--
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. --
Intel did not comply with that. Intel violated the license. That's a fact. Tanenbaum isn't too mad about it, and that's fine. If he chooses not to sue them that's all well and good, but it doesn't change the fact that they did not comply with the license. Note Minix can ALSO be licensed under other terms - a company can contact the copyright holders to negotiate a different license, which may include payment. Intel didn't do that.
They had no right to make and sell copies of Minix as part of their CPU, since they didn't do so under the normal license.
Many years ago, Minix wasn't open source. It was sold for $69 / copy. After inflation that's about $150 in 2017 dollars. If Intel has unlawfully sold 500 million copies which they'd now need to pay Tanenbaum for - well he could be a very rich man if he chose to. Even at $1 per copy that's $500 million that Intel owes him.
> > three 'random' words I thought of", that'll be easy enough to crack. >> If they used 40 truly random characters, that's much, much harder.
Did you read that backwards? I said three "thought of" words is much easier than 40 truly random characters. You said no, the other way around - three words is much easier than 40 truly random characters.:)
I'm VERY familiar with password cracking and I'd be interested in trying to crack some wallets. The success rate will completely depend on the strength of the passphrase and how much the person remembers. If they remember "I used three 'random' words I thought of", that'll be easy enough to crack. If they used 40 truly random characters, that's much, much harder.
> Windows is used by people who either don't have a choice, BECAUSE THEY WORK FOR A BIG COMPANY, or are lazy. *nix is used by computer skilled people. Mac is the Unix used by by skilled people who work for big companies.
Another strong jobs report: Unemployment rate remains at 17-year low
This on CNN's front page, with their usual "impeach Trump!" stuff above and below. CNN continued: -- The report also showed that on average weekly paychecks increased by 3.1% over the last 12-months, the first time that reading has topped 3% in nearly seven years --
When CNN feels obligated to mention that paychecks are rising faster than they have since Bush budgets, that's interesting.
> Did they just patent "Escrow, but on a computer"?
No.
The patent is a bit hard to read, even as patents go. Best I can tell, they patented a particular system of using customers' public and private keys in two different cryptosystems to key the "vault" accounts used for an exchange, where the customer's balance on the block chain may have transactions awaiting confirmation. But it is a particularly difficult patent to read, especially if you don't know the technical details of crypto-currency.
The formula for solar power vs cloud cover is P = 990 (1-0.75F^3) watts/m2 where F is the cloud cover percentage. Picking the first location that came up on Weatherspark.com, I see that in January it is overcast or mostly cloudy (over 50% cloud cover) more often than not. https://weatherspark.com/m/116...
*Average* cloud cover in January is about 70%. It's not uncommon to have nearly 100% cloud cover. Solar panels will of course produce *some* power most of those days, but often very little.
I notice that you and I have some diverse viewpoints, and it's making communication difficult and frustrating.
There are advantages to having people with different viewpoints discuss things, and when you're trying to get shit done there are some disadvantages too. Can you imagine you and I trying to architect a system together? We might get the overall basic design done within two years.
The two examples I gave from my original post were showing each other better ways to do things, and offering / getting help when someone has time available to help or someone is having a hard time with something.
In Texas, if you're broken down on the side of the road, most likely someone will stop to help within just a few minutes. If a native Texan is painting the inside of their house, there is a good chance friends are helping. That's Texas culture. Our team at work, in the Dallas office, had the same culture. In every morning scrum I say at least once "let me know how I can help". Whenever one person is done with "their" tasks, they then help with tasks others are working on. (Really all tasks are team tasks.) That's ALSO Agile culture, so we had a double portion of it.
Then we hired a guy from another country, with another culture, and soon after combined with a team from a third country. The guy who isn't from Texas was pretty mad when I offered to help. "Ray treats me like I'm an idiot and can't do anything", he thought. That's how his culture views things. What we Texans call "helpfully pointing out a more effective way of doing a certain thing" is called "criticism" in his culture, it's insulting and it's rude.
The team that joined us had cultural norms about "criticism" and asking for help similar to the new guy, but not the same. Very different from Texas norms of how you communicate and work together. What a diverse set of viewpoints on how teams are supposed to work together!
It's slightly frustrating for the whole team but I'm the designated trainer for several things. My *job* is to teach them better ways of doing things, and to help them. That's tricky when offering to show them something is considered insulting.
>. ? First team were a bunch of guys being "jocks"
Like most computer programmers, my team of developers isn't jocks. They do try to follow cultural norms about how you interact with people.
> Okay, let's agree to disagree, but how does it relate to the original point?
