Having AN alibi ready to go for a crime you didn't know about suggests guilt. Not having one doesn't suggest anything. Don't confuse questioning tactics used to throw people off balance with actual assumptions.
I'm fairly sure plenty of other evidence is what damned her at least to the "we think you are probably guilty and quack in a manner reminiscent of duck" standard a school needs to boot a student. Why is this even on Slashdot?
"You see, we have these things that we call 'smartphones' now, that are really just sophisticated tracking devices that log our exact whereabouts down to the meter, chronicle every interaction we have with other people via online services, and tag every photo we take with them with timestamps and geographic coordinates."
All of this data is spoofable. In fact it is easy to spoof them. Anyone who accepts this sort of evidence from someone suspected of having tech skills, especially of the broke into our systems variety is out of their minds.
If you are ever assessing forensics on a system you need to gain access BEFORE the accused has an opportunity to modify it in hopes you might be able to find data. Something actually provided by the accused is completely worthless.
"I dunno, if you use an Android phone with Google maps, by default, you can probably retrieve detailed info about your location and movements unless you've turned that feature off. I happened to have it on for several years, which turned out to be lucky if unintentional, as I used it to successfully defend myself in a legal matter. I could show times and places on a series of maps Google had tracking my phone checking in that were incompatible with the crazy claims of somebody accusing me of some totally irrational and false things."
Cool. Filing that away. Of course, Google provides the tools you need to spoof that data, you don't even need a third party. I'll file that away in case I need an alibi.
You are making a lot of assumptions here, not the least of which is that they determined the punishment before levying the charge. Just for a second entertain the possibility the university staff aren't all idiots.
Nobody who is innocent has an alibi ready to go. Real people in the real world don't have documentation putting them elsewhere most of the time because they don't expect to need it. People who have that documentation ready to go, especially for a large number of incidents, made sure they'd have it to prove their innocence which means they aren't innocent at all.
Thinking that accidently being more likely to hit people who are harder to detect on cameras is a carry-over of real world prejudice tends to show how people have lost perspective on what that really is.
Not everything that disproportionately impacts some racial marker is racist, only a deliberate effort to target by race does that.
"Reality tends to be messy, and when people aren't deliberately trying to keep their story straight the details tend to get blurred."
Which of course will also be useful for a practiced liar. An inexperienced liar will be trying to keep every detail straight and terrified is something contradictory creeps in. An master liar will ride the chaos because they know it is present all over the place when people are telling the truth as well.
Telling the truth doesn't innately make you right. If a schizophrenic tells the tale of their alien abduction they may well be telling the truth as they see it. Also, an attention seeking liar could tell the tale of their abduction while an alien zips overhead unseen.
If you are a good debater you'll have learned that the issues where it is possible to be entirely right are rarely debated in the first place and the best strategy for dealing with subpoints of your opponents argument of that sort is usually to concede them instantly. What makes being right so hard is that there is rarely a complex issue without several of these objective and definitely right sub-issues that conflict with the arguments of both sides and it is usually only an inability to remember those details (or masking them via bias) that lets a rational thinking person to fall to one side or other when all sides are argued well.
"Actually being right is a huge advantage in convincing people that you're right."
That isn't my experience. Because it isn't enough to be right for the wrong reasons. You win people over with a strawman oversimplified version of the truth and then they very quickly get swayed by a slightly more informed person with the opposing view. The truth is usually complicated and grey and full of thousands of concessions to the other sides talking points that are crippling in SOUNDING right but essential to actually being right.
Very few people actually want to be right, they just want the people they are impressed with to be impressed with them and pretend that means they are right.
It's somewhere between. They made changes to policies and practices to correct alleged unfair treatment of women. This story is about a subsequent review which found post change disproportionate compensation in favor of women and corrected compensation one off in favor of men to get back to an equitable baseline. Presumably the "diversity" centered policies that resulted in the disparity remain in place at Google so the inevitable imbalance over time will return, the correction may not.
Well, hopefully that is a trend. In my experience the staff simply do change jobs and the response of employers hasn't been to give raises to counteract it but instead to come up with reasons churn is good, results in more diverse skillsets, culls the herd, etc, etc.
