.
Federal government sounds like a more plausible explanation.
Question: Are there any model employers that have managed to deal with both discrimination and lack of diversity, while also tolerating people like this guy and his views?
I'm interested to see if such a place exists and how it manages to do it. Somewhere we can compare to Google, to further the discussion.
chiefly he advocates for the reduction of stress
Yes, and you won't get any argument from me that a reduction in stress is a good thing for everyone. The problem is the reason why he advocates it.
For example, he says that women are on average less able to deal with stress, and that it's likely biological. Studies looking at this tend to show that women on average have more stressors, e.g. social expectations regarding child care, ticking biological clock, difficulty maintaining a good work/life balance, and yes even discrimination. There is also the perception that people who communicate their feelings more are less able to "deal" with stress, as if dealing is some purely internal process. It's worth saying that such perceptions are harmful to men too.
I don't think women are worse at handling stress as it happens, men are just better at hiding it. Look at the awfully high rate of male suicide.
So really this argument that there is a major biological component doesn't help anyone. All it's likely to do is make people write off women experiencing stress as biologically unable to handle it. "Better not promote Sarah to management level, women just can't hack it. John never complains." Not good for either of them.
The Wirecutter is good at sounding like it properly evaluated the products, but I don't think it really does. Any the advice is all too often "buy the expensive one" when it's not really the best.
Okay.
Symbol Size(bits) = 1
Shannon IID Entropy = 1.000000 bits per symbol
Optimal compression would compress by 0.000000 percent
Chi square: symbol count=1677721593, distribution=0.92, randomly exceeds 33.86 percent of the time
Mean = 0.499988
Monte Carlo value for Pi is 3.141438 (error 0.00 percent).
Serial Correlation = 0.000056
Your python code allocated 6GB of RAM, ran for a bit and was killed. I tried it with a smaller file and got
TEST: frequency_within_block_test
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "./sp800_22_tests.py", line 129, in <module>
m = __import__ ("sp800_22_"+testname)
File "/-------/sp800_22_frequency_within_block_test.py", line 25, in <module>
from scipy.special import gamma, gammainc, gammaincc
ImportError: No module named scipy.special
The NIST code ran fine with both files.
You were right: https://pastebin.com/PnzK3Pvx
Looks like I'm going to need to generate a lot more numbers to really get much out of that test. I'll grab the hardware and give it a try, as well as the other software tools you linked.
It sounds like he may have picked the perfect time for it. Apparently the Trump administration is making reverse-discrimination a priority now.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and...
To win he will have to prove more than one of a few things.
- There is discrimination (presumably against men) resulting from Google's policies, or affirmative action which is illegal in California, and thus he is a whistleblower.
- He was forced out for a protected trait. Exactly how far does protection of political views go in that state?
- His actions didn't create a hostile workplace or make his position untenable, i.e. that women working with and for him wouldn't be able to make complaints or question his decisions and evaluations of them based on the memo.
I imagine this case might get a bit of coverage.
I kind of wonder if he intended to get fired and the sue... It wasn't exactly hard to predict. He could have published it anonymously, but didn't. It just seems like he wanted to martyr himself.
People are mis-characterizing the criticism of his memo and the reason he was fired.
We have been here before. "Black people are poor because they have less developed intelligence, and these skull measurements and IQ test scores provide incontrovertible scientific proof". Apart from being a misrepresentation of the science, it ignores the fact that the situation improves when they have an equal opportunity.
If he had said "we have reached a plateau and I think this is the reason why things are not continuing to improve for women at Google" it would have been fine. Instead he ignores that things are getting better, and that things used to be even better when the proportion of women in CS was much higher. He ignores that in some cultures women and girls don't fit these averages that he maintains are likely biological.
He does make a few valid points, but I think at best you could say that show shows some naivety, with his apparent unfamiliarity with decades of research and how these arguments were considered and rejected multiple times in the relatively recent past. If he brought something new to the table it would be different, but it's all old hat.
Some of the stuff on the packaging is reliable, like the nutritional information that is regulated by law. The problem is that the regulation is too limited and they can plaster all sort of other bullshit on there too.
Their mice are okay as well. And the newer keyboards are fine... A bit over-priced for what they are, but decent.
AMD strongly recommend liquid cooling for this CPU.
I'll give Dieharder a try when I get time. I added the results from the NIST tests to the repo in the mean time.
If it passes NIST and Diehard I'd expect it to pass Dieharder, but it's worth checking.