If you don't think social norms, how people are expected to interact, are part of culture, I'm not sure we can advance much here. I guess I can quote Merriam Webster for you:
Culture:
: the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organization a corporate culture focused on the bottom line
: the set of values, conventions, or social practices associated with a particular field, activity, or societal characteristic studying the effect of computers on print culture
Agile, as explained in the Agile Manifesto and the Agile Principles, is a "set of attitudes, goals, and practices" - the very definition of culture.
> communication and interaction. How is this related to diversity?
US culture, how US people communicate amd interact with each other, is different from Japanese culture, which is different from Colombian culture, which is different from Pakistani culture. Pakistani people communicate and interact in very different ways than Americans. If you think Japan is exactly like the US, just further East, they do the same things in the same ways and value the same things, that simply isn't so. The rules are different in different places. A team generally works most effectively when all the team members are playing by the same set of rules. In a game, having one guy playing basketball rules, three guys playing American football rules, and two women playing according to rugby rules just makes a mess. Your team wouldn't be able to score any points, or even be able to agree on whether they had scored points or not.
A good portion of your communication here on Slashdot would be considered extremely rude in most cultures, because you're operating under the rules of US culture.
> They seem to be saying that they value people interacting rather than following a process or using a tool, but doesn't say anything about social or cultural values.
If you don't think that an emphasis on individuals and people interacting, as opposed to following the process, is a cultural thing, read up on some other cultures. One good example would be Japan. Read a bit about how people do their jobs in Japan, what corporate culture is like. China too. It's VERY different from the US.
In these jobs, following directions IS merit. It's important that things be done right; more important than trying out new ideas on live systems that can do real damage.
> Is it diversity, or is that other team just really shit?
That's a fair question. I charitably assume they don't suck, they just work *differently*.
> I don't think the Agile development methodology is related to any particular... or cultural group
The Agile Manifesto, which basically defines Agile, is short and easy to read:
We are uncovering better ways of developing software by doing it and helping others do it. Through this work we have come to value:
Individuals and interactions over processes and tools Working software over comprehensive documentation Customer collaboration over contract negotiation Responding to change over following a plan
That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more.
The first and second sentences say it's about values (social / cultural.values) including helping others develop software. Agile is about "Individuals and interactions over processes". Everyone I've ever worked with from other cultures has said that the emphasis on individuality and de-emphasis on process is the #1 striking difference about US work culture. Other cultures don't put "individuals over processes" like that, the #1 characteristic of Agile is a very American characteristic. (Also a bit feminine - on average, females value "interactions" and "collaboration" than men typically do).
"Working software over comprehensive documentation"
"Whatever works" isn't a cultural thing?
"Customer collaboration over contract negotiation"
Collaboration vs negotiation is very much a cultural thing. Also, surveys show women in the US tend to very much dislike negotiation and prefer collaboration. Men tend to be much more comfortable with negotiation. This came up on Slashdot a few months ago.
"Responding to change over following a plan"
Again, being flexible versus following a plan is very much a cultural thing.
It seems to me Agile isn't just "related" to a culture, Agile IS a culture. California culture. It's not even a great fit for Texas culture, not to mention Pakistan or Colombia.
> Sounds like you wanted cogs, not professionals, treating the latter badly in the name of "alphaness."
Some tasks, such as handling explosives, require carefully following well-defined procedures. Other jobs require taking initiative. I supervised a couple people handling explosives and I don't think I was "treating them badly" by asking them to do it properly so they don't get blown up. Aircraft maintenance is another "do it this way" job, composing music is a "do your own thing" job. Taking initiative and trying possibly ways to do it is good in some jobs, it can be deadly in other jobs. The same day I last oversaw newer guys handling pyro and needed to tell them repeatedly "don't do it that way, do it this way", at another location two people doing the same job died because they didn't follow the rules I was enforcing. They blew up their truck full of professional-sized pyro.
Individuals vary greatly, of course, but *on average*, women will be more comfortable than men in jobs where taking initiative is a bad thing. If you hired strictly on who will be safest, following the procedure and pick up the boxes of e-match, not slide them, people will use use anvil cutters, not scissors, etc. without getting pissed that they are being told how things need to be done, you'll end up with maybe 70% women and 30% men on your crew.
Protip: You don't have to press each letter separately on your phone; you can swipe across the keyboard and the phone will figure it out. Every once in a while it makes an error, tough. In business correspondence you may want to check for such errors. On Slashdot, I don't care.
Two bosses each have a budget of $1 million to hire people. If it's true that their $1 million budget will hire either 8 men or 10 equally effective women*, any smart boss would hire the ten women. His department will be more productive and he'll get bonuses and promotions.
So it *is* his money, in the sense that it's his budget to spend on his team, and he'll be judged on the results.
There are some misogynistic manager, for sure. Maybe not many, but there are some. There are also other managers in the company, though, and other companies in the industry. Assuming the guy who mostly hires men is wrong, his department or company won't do as well as the other boss who hired those great women. The manager who hires the beer team will get the best results and will tend to get promoted, so high-ranking managers would tend to be people who selected the best employees.