What you are describing is how it ideally would work but I've never heard someone claiming it is how it actually does work before.
"I just don't think that your own luck and the organization's luck are the same."
Of course they aren't the same but most people aren't going out of their way to suck at their job, at worst they are neutral to it. If you are good at making your own luck for yourself, you'll be good at making your own luck to not have poor performance. The same abstract skills that let you recognize and prioritize negotiating as the low hanging fruit to success vs the other thousands of more difficult paths you could have tried let you recognize the low hanging fruit in most anything.
No matter what your job, being able to negotiate successfully means you've targeted sellable attributes and successfully sold them. You've outwitted a system rigged against you successfully and extracted higher pay. Now clients and competitors are also systems rigged against you, they also need sold, even by support staff, the solutions presented to them need to be sellable. This can mean knowing which features to prioritize, which tickets to hit first in the queue, identifying opportunities that will save accounts and avoiding the purist trap, it can even just mean being able to hold someone's hand in the right way that they feel high touch and handled by experts while peers actually do all the work. Your abilities in making your own luck and selling yourself means a higher probability of doing the right thing in any of these cases. All of it should be recognizable but also will likely reflect poorly on metrics. Which is why someone with these skills should earn more than a peer with great metrics and lacking the skills.
How man pegs you shove into holes each day is a performance metric. It's beautiful in that you need the pegs in the holes and the metric provides something shiny and distracting so you can identify those who can see past what is put in front of them.
How else are you supposed to do it? You can't pay everyone more and you can't promote everyone.
Technically he is wrong but there is an area of web-based application interaction and communication that isn't done well by other solutions, hence the lack of any other placeholder accepted by the market to fill it.
"The big push for JS is trying to pass processing demand off from the cloud to client devices and make fancier UI interactions."
Yes, I do believe this was what he was referring to. Javascript can also be used for server-side dynamic content but interaction web application interfaces and that "UI Interaction" is the primary niche nothing else has filled well. Which is a shame because javascript is a horrible bastardized beast of a language but it is true nonetheless.
I get the point I just disagree with how you are drawing the line. You are basing a line on income and earning. I disagree with that standard. A doctor, lawyer, or engineer still has the right to argue against discrimination even if that fight may not carry the same level of desperation.
Some of these people are at the upper echelons of the working class but they've made smart decisions and worked hard to be there. Or maybe in some cases got lucky. The point being, your kids have a fair shot at being those people in 20 years if they have the stuff and the drive.
The target for this point shouldn't be the working class at the top or the bottom. The target should be those who aren't working class whether they happen to work anyway or not. Point your rage where it belongs, the executives and the wealthy. The people who make hundreds of millions to billions in wealth growth but pay an effective tax rate of 15% or less on some tiny subset they cashed in. Those people don't get a vote.
"That leads to some very shitty outcomes, especially when the company has power to force workers to work for less and less money."
It does indeed for the unremarkable workers. On the other hand it leads to better outcomes for the talented people and exceptional people who have leverage because their work will be leading to higher profits and therefore there is a bigger pie they can strongarm their employer into sharing. The rules you speak of are good for setting a minimum baseline but not how it should work beyond that. Otherwise you are rewarding the mundane as much as the exceptional in doing so giving them as loud a voice and making them as likely to be looked up to by future generations.
There is a problem when you are rewarding the children of the wealthy and/or the previous exceptional generation. Nature as the primary predictor of exceptional performance has been debunked. But there is nothing wrong with this concept of rewarding the exceptional beyond the mundane.
Perhaps neither of us works at Google and can say with certainty. Speaking for myself, my assumptions were based on other companies and positions with numbered roles like this.
Typically as the levels increase there is a definition that goes with it which defines equates to a change in the types of underlying work you are assigned or your role on projects. Generally these differences are thought to associate with skill but that isn't always the case. Sometimes for whatever reason a person really likes exactly the role or type of work they are doing and doesn't want that shift. Over time that person can and likely will become better than their peers or even the people who have advanced in exactly that role. Having those people to learn from also makes their peers better and conversely makes the experienced hand showing them his tricks stand out less and be less likely to be promoted.
