For some people, it is so hard to understand the actions of a good and decent person that they need to find a criticism to make themselves feel better.
Or not (as a VERY small number of people have chosen to do) - everybody has their price, and he clearly wasn't offered enough.
Not everyone has their price. Although that has more to do with what other options a person has access to. I make good money in a career I enjoy, so even an extra $100k in salary wouldn't get me to do a job I hate or that I'm morally opposed to. But if I was making minimum wage, I would likely take a job I was morally opposed to for a $100k raise. Once you're high enough on Maslow's hierarchy of basic needs, it takes for less sacrifice to do what you consider to be the right thing.
Really? I've had a decent career without having to give presentations to hostile audiences. Some smaller, less formal stuff, sure, but but what is being described here.
Not everyone needs every skill they are taught in school throughout their career. It doesn't make those skills unimportant to learn, because if it did there would be nearly nothing worth teaching. Also I don't know how old you are or how far into your career you are, but if you are only in your 30's or 40's you might not have even reached the point in your career where presentations become more common.
Outcasts and misfits? What the hell are you smoking?
You're insane if you let your kids on social media. All they do is harass and bully one another via such mediums. Keep them off social media and you reduce their target surface.
And if you don't let them out of the house, you reduce their target surface for a number of physical crimes which they could be victim of. Some bubble wrap could also do wonders to prevent injuries within the home as well. Letting your kids experience such a dangerous world would be insane.
This and obesity are the two most serious problems facing our citizenry, in my opinion.
So... famine, lack of potable water and crushing poverty in vast regions of the globe fall under rank #3 and below?
My guess is that jpaine619 lives in the US, so "problems facing our citenzry" likely means "problems facing US citizens." I agree that lack of potable water and crushing poverty are not the most serious problems within the US. Not because other problems are of greater magnitude to those harmed by them, but because their are relatively few people who have those problems in the US.
However the issue of 40 hours vs. 32 hours is more of a case of human ability vs. technology. 40 hours 8 hours a day for 5 days a week. is an easy to manage number. However having employees work 5 days a week at 6+ hours or 4 days a week at 8 hours. It solves the employee life problems, but it is just difficult for the company to manage coverage. This we can probably use computers to help calculate.
The same was probably said about the current status quo back when 6 days a week 10-12 hours a day was the norm. Companies will simply adapt. 24 hour staffing is just as easy with 6 hour days as 8 hour days; you just have 4 shifts instead of 3. And eventually Friday or Monday would be considered just another weekend, similar to what happened to Saturday 100 years ago.
Nobody has yet come up with a remotely serious idea that even has a chance at ousting the PC.
I don't think that is true, it's just the current implementations aren't sufficient. I believe docking stations for mobile phones have a very good chance of ousting the PC, and these do already exist. Performance for such a small device is still an issue, although that may not be true much longer. Convergence between mobile OS/apps and the PC counterparts is another obstacle which could also go away soon.
While I doubt software developers or graphic designers would be trading away their PCs and laptops any time soon, a significant percentage of people could probably perform their day to day tasks with smartphone level performance if they had a monitor, keyboard, and mouse connected to it.
They are just a different form factor for convenience when performing different tasks. PCs, tablets, and smartphones are destined for convergence.
Those two statements appear to be at opposition with each other. The fact that these devices have different form factors to conveniently perform different tasks is why they will not converge. They will continue to be very similar, and perhaps the OS and apps on the devices will converge, but ultimately there is a reason each form factor exists. To use a car analogy, it is similar to why we have sedans, SUV / minivans, and trucks. Each are very similar, and often share the same frames and internal components. But they each will continue to exist because they make certain activities more convenient.
I should clarify this is at least true for mobile vs PC, since a good argument could be made that tablet sales are suffering because larger phones are causing these form factors to converge. I for one have bought two tablets in the past but probably never will again since my 6"+ mobile phone does the job well enough.
If it took you two minutes to read 74 words, you need to work on your reading skills.
That includes skimming through the story again to see if you just missed the entire point of the article. It probably took another minute to verify there really was no point.
The full article is paywalled, but reading the summary is a complete waste of time. Of course there are difficulties with conference calls. I doubt anyone really enjoys the format. But you need to have other solutions before saying we should just do away with them.
Conference calls serve a necessary purpose. I would certainly prefer to meet with all of my coworkers / partners / clients face to face for every meeting, but no one is going to spend $10k for a status meeting with a client across the country.
I bike to work most days and don't consider any of that time "wasted" -- I spend less time in the gym and more time on my bike, and I look forward to the bike ride home, sitting in traffic in my car is no fun.
Then again if you bike to work, you are among the few who have very short commutes. I have a 40 minute commute, but it would be an 175 minute commute by bike.