* With the same salary, women cost a bit more. Women on average require more health care and that's why their insurance rates were 50% higher, on average. That was a direct cost to employers untill few years ago the law required insurers to ignore that fact and charge men and women the same. Maternity coverage is still optional in practice, though it's not supposed to be, as is mental health. That's a cost difference. The difference in medical issues also affects average time off, which is a cost to employers. Despite this, I've hired mostly women because more women are comfortable with the way I work. Men *typically* want more autonomy.
If you want to adjust for whatever you think the value of diversity is, fine - if you're the boss and you think it'll help your team be more effective, cool.
ALSO recognize there are other effects, if you want to the best performance. At my last job, my department shared a wing of the building with the accounting department. The accounting department was mostly women, including the CFO. My department was mostly men. In my department, we socialized by "giving each shit" - basically insulting each other, as male friends and co-workers do. We enjoyed some competition and it helped us do a better job. My boss, who was female, got along well in the culture of our department too - a culture that followed traditionally masculine norms.
The accounting department, mostly females, functioned differently. They didn't "give each shit" to socialize, rather they complimented each other, including "where did you get those great shoes?" That worked for them. The department of women had a way of working together based on how women normally interact, and it worked well.
My current job was similar. We had a good team, who helped each other a lot. We were learning a lot from each other. Then our team was combined with a team from another country, with a different culture. That has made daily Scrums, code reviews, and generally getting things done MUCH harder because in their culture you don't criticize someone's work and you definitely don't ever ask for help. We have to be very careful about learning from each other now because if you point out a different way to do something, somebody is going to get offended - it's insulting, in their culture. Don't offer to help when you have free time and relevant expertise - that means you're implying they are stupid or incompetent. The other team may have been doing great work using whatever social norms they used, but forced diversity has a real cost to our team. Just before combining with the other team, we also hired a guy from another country, with another set of norms about how team members should interact. It makes things tricky. Part of my job is training my team mates on some things. It's really hard to train the one guy who comes from another culture, because I don't understand how to relate to him, how to approach him.
Diversity has some benefits, and it has some costs. My boss at the last job wasn't a girlie girl. She enjoyed "hanging out with the guys", so it was a natural fit. The soft, sensitive guy who worked in accounting with the ladies my have been a natural fit too. Forcing "diversity", especially one man on a team of women or one woman in a team of men has some costs. I never thought about gender when I hired but if I'm ever in a position where I *have* to think about, I'd much rather have a fully balanced team of four women and four men than have only one "odd man out" in a team where everyone else is the opposite gender or culture, leading to one person not fitting in with how the team works.
Just FYI, thinking back over who I've hired, I've hired probably 65% women, 35% men, mostly because I hired for people working under my direct daily supervision and I'm an alpha, dominate personality. In other words, there was no question I was the boss and the leader. A nice, caring boss maybe, but very much the boss. I generally want things to be done my way. At least, learn my way and start by doing it my way, then make changes only after you fully understand how I do it and why I do it that way. On average, more women are comfortable working in that type of than men. Men *generally tend* to want roles with more autonomy than what I hired for. The men generally didn't stick around as long as the women.
Thanks. I couldn't remember which school it was. I bet the same thing applies to Texas A&M with it's highly competitive veterinary school, but I was thinking that's not the famous instance.
It's interesting that even multiple peer-reviewed papers mention the lawsuit - the lawsuit that apparently never was. According to Peter Bickel, one of the statisticians who authored the original study, the graduate school dean was for some reason *afraid* they'd be sued, and asked Bickel to look into the statistic, which looked bad on prima facia. I don't know if there was a threat of a law suit or a rumor or whatever, but it seems you're right - whatever reason the associate dean had for worrying about a law suit, no suit ever went to trial that I can find.
Thanks again. Hopefully you'll be around next time I forget the name of the school, since I always forget, but I think I'll remember that there wasn't an actual law suit, or at least not one that was publicized.
This may be interesting to watch. Individual cases of discrimination are often like any other case there is direct evidence, or not. Class actions tend to rely on statistics and that always reminds me of a certain university case.
In the university case, the primary evidence brought by the plaintiffs was that the school accepted a significantly higher percentage of male applicants than female applicants. That seemed pretty clear-cut. If the school admits 60% of male applicants and 45% of females, that looks a lot like there may be systematic discrimination against women.
The school pointed out that EVERY department admitted a higher percentage of women than men, however. When every department admits 60% of female applicants and 45% of men that looks a lot like systematically favoring women - discrimination against men.
Here's what had happened. The school had one department that was highly regarded, with competitive admissions. I don't recall offhand what the department was, so for the sake of this discussion let's call it the nursing school. It just so happened that the best department, the department with the most competitive admissions, was a department with mostly women applying. Most people who applied to the nursing school we're not accepted, and most people who applied to the nursing program were women.