For instance, in a lvl 1 vs lvl 2 support role the lvl 2 might own different types of issues. An excellent lvl 1 might not be able to fix all the issues but might know exactly which gathered information always leads to those resolutions and ask the right preliminary questions. Issues taken by that lvl 1 might pass to lvl 2 frequently but have lower resolution times across the board. One of those lvl 2's on the fast track to lvl 3 might be great at deep diving and finding answers others don't but be a scatter brained and myopic. He (or she) likely was promoted because he never passed anything to a lvl 2 as a lvl 1 and probably will do the same at lvl 2 with lvl 3 complexity issues. He has the right combination of owning issues to a fault and actually ultimately solving them. His peer lvl 2's will be annoyed because they have higher closure rates but the real reason he gets promoted beyond them is he already a lvl 3 and just not labeled as such. Those great level 1's exist to increase the efficiency of the higher paid lvl2's, the lvl2's exist to screen out problems which don't need the unique and inefficient form of thinking employed by the lvl3's. Being a lvl3 doesn't mean you are that much better at doing the work of a lvl1 than a good lvl1 or any better at all. It ideally means, you are better at doing the work which gets assigned to lvl3s.
Even when you stay within the same job title there are differences between the work at different tiers. It isn't just a pay grade indicator.
"Or actual male, as in genetics, brain structure, body parts?"
Just body parts at birth should be considered for the purpose of gender. All the rest are things we've found trying to explain the differing body parts, the parts are the initial physical reality. You adjust the model to suit the physical reality you are studying, you don't redefine the physical reality when it conflicts with your hypothesis and research results. Otherwise you end up with faulty outcomes and data. The genetic connections we've found are just an attempt to discover what leads to the body parts, if they don't match the body parts it is our understanding of the genetics which is wrong the body parts still define gender.
Slashdot Mirror
Having AN alibi ready to go for a crime you didn't know about suggests guilt. Not having one doesn't suggest anything. Don't confuse questioning tactics used to throw people off balance with actual assumptions.
I'm fairly sure plenty of other evidence is what damned her at least to the "we think you are probably guilty and quack in a manner reminiscent of duck" standard a school needs to boot a student. Why is this even on Slashdot?
Or maybe I work in security.
"You see, we have these things that we call 'smartphones' now, that are really just sophisticated tracking devices that log our exact whereabouts down to the meter, chronicle every interaction we have with other people via online services, and tag every photo we take with them with timestamps and geographic coordinates."
All of this data is spoofable. In fact it is easy to spoof them. Anyone who accepts this sort of evidence from someone suspected of having tech skills, especially of the broke into our systems variety is out of their minds.
If you are ever assessing forensics on a system you need to gain access BEFORE the accused has an opportunity to modify it in hopes you might be able to find data. Something actually provided by the accused is completely worthless.
"I dunno, if you use an Android phone with Google maps, by default, you can probably retrieve detailed info about your location and movements unless you've turned that feature off. I happened to have it on for several years, which turned out to be lucky if unintentional, as I used it to successfully defend myself in a legal matter. I could show times and places on a series of maps Google had tracking my phone checking in that were incompatible with the crazy claims of somebody accusing me of some totally irrational and false things."
Cool. Filing that away. Of course, Google provides the tools you need to spoof that data, you don't even need a third party. I'll file that away in case I need an alibi.
"hard evidence"
This is the dumbest possible thing you could say on this topic, in the digital era.
You are making a lot of assumptions here, not the least of which is that they determined the punishment before levying the charge. Just for a second entertain the possibility the university staff aren't all idiots.
Nobody who is innocent has an alibi ready to go. Real people in the real world don't have documentation putting them elsewhere most of the time because they don't expect to need it. People who have that documentation ready to go, especially for a large number of incidents, made sure they'd have it to prove their innocence which means they aren't innocent at all.
Thinking that accidently being more likely to hit people who are harder to detect on cameras is a carry-over of real world prejudice tends to show how people have lost perspective on what that really is.
Not everything that disproportionately impacts some racial marker is racist, only a deliberate effort to target by race does that.
Automated processes and algorithms aren't racist.