Honestly the Open Wifi argument shouldn't really be needed. Using an IP address as the only evidence for a crime is simply ridiculous. Not much different than your car being at the scene being all it takes to convict you of a crime.
An IP address or MAC address would be a reasonable cause for a search warrant, but if investigators never find more information than just an IP address the case should clearly be dropped. This had to of been one of the easiest cases for this court of appeals in a long while.
So if reality has a liberal bias then GMOs are the devil, vaccines cause autism and there are no biological differences between males and females? Oh, and a new one I found out yesterday is that apparently race isn't based on biology either.
Idiot.
There are certainly falsehoods believed by groups on both sides of the political spectrum, and in the recent past it could be argued the crazies on both sides were fairly equal. But unfortunately today the far right has went so far off the deep end there is no comparison. Lets look at some of your examples.
Liberals do tend to have unfounded anti-GMO biases, which while misguided are still based on some solid scientific concerns. Compare that to Conservatives and their antagonistic views on global climate change, which go against an effectively unanimous backing from the scientific community.
Anti-vaccination concerns started out with a tiny section of liberals, but today these concerns are roughly equally shared by the far left and far right. Even here, one side is merely anti-corporation where the other is more generally anti-science. Both are misguided, but the far right is driven as usual from its anti-intellectual beliefs.
No liberals I have ever read about believe there are no biological differences between men and women. They simply follow the research which shows biology is not a prime driver of gender inequities in our society. Compare that to conservatives who still believe gender is a binary condition, and the far right is clearly less educated in their beliefs here as well.
Certified Fresh = The Last Jedi with a 93% critics approval.
Put the exclamation point on that "Certified Fresh" doesn't mean anything.
While I agree with much of the criticism over The Last Jedi, I still see their 93% rotten tomato score as the site working correctly. The movie was still entertaining, and I'm still glad I saw it. Also most of my gripes had more to do with my level of "fanboyism" which I would never expect these rating sites to adhere to.
These scores are not going to guarantee you will like the movie. At best they validate you will most likely enjoy the movie if it fits within a genre you enjoy. A high enough score (especially on metacritic) would likely mean you will enjoy it if you don't normally like that genre.
It would be interesting to see a rating site that gave you a log in and had to rate 100+ movies yourself on a 1-5. Then it can check how each reviewer reviewed those movies and give you your own weighted score for each movie. If only I had more time for a side project.
When these sorts of sweetheart deals have been analyzed, it's generally been found that the promised benefits to the local economy are much more anemic than hoped. But, yeah, it's not like Amazon is behaving any differently than any other company (or sports team, or...)
And it's not like that is different than any product sold by any company ever. Whether buying a software suite, a car, or shampoo, if you blindly go by what a salesman or marketing campaign tells you then you will be swindled every time.
We need more home grown doctors. I don't know about the rest of/. but I'm getting older. Right now we've been able to poach doctors from poorer countries but those countries are modernizing so that's not going to last forever.
We are facing a shortage of doctors, but training more doctors is unlikely to be the best answer to the problem. We need to offload work currently done by doctors to other staff who don't need as much training. I doubt it takes 6 years of post-bachelor training to diagnose a toddler's ear infection. It won't be easy to make such a transition in our medical industry, but it may be less painful than medical costs increasing 5%+ higher than inflation every year.
The media industry exists because they have persuaded the corporate and political worlds that persuasion works and that the media industry knows best how to persuade.
I have worked closely with many marketing campaigns over the year, and they really do work. It can be hard to tell what works, and it isn't as easy as spend $20 on ads to make $30, but marketing and advertising are effect ways to influence people. Worldwide companies aren't spending half a trillion dollars per year on marketing for nothing.
At one point it was noted that Trump had $1.2 million on hand vs Hillary Clinton's had $42.4 million
While that may have been true at one point in the election, actual spending by both candidates (and super pacs) was $1.2 billion for Clinton and $650 million for Trump source.
If there is anything the 2016 election in the US taught us it is that political ads... aren't all that relevant.
What is probably should teach us is that paid political ads aren't all that relevant. Free advertising in social media and new channels are far more relevant. One marketing research firm estimates that Trump benefited from $4.96 billion in free advertising while Clinton benefited from $3.24 billion. Both of these figures are far higher than any money they directly spent. And when added together Trump received nearly $1.2 billion more pro-Trump advertising than Clinton did.
Who knows if that 26% higher advertising figure tipped the election towards Trump, but only about 1 in 200 voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin essentially tipped the scales and declared Trump the winner. One thing is for sure, if an extra $1 billion in advertising (paid or free) cannot persuade an extra 0.5% of the electorate, then advertising truly is meaningless.
It's not common in the US. The whole medical bankruptcy is the most common reason for bankruptcy was a myth. There were slightly more bankruptcies in 2017 than in 2007, so obviously Obamacare didn't have some huge effect on reducing them, either. In terms of total bankruptcy, In 2001, 1.45 million households filed for bankruptcy. In 2007, that number was 727,167.