Most male applicants applied to other, less competitive programs at the school.
Women had a BETTER chance of getting into the nursing program than men did. Every department admitted women at a higher rate, but the school as a whole rejected more females because their nursing program was that good - they rejected more nursing applicants than other majors.
The sad lesson for university administrators - if you don't want to be accused of discrimination, make sure the programs that women enjoy aren't your best programs, which will make admissions more competitive.
> Storing an entire weeks worth of energy seems a little silly though honestly.
In the fall, it's not uncommon for a couple of large weather systems to cover over half the US in cloud cover for a few days. In another post on this story I linked to a satellite weather picture from a couple months go. That day the whole continental US was covered in clouds. In *normal* years, there will be one or two four-day periods in which solar electric produces hardly any energy. Some years there may be several, and they can certainly last a week. Consider rather recently two hurricanes hit the gulf back-to-back. After they came shore they dispersed into large cloud systems each covering a significant portion of the country.
Yeah it's not like you're going to win a world championship in the 400 meter relay and run track in the 2012 Summer Olympics if you don't even have any legs.
I feel sorry for the millions of NFL and MLB fans, who are all so severely disabled they can't go throw a catch a ball themselves.
Did you, for moment, forget most of human history, all the kings and queens, lords and ladies and all of that?
Compare Europe a couple hundred years ago, and over the last 2,000 years, to today. It's amazing. Suddenly just recently the paupers are mostly watching HD Netflix on their giant screens, rather than dying of malnourishment as they have through most of history.
> we'll fight it in vain for thousands, if not millions of years to come
That's one option. The Soviet communists decided to try fighting against greed and force people to share equally, to work hard at making great stuff, with no personal reward for themselves. It didn't work that well.
The other option is to recognize that "people want stuff, lots of stuff" as a fact, and then use that fact to accomplish worthwhile ends. In economics, there is a system designed along these lines:
The easiest way get lots of stuff (money) for yourself is to make stuff that other people want. The more people like the stuff you make for them, the more money you get to keep.
So for example some guys named Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Sergey Brin all wanted lots of money. The way to gets lots of money, in this system, is to make lots of cool stuff for other people, stuff that everybody likes. Mobile gadget stuff was popular at the time, so they all tried to make better mobile gadgets than the other guy, and get them in the hands of lots of happy users. to see who could make the best stuff. Users hated the mobile stuff Bill and his team made, so his team wasn't rewarded with money to satisfy their greed. Steve Jobs's team made stuff people liked, so their greed was quenched by them getting lots of money. Then it was time for another round, to see who could make the best stuff for the most people again. All the teams are greedy and want lots of money, so they are trying really hard to make cool stuff for us.
In politics, people are greedy for power. In one system practiced for a thousand years or so, whoever was greedy for power would kill the other people who wanted power, and whoever was alive at the moment had some power, until they got killed. In the late 1700s a different system was designed. Like most systems, there was a top leader, but he would only have *some* powers. Other powers were given to an elite group of leaders, two from each state. Still other powers were given to a broader group of community leaders. Here's the trick to this system - the president can increase his appointment power and other powers mostly by taking over powers currently held by the Senate, a bunch of really rich guys who are power hungry and won't give their power away to the president easily. So the system is designed to use the Senate's hunger for power to keep the president's hunger for power in check. When the Senate tries to increase their power, such as by trying to initiate a tax bill, the House sends them a blue slip saying "no you can't do that - that's OUR power." In order for the House to keep their power for themselves, they have to keep the Senate in check. All these checks and balances without violence - the House just sends a blue slip telling the Senate "you can't do that" - nobody gets shot. Senators have their own blue slips they use to limit the President's appointment power.
These systems recognizes that that people's greed for money and power is a fact and it's unlikely to ever change, so they use people's desire for money and power and put those desires to work doing something useful.
> This true for all currency. It only has value because you believe it does.
At the end of the day, for most US citizens with some type of income, if you don't acquire some dollars the government will take your stuff and maybe throw you in jail. Taxes can only be paid in dollars, and most people need to pay taxes in order to avoid rather unpleasant consequences eventually. The IRS may only send letters for five years or so, but eventually they get serious. That makes dollars valuable.
Even if you personally take the risk of not paying taxes, Alice and Bob both pay taxes, so they want dollars. They'll give you stuff if you give them dollars. That makes dollars valuable to you, because you can use them to get stuff from Alice and Bob, who will use the dollars to pay their taxes.
Slashdot Mirror
The Minix3 standard license is four sentences:
http://git.minix3.org/index.cg...