"Reality tends to be messy, and when people aren't deliberately trying to keep their story straight the details tend to get blurred."
Which of course will also be useful for a practiced liar. An inexperienced liar will be trying to keep every detail straight and terrified is something contradictory creeps in. An master liar will ride the chaos because they know it is present all over the place when people are telling the truth as well.
Telling the truth doesn't innately make you right. If a schizophrenic tells the tale of their alien abduction they may well be telling the truth as they see it. Also, an attention seeking liar could tell the tale of their abduction while an alien zips overhead unseen.
If you are a good debater you'll have learned that the issues where it is possible to be entirely right are rarely debated in the first place and the best strategy for dealing with subpoints of your opponents argument of that sort is usually to concede them instantly. What makes being right so hard is that there is rarely a complex issue without several of these objective and definitely right sub-issues that conflict with the arguments of both sides and it is usually only an inability to remember those details (or masking them via bias) that lets a rational thinking person to fall to one side or other when all sides are argued well.
"We should start internet based source validity courses to the elderly."
Try mailing those courses if you actually want to reach the elderly and get AARP to do it.
"Actually being right is a huge advantage in convincing people that you're right."
That isn't my experience. Because it isn't enough to be right for the wrong reasons. You win people over with a strawman oversimplified version of the truth and then they very quickly get swayed by a slightly more informed person with the opposing view. The truth is usually complicated and grey and full of thousands of concessions to the other sides talking points that are crippling in SOUNDING right but essential to actually being right.
Very few people actually want to be right, they just want the people they are impressed with to be impressed with them and pretend that means they are right.
I do this too
Of course. In fact, most of that new porn you are looking at is actually old porn being recycled.
It's somewhere between. They made changes to policies and practices to correct alleged unfair treatment of women. This story is about a subsequent review which found post change disproportionate compensation in favor of women and corrected compensation one off in favor of men to get back to an equitable baseline. Presumably the "diversity" centered policies that resulted in the disparity remain in place at Google so the inevitable imbalance over time will return, the correction may not.
Well, hopefully that is a trend. In my experience the staff simply do change jobs and the response of employers hasn't been to give raises to counteract it but instead to come up with reasons churn is good, results in more diverse skillsets, culls the herd, etc, etc.
What you are describing is how it ideally would work but I've never heard someone claiming it is how it actually does work before.
"I just don't think that your own luck and the organization's luck are the same."
Of course they aren't the same but most people aren't going out of their way to suck at their job, at worst they are neutral to it. If you are good at making your own luck for yourself, you'll be good at making your own luck to not have poor performance. The same abstract skills that let you recognize and prioritize negotiating as the low hanging fruit to success vs the other thousands of more difficult paths you could have tried let you recognize the low hanging fruit in most anything.
No matter what your job, being able to negotiate successfully means you've targeted sellable attributes and successfully sold them. You've outwitted a system rigged against you successfully and extracted higher pay. Now clients and competitors are also systems rigged against you, they also need sold, even by support staff, the solutions presented to them need to be sellable. This can mean knowing which features to prioritize, which tickets to hit first in the queue, identifying opportunities that will save accounts and avoiding the purist trap, it can even just mean being able to hold someone's hand in the right way that they feel high touch and handled by experts while peers actually do all the work. Your abilities in making your own luck and selling yourself means a higher probability of doing the right thing in any of these cases. All of it should be recognizable but also will likely reflect poorly on metrics. Which is why someone with these skills should earn more than a peer with great metrics and lacking the skills.
How man pegs you shove into holes each day is a performance metric. It's beautiful in that you need the pegs in the holes and the metric provides something shiny and distracting so you can identify those who can see past what is put in front of them.
How else are you supposed to do it? You can't pay everyone more and you can't promote everyone.
Technically he is wrong but there is an area of web-based application interaction and communication that isn't done well by other solutions, hence the lack of any other placeholder accepted by the market to fill it.
"The big push for JS is trying to pass processing demand off from the cloud to client devices and make fancier UI interactions."
Yes, I do believe this was what he was referring to. Javascript can also be used for server-side dynamic content but interaction web application interfaces and that "UI Interaction" is the primary niche nothing else has filled well. Which is a shame because javascript is a horrible bastardized beast of a language but it is true nonetheless.