(Posting as AC as I already moderated in the discussion earlier).
That is quite some cherry picking of data used by you and that article, considering 2007 had a record low number of bankruptcy filings. To put it into context, 2006 had 1,085,209 non-business filings, 2007 had 775,344 filings, and 2008 had 1,004,171. 2007 was an aberration as the trend from 2005-2010 was an increase of over 100,000 more non-business bankruptcy filings per year. After it peaked in 2010, it has been reducing by about 125,000 filings per year from 2010-2016. 2017 potentially has shown an end to that trend, as filings only dropped by 13,400.
Just to be clear, non-business bankruptcies have been cut in half since Obamacare took effect. That is not just because of Obamacare, since the Great Recession was a large driver of bankruptcies in 2009/2010, but it is still a significant factor. Even if you compare today's bankruptcies to 2005-2007 (before the recession, it has been a nearly 20% drop in non-business bankruptcies. And considering the population is 10% higher today than in 2006, the drop is even more dramatic.
The fact the story you cited used such skewed and cherry picked data puts a cloud over everything else it states. Its obvious the author had an agenda, even if it was just to be provocative. Considering it goes against the strong consensus regarding the prevalence of medical bankruptcies, it isn't surprising the author needed to fudge the numbers to come to those conclusions.
As long there is strong regulation behind it keep things honest and upfront. No-small-print capitalism.
These surveys are more likely a result of ambiguous definitions behind capitalism and socialism. If you think of Scandanavia as socialism then you will probably have a better opinion of socialism than if you are thinking about China/USSR.
My guess is nearly everyone who disliked capitalism and like socialism thinks Sweden is a socialist country and that Communism was merely a perversion of socialism.
Try the alternative. Medical bankruptcy is pretty common.
Common where? I'm sure that it happens, but I'm in my mid 60's and no one I've ever known even slightly has had a medical bankruptcy.
Common in the US. Depending on how you define a "medical bankruptcy", estimates range from 250,000 - 640,000 medical bankruptcies per year in the US. Split the difference and you have just under half a million medical bankruptcies per year, or about 1 in 300 households per year. Considering less than 20% of bankruptcy filers are repeat filers, my guess is only around 1 in 150-200 households ever declare a medical bankruptcy.
I'm not sure how many households you are close enough with for them to admit a medical bankruptcy with you, but it could easily be under 200. Medical bankruptcies can certainly affect millions of people per year and you could still not really notice it in your life. That doesn't mean it isn't happening though.
Wow! I guess all the tomato hothouses here in the Oxnard, CA area are stupid for upping their CO2 levels to > 1000 PPM! Who knew that growth of plants plateaus at 500 PPM - someone better tell NOAA!
The 500 PPM value came from a story about wheat and rice, and did mention it is different for different plants (corn is even lower). The article appeared to be focusing more on the large cash crops.
I was referencing the only actual figures given in the article, which show culturally diverse board of directors perform even better than companies that are only culturally diverse at the rank and file level. Since the article does show gender diversity is not as important as cultural diversity, you would expect the benefit of a gender diverse board to be lower.
Considering transgender women are even more rare than other women, if a few transgender women are added to the board as well it will only improve diversity further. Same would go for adding a transgender man to the board and counting him as a woman.
Slashdot Mirror
For some people, it is so hard to understand the actions of a good and decent person that they need to find a criticism to make themselves feel better.
Or not (as a VERY small number of people have chosen to do) - everybody has their price, and he clearly wasn't offered enough.
Not everyone has their price. Although that has more to do with what other options a person has access to. I make good money in a career I enjoy, so even an extra $100k in salary wouldn't get me to do a job I hate or that I'm morally opposed to. But if I was making minimum wage, I would likely take a job I was morally opposed to for a $100k raise. Once you're high enough on Maslow's hierarchy of basic needs, it takes for less sacrifice to do what you consider to be the right thing.
Really? I've had a decent career without having to give presentations to hostile audiences. Some smaller, less formal stuff, sure, but but what is being described here.
Not everyone needs every skill they are taught in school throughout their career. It doesn't make those skills unimportant to learn, because if it did there would be nearly nothing worth teaching. Also I don't know how old you are or how far into your career you are, but if you are only in your 30's or 40's you might not have even reached the point in your career where presentations become more common.
Outcasts and misfits? What the hell are you smoking?
You're insane if you let your kids on social media. All they do is harass and bully one another via such mediums. Keep them off social media and you reduce their target surface.
And if you don't let them out of the house, you reduce their target surface for a number of physical crimes which they could be victim of. Some bubble wrap could also do wonders to prevent injuries within the home as well. Letting your kids experience such a dangerous world would be insane.