The second clause / sentence of the license is:
--
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
--
Intel did not comply with that. Intel violated the license. That's a fact. Tanenbaum isn't too mad about it, and that's fine. If he chooses not to sue them that's all well and good, but it doesn't change the fact that they did not comply with the license. Note Minix can ALSO be licensed under other terms - a company can contact the copyright holders to negotiate a different license, which may include payment. Intel didn't do that.
They had no right to make and sell copies of Minix as part of their CPU, since they didn't do so under the normal license.
Many years ago, Minix wasn't open source. It was sold for $69 / copy. After inflation that's about $150 in 2017 dollars. If Intel has unlawfully sold 500 million copies which they'd now need to pay Tanenbaum for - well he could be a very rich man if he chose to. Even at $1 per copy that's $500 million that Intel owes him.
> > three 'random' words I thought of", that'll be easy enough to crack.
>> If they used 40 truly random characters, that's much, much harder.
Did you read that backwards? I said three "thought of" words is much easier than 40 truly random characters. You said no, the other way around - three words is much easier than 40 truly random characters. :)
I'm VERY familiar with password cracking and I'd be interested in trying to crack some wallets. The success rate will completely depend on the strength of the passphrase and how much the person remembers. If they remember "I used three 'random' words I thought of", that'll be easy enough to crack. If they used 40 truly random characters, that's much, much harder.
> Windows is used by people who either don't have a choice, BECAUSE THEY WORK FOR A BIG COMPANY, or are lazy. *nix is used by computer skilled people. Mac is the Unix used by by skilled people who work for big companies.
I found the CNN headline interesting:
Another strong jobs report: Unemployment rate remains at 17-year low
This on CNN's front page, with their usual "impeach Trump!" stuff above and below. CNN continued:
--
The report also showed that on average weekly paychecks increased by 3.1% over the last 12-months, the first time that reading has topped 3% in nearly seven years
--
When CNN feels obligated to mention that paychecks are rising faster than they have since Bush budgets, that's interesting.
> Did they just patent "Escrow, but on a computer"?
No.
The patent is a bit hard to read, even as patents go. Best I can tell, they patented a particular system of using customers' public and private keys in two different cryptosystems to key the "vault" accounts used for an exchange, where the customer's balance on the block chain may have transactions awaiting confirmation. But it is a particularly difficult patent to read, especially if you don't know the technical details of crypto-currency.
> this individual hasn't made any effort to understand the culture they work in.
They work where they are from. I work where I am from. We videoconference every morning.
The formula for solar power vs cloud cover is P = 990 (1-0.75F^3) watts/m2 where F is the cloud cover percentage. Picking the first location that came up on Weatherspark.com, I see that in January it is overcast or mostly cloudy (over 50% cloud cover) more often than not. https://weatherspark.com/m/116...
*Average* cloud cover in January is about 70%. It's not uncommon to have nearly 100% cloud cover. Solar panels will of course produce *some* power most of those days, but often very little.
I notice that you and I have some diverse viewpoints, and it's making communication difficult and frustrating.
There are advantages to having people with different viewpoints discuss things, and when you're trying to get shit done there are some disadvantages too. Can you imagine you and I trying to architect a system together? We might get the overall basic design done within two years.
The two examples I gave from my original post were showing each other better ways to do things, and offering / getting help when someone has time available to help or someone is having a hard time with something.
In Texas, if you're broken down on the side of the road, most likely someone will stop to help within just a few minutes. If a native Texan is painting the inside of their house, there is a good chance friends are helping. That's Texas culture. Our team at work, in the Dallas office, had the same culture. In every morning scrum I say at least once "let me know how I can help". Whenever one person is done with "their" tasks, they then help with tasks others are working on. (Really all tasks are team tasks.) That's ALSO Agile culture, so we had a double portion of it.
Then we hired a guy from another country, with another culture, and soon after combined with a team from a third country. The guy who isn't from Texas was pretty mad when I offered to help. "Ray treats me like I'm an idiot and can't do anything", he thought. That's how his culture views things. What we Texans call "helpfully pointing out a more effective way of doing a certain thing" is called "criticism" in his culture, it's insulting and it's rude.
The team that joined us had cultural norms about "criticism" and asking for help similar to the new guy, but not the same. Very different from Texas norms of how you communicate and work together. What a diverse set of viewpoints on how teams are supposed to work together!
It's slightly frustrating for the whole team but I'm the designated trainer for several things. My *job* is to teach them better ways of doing things, and to help them. That's tricky when offering to show them something is considered insulting.
>. ? First team were a bunch of guys being "jocks"
Like most computer programmers, my team of developers isn't jocks. They do try to follow cultural norms about how you interact with people.
> Okay, let's agree to disagree, but how does it relate to the original point?