It's definitely loose
I get the point I just disagree with how you are drawing the line. You are basing a line on income and earning. I disagree with that standard. A doctor, lawyer, or engineer still has the right to argue against discrimination even if that fight may not carry the same level of desperation.
Some of these people are at the upper echelons of the working class but they've made smart decisions and worked hard to be there. Or maybe in some cases got lucky. The point being, your kids have a fair shot at being those people in 20 years if they have the stuff and the drive.
The target for this point shouldn't be the working class at the top or the bottom. The target should be those who aren't working class whether they happen to work anyway or not. Point your rage where it belongs, the executives and the wealthy. The people who make hundreds of millions to billions in wealth growth but pay an effective tax rate of 15% or less on some tiny subset they cashed in. Those people don't get a vote.
In the last 15 years I've seen it happen once at a very young company.
"That leads to some very shitty outcomes, especially when the company has power to force workers to work for less and less money."
It does indeed for the unremarkable workers. On the other hand it leads to better outcomes for the talented people and exceptional people who have leverage because their work will be leading to higher profits and therefore there is a bigger pie they can strongarm their employer into sharing. The rules you speak of are good for setting a minimum baseline but not how it should work beyond that. Otherwise you are rewarding the mundane as much as the exceptional in doing so giving them as loud a voice and making them as likely to be looked up to by future generations.
There is a problem when you are rewarding the children of the wealthy and/or the previous exceptional generation. Nature as the primary predictor of exceptional performance has been debunked. But there is nothing wrong with this concept of rewarding the exceptional beyond the mundane.
Perhaps neither of us works at Google and can say with certainty. Speaking for myself, my assumptions were based on other companies and positions with numbered roles like this.
Typically as the levels increase there is a definition that goes with it which defines equates to a change in the types of underlying work you are assigned or your role on projects. Generally these differences are thought to associate with skill but that isn't always the case. Sometimes for whatever reason a person really likes exactly the role or type of work they are doing and doesn't want that shift. Over time that person can and likely will become better than their peers or even the people who have advanced in exactly that role. Having those people to learn from also makes their peers better and conversely makes the experienced hand showing them his tricks stand out less and be less likely to be promoted.
For instance, in a lvl 1 vs lvl 2 support role the lvl 2 might own different types of issues. An excellent lvl 1 might not be able to fix all the issues but might know exactly which gathered information always leads to those resolutions and ask the right preliminary questions. Issues taken by that lvl 1 might pass to lvl 2 frequently but have lower resolution times across the board. One of those lvl 2's on the fast track to lvl 3 might be great at deep diving and finding answers others don't but be a scatter brained and myopic. He (or she) likely was promoted because he never passed anything to a lvl 2 as a lvl 1 and probably will do the same at lvl 2 with lvl 3 complexity issues. He has the right combination of owning issues to a fault and actually ultimately solving them. His peer lvl 2's will be annoyed because they have higher closure rates but the real reason he gets promoted beyond them is he already a lvl 3 and just not labeled as such. Those great level 1's exist to increase the efficiency of the higher paid lvl2's, the lvl2's exist to screen out problems which don't need the unique and inefficient form of thinking employed by the lvl3's. Being a lvl3 doesn't mean you are that much better at doing the work of a lvl1 than a good lvl1 or any better at all. It ideally means, you are better at doing the work which gets assigned to lvl3s.
Even when you stay within the same job title there are differences between the work at different tiers. It isn't just a pay grade indicator.
"Or actual male, as in genetics, brain structure, body parts?"
Just body parts at birth should be considered for the purpose of gender. All the rest are things we've found trying to explain the differing body parts, the parts are the initial physical reality. You adjust the model to suit the physical reality you are studying, you don't redefine the physical reality when it conflicts with your hypothesis and research results. Otherwise you end up with faulty outcomes and data. The genetic connections we've found are just an attempt to discover what leads to the body parts, if they don't match the body parts it is our understanding of the genetics which is wrong the body parts still define gender.
And men are discriminated against in college admissions and funding as well.