If you don't think social norms, how people are expected to interact, are part of culture, I'm not sure we can advance much here. I guess I can quote Merriam Webster for you:
Culture:
: the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organization a corporate culture focused on the bottom line
: the set of values, conventions, or social practices associated with a particular field, activity, or societal characteristic studying the effect of computers on print culture
Agile, as explained in the Agile Manifesto and the Agile Principles, is a "set of attitudes, goals, and practices" - the very definition of culture.
> communication and interaction. How is this related to diversity?
US culture, how US people communicate amd interact with each other, is different from Japanese culture, which is different from Colombian culture, which is different from Pakistani culture. Pakistani people communicate and interact in very different ways than Americans. If you think Japan is exactly like the US, just further East, they do the same things in the same ways and value the same things, that simply isn't so. The rules are different in different places. A team generally works most effectively when all the team members are playing by the same set of rules. In a game, having one guy playing basketball rules, three guys playing American football rules, and two women playing according to rugby rules just makes a mess. Your team wouldn't be able to score any points, or even be able to agree on whether they had scored points or not.
A good portion of your communication here on Slashdot would be considered extremely rude in most cultures, because you're operating under the rules of US culture.
> They seem to be saying that they value people interacting rather than following a process or using a tool, but doesn't say anything about social or cultural values.
If you don't think that an emphasis on individuals and people interacting, as opposed to following the process, is a cultural thing, read up on some other cultures. One good example would be Japan. Read a bit about how people do their jobs in Japan, what corporate culture is like. China too. It's VERY different from the US.
In these jobs, following directions IS merit. It's important that things be done right; more important than trying out new ideas on live systems that can do real damage.
> Is it diversity, or is that other team just really shit?
That's a fair question. I charitably assume they don't suck, they just work *differently*.
> I don't think the Agile development methodology is related to any particular ... or cultural group
The Agile Manifesto, which basically defines Agile, is short and easy to read:
We are uncovering better ways of developing
software by doing it and helping others do it.
Through this work we have come to value:
Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
Working software over comprehensive documentation
Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
Responding to change over following a plan
That is, while there is value in the items on
the right, we value the items on the left more.
http://agilemanifesto.org/
The first and second sentences say it's about values (social / cultural.values) including helping others develop software. Agile is about "Individuals and interactions over processes". Everyone I've ever worked with from other cultures has said that the emphasis on individuality and de-emphasis on process is the #1 striking difference about US work culture. Other cultures don't put "individuals over processes" like that, the #1 characteristic of Agile is a very American characteristic. (Also a bit feminine - on average, females value "interactions" and "collaboration" than men typically do).
"Working software over comprehensive documentation"
"Whatever works" isn't a cultural thing?
"Customer collaboration over contract negotiation"
Collaboration vs negotiation is very much a cultural thing. Also, surveys show women in the US tend to very much dislike negotiation and prefer collaboration. Men tend to be much more comfortable with negotiation. This came up on Slashdot a few months ago.
"Responding to change over following a plan"
Again, being flexible versus following a plan is very much a cultural thing.
It seems to me Agile isn't just "related" to a culture, Agile IS a culture. California culture. It's not even a great fit for Texas culture, not to mention Pakistan or Colombia.
> Sounds like you wanted cogs, not professionals, treating the latter badly in the name of "alphaness."
Some tasks, such as handling explosives, require carefully following well-defined procedures. Other jobs require taking initiative. I supervised a couple people handling explosives and I don't think I was "treating them badly" by asking them to do it properly so they don't get blown up. Aircraft maintenance is another "do it this way" job, composing music is a "do your own thing" job. Taking initiative and trying possibly ways to do it is good in some jobs, it can be deadly in other jobs. The same day I last oversaw newer guys handling pyro and needed to tell them repeatedly "don't do it that way, do it this way", at another location two people doing the same job died because they didn't follow the rules I was enforcing. They blew up their truck full of professional-sized pyro.
Individuals vary greatly, of course, but *on average*, women will be more comfortable than men in jobs where taking initiative is a bad thing. If you hired strictly on who will be safest, following the procedure and pick up the boxes of e-match, not slide them, people will use use anvil cutters, not scissors, etc. without getting pissed that they are being told how things need to be done, you'll end up with maybe 70% women and 30% men on your crew.
Protip: You don't have to press each letter separately on your phone; you can swipe across the keyboard and the phone will figure it out. Every once in a while it makes an error, tough. In business correspondence you may want to check for such errors. On Slashdot, I don't care.
Two bosses each have a budget of $1 million to hire people.
If it's true that their $1 million budget will hire either 8 men or 10 equally effective women*, any smart boss would hire the ten women. His department will be more productive and he'll get bonuses and promotions.
So it *is* his money, in the sense that it's his budget to spend on his team, and he'll be judged on the results.
There are some misogynistic manager, for sure. Maybe not many, but there are some. There are also other managers in the company, though, and other companies in the industry. Assuming the guy who mostly hires men is wrong, his department or company won't do as well as the other boss who hired those great women. The manager who hires the beer team will get the best results and will tend to get promoted, so high-ranking managers would tend to be people who selected the best employees.
* With the same salary, women cost a bit more. Women on average require more health care and that's why their insurance rates were 50% higher, on average. That was a direct cost to employers untill few years ago the law required insurers to ignore that fact and charge men and women the same. Maternity coverage is still optional in practice, though it's not supposed to be, as is mental health. That's a cost difference. The difference in medical issues also affects average time off, which is a cost to employers. Despite this, I've hired mostly women because more women are comfortable with the way I work. Men *typically* want more autonomy.
If you want to adjust for whatever you think the value of diversity is, fine - if you're the boss and you think it'll help your team be more effective, cool.
ALSO recognize there are other effects, if you want to the best performance. At my last job, my department shared a wing of the building with the accounting department. The accounting department was mostly women, including the CFO. My department was mostly men. In my department, we socialized by "giving each shit" - basically insulting each other, as male friends and co-workers do. We enjoyed some competition and it helped us do a better job. My boss, who was female, got along well in the culture of our department too - a culture that followed traditionally masculine norms.
The accounting department, mostly females, functioned differently. They didn't "give each shit" to socialize, rather they complimented each other, including "where did you get those great shoes?" That worked for them. The department of women had a way of working together based on how women normally interact, and it worked well.
My current job was similar. We had a good team, who helped each other a lot. We were learning a lot from each other. Then our team was combined with a team from another country, with a different culture. That has made daily Scrums, code reviews, and generally getting things done MUCH harder because in their culture you don't criticize someone's work and you definitely don't ever ask for help. We have to be very careful about learning from each other now because if you point out a different way to do something, somebody is going to get offended - it's insulting, in their culture. Don't offer to help when you have free time and relevant expertise - that means you're implying they are stupid or incompetent. The other team may have been doing great work using whatever social norms they used, but forced diversity has a real cost to our team. Just before combining with the other team, we also hired a guy from another country, with another set of norms about how team members should interact. It makes things tricky. Part of my job is training my team mates on some things. It's really hard to train the one guy who comes from another culture, because I don't understand how to relate to him, how to approach him.
Diversity has some benefits, and it has some costs. My boss at the last job wasn't a girlie girl. She enjoyed "hanging out with the guys", so it was a natural fit. The soft, sensitive guy who worked in accounting with the ladies my have been a natural fit too. Forcing "diversity", especially one man on a team of women or one woman in a team of men has some costs. I never thought about gender when I hired but if I'm ever in a position where I *have* to think about, I'd much rather have a fully balanced team of four women and four men than have only one "odd man out" in a team where everyone else is the opposite gender or culture, leading to one person not fitting in with how the team works.
Just FYI, thinking back over who I've hired, I've hired probably 65% women, 35% men, mostly because I hired for people working under my direct daily supervision and I'm an alpha, dominate personality. In other words, there was no question I was the boss and the leader. A nice, caring boss maybe, but very much the boss. I generally want things to be done my way. At least, learn my way and start by doing it my way,
then make changes only after you fully understand how I do it and why I do it that way. On average, more women are comfortable working in that type of than men. Men *generally tend* to want roles with more autonomy than what I hired for. The men generally didn't stick around as long as the women.
Thanks. I couldn't remember which school it was. I bet the same thing applies to Texas A&M with it's highly competitive veterinary school, but I was thinking that's not the famous instance.
It's interesting that even multiple peer-reviewed papers mention the lawsuit - the lawsuit that apparently never was. According to Peter Bickel, one of the statisticians who authored the original study, the graduate school dean was for some reason *afraid* they'd be sued, and asked Bickel to look into the statistic, which looked bad on prima facia. I don't know if there was a threat of a law suit or a rumor or whatever, but it seems you're right - whatever reason the associate dean had for worrying about a law suit, no suit ever went to trial that I can find.
Thanks again. Hopefully you'll be around next time I forget the name of the school, since I always forget, but I think I'll remember that there wasn't an actual law suit, or at least not one that was publicized.
This may be interesting to watch. Individual cases of discrimination are often like any other case there is direct evidence, or not. Class actions tend to rely on statistics and that always reminds me of a certain university case.
In the university case, the primary evidence brought by the plaintiffs was that the school accepted a significantly higher percentage of male applicants than female applicants. That seemed pretty clear-cut. If the school admits 60% of male applicants and 45% of females, that looks a lot like there may be systematic discrimination against women.
The school pointed out that EVERY department admitted a higher percentage of women than men, however. When every department admits 60% of female applicants and 45% of men that looks a lot like systematically favoring women - discrimination against men.
Here's what had happened. The school had one department that was highly regarded, with competitive admissions. I don't recall offhand what the department was, so for the sake of this discussion let's call it the nursing school. It just so happened that the best department, the department with the most competitive admissions, was a department with mostly women applying. Most people who applied to the nursing school we're not accepted, and most people who applied to the nursing program were women.
Most male applicants applied to other, less competitive programs at the school.
Women had a BETTER chance of getting into the nursing program than men did. Every department admitted women at a higher rate, but the school as a whole rejected more females because their nursing program was that good - they rejected more nursing applicants than other majors.
The sad lesson for university administrators - if you don't want to be accused of discrimination, make sure the programs that women enjoy aren't your best programs, which will make admissions more competitive.
> Storing an entire weeks worth of energy seems a little silly though honestly.
In the fall, it's not uncommon for a couple of large weather systems to cover over half the US in cloud cover for a few days. In another post on this story I linked to a satellite weather picture from a couple months go. That day the whole continental US was covered in clouds. In *normal* years, there will be one or two four-day periods in which solar electric produces hardly any energy. Some years there may be several, and they can certainly last a week. Consider rather recently two hurricanes hit the gulf back-to-back. After they came shore they dispersed into large cloud systems each covering a significant portion of the country.
Yeah it's not like you're going to win a world championship in the 400 meter relay and run track in the 2012 Summer Olympics if you don't even have any legs.
I feel sorry for the millions of NFL and MLB fans, who are all so severely disabled they can't go throw a catch a ball themselves.
Did you, for moment, forget most of human history, all the kings and queens, lords and ladies and all of that?
Compare Europe a couple hundred years ago, and over the last 2,000 years, to today. It's amazing. Suddenly just recently the paupers are mostly watching HD Netflix on their giant screens, rather than dying of malnourishment as they have through most of history.
More at
https://slashdot.org/comments....
> we'll fight it in vain for thousands, if not millions of years to come
That's one option. The Soviet communists decided to try fighting against greed and force people to share equally, to work hard at making great stuff, with no personal reward for themselves. It didn't work that well.
The other option is to recognize that "people want stuff, lots of stuff" as a fact, and then use that fact to accomplish worthwhile ends. In economics, there is a system designed along these lines:
The easiest way get lots of stuff (money) for yourself is to make stuff that other people want.
The more people like the stuff you make for them, the more money you get to keep.
So for example some guys named Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Sergey Brin all wanted lots of money. The way to gets lots of money, in this system, is to make lots of cool stuff for other people, stuff that everybody likes. Mobile gadget stuff was popular at the time, so they all tried to make better mobile gadgets than the other guy, and get them in the hands of lots of happy users. to see who could make the best stuff. Users hated the mobile stuff Bill and his team made, so his team wasn't rewarded with money to satisfy their greed. Steve Jobs's team made stuff people liked, so their greed was quenched by them getting lots of money. Then it was time for another round, to see who could make the best stuff for the most people again. All the teams are greedy and want lots of money, so they are trying really hard to make cool stuff for us.
In politics, people are greedy for power. In one system practiced for a thousand years or so, whoever was greedy for power would kill the other people who wanted power, and whoever was alive at the moment had some power, until they got killed. In the late 1700s a different system was designed. Like most systems, there was a top leader, but he would only have *some* powers. Other powers were given to an elite group of leaders, two from each state. Still other powers were given to a broader group of community leaders. Here's the trick to this system - the president can increase his appointment power and other powers mostly by taking over powers currently held by the Senate, a bunch of really rich guys who are power hungry and won't give their power away to the president easily. So the system is designed to use the Senate's hunger for power to keep the president's hunger for power in check. When the Senate tries to increase their power, such as by trying to initiate a tax bill, the House sends them a blue slip saying "no you can't do that - that's OUR power." In order for the House to keep their power for themselves, they have to keep the Senate in check. All these checks and balances without violence - the House just sends a blue slip telling the Senate "you can't do that" - nobody gets shot. Senators have their own blue slips they use to limit the President's appointment power.
These systems recognizes that that people's greed for money and power is a fact and it's unlikely to ever change, so they use people's desire for money and power and put those desires to work doing something useful.
> This true for all currency. It only has value because you believe it does.
At the end of the day, for most US citizens with some type of income, if you don't acquire some dollars the government will take your stuff and maybe throw you in jail. Taxes can only be paid in dollars, and most people need to pay taxes in order to avoid rather unpleasant consequences eventually. The IRS may only send letters for five years or so, but eventually they get serious. That makes dollars valuable.
Even if you personally take the risk of not paying taxes, Alice and Bob both pay taxes, so they want dollars. They'll give you stuff if you give them dollars. That makes dollars valuable to you, because you can use them to get stuff from Alice and Bob, who will use the dollars to pay their taxes.