This and obesity are the two most serious problems facing our citizenry, in my opinion.
So... famine, lack of potable water and crushing poverty in vast regions of the globe fall under rank #3 and below?
My guess is that jpaine619 lives in the US, so "problems facing our citenzry" likely means "problems facing US citizens." I agree that lack of potable water and crushing poverty are not the most serious problems within the US. Not because other problems are of greater magnitude to those harmed by them, but because their are relatively few people who have those problems in the US.
However the issue of 40 hours vs. 32 hours is more of a case of human ability vs. technology. 40 hours 8 hours a day for 5 days a week. is an easy to manage number. However having employees work 5 days a week at 6+ hours or 4 days a week at 8 hours. It solves the employee life problems, but it is just difficult for the company to manage coverage. This we can probably use computers to help calculate.
The same was probably said about the current status quo back when 6 days a week 10-12 hours a day was the norm. Companies will simply adapt. 24 hour staffing is just as easy with 6 hour days as 8 hour days; you just have 4 shifts instead of 3. And eventually Friday or Monday would be considered just another weekend, similar to what happened to Saturday 100 years ago.
Nobody has yet come up with a remotely serious idea that even has a chance at ousting the PC.
I don't think that is true, it's just the current implementations aren't sufficient. I believe docking stations for mobile phones have a very good chance of ousting the PC, and these do already exist. Performance for such a small device is still an issue, although that may not be true much longer. Convergence between mobile OS/apps and the PC counterparts is another obstacle which could also go away soon.
While I doubt software developers or graphic designers would be trading away their PCs and laptops any time soon, a significant percentage of people could probably perform their day to day tasks with smartphone level performance if they had a monitor, keyboard, and mouse connected to it.
They are just a different form factor for convenience when performing different tasks. PCs, tablets, and smartphones are destined for convergence.
Those two statements appear to be at opposition with each other. The fact that these devices have different form factors to conveniently perform different tasks is why they will not converge. They will continue to be very similar, and perhaps the OS and apps on the devices will converge, but ultimately there is a reason each form factor exists. To use a car analogy, it is similar to why we have sedans, SUV / minivans, and trucks. Each are very similar, and often share the same frames and internal components. But they each will continue to exist because they make certain activities more convenient.
I should clarify this is at least true for mobile vs PC, since a good argument could be made that tablet sales are suffering because larger phones are causing these form factors to converge. I for one have bought two tablets in the past but probably never will again since my 6"+ mobile phone does the job well enough.
If it took you two minutes to read 74 words, you need to work on your reading skills.
That includes skimming through the story again to see if you just missed the entire point of the article. It probably took another minute to verify there really was no point.
The full article is paywalled, but reading the summary is a complete waste of time. Of course there are difficulties with conference calls. I doubt anyone really enjoys the format. But you need to have other solutions before saying we should just do away with them.
Conference calls serve a necessary purpose. I would certainly prefer to meet with all of my coworkers / partners / clients face to face for every meeting, but no one is going to spend $10k for a status meeting with a client across the country.
I bike to work most days and don't consider any of that time "wasted" -- I spend less time in the gym and more time on my bike, and I look forward to the bike ride home, sitting in traffic in my car is no fun.
Then again if you bike to work, you are among the few who have very short commutes. I have a 40 minute commute, but it would be an 175 minute commute by bike.
Honestly the Open Wifi argument shouldn't really be needed. Using an IP address as the only evidence for a crime is simply ridiculous. Not much different than your car being at the scene being all it takes to convict you of a crime.
An IP address or MAC address would be a reasonable cause for a search warrant, but if investigators never find more information than just an IP address the case should clearly be dropped. This had to of been one of the easiest cases for this court of appeals in a long while.
> the research which shows biology is not a prime driver of gender inequities in our society
what kind of fucking bullshit is this?
Just try reading to the end of the sentence next time.
So if reality has a liberal bias then GMOs are the devil, vaccines cause autism and there are no biological differences between males and females? Oh, and a new one I found out yesterday is that apparently race isn't based on biology either.
Idiot.
There are certainly falsehoods believed by groups on both sides of the political spectrum, and in the recent past it could be argued the crazies on both sides were fairly equal. But unfortunately today the far right has went so far off the deep end there is no comparison. Lets look at some of your examples.
Liberals do tend to have unfounded anti-GMO biases, which while misguided are still based on some solid scientific concerns. Compare that to Conservatives and their antagonistic views on global climate change, which go against an effectively unanimous backing from the scientific community.
Anti-vaccination concerns started out with a tiny section of liberals, but today these concerns are roughly equally shared by the far left and far right. Even here, one side is merely anti-corporation where the other is more generally anti-science. Both are misguided, but the far right is driven as usual from its anti-intellectual beliefs.
No liberals I have ever read about believe there are no biological differences between men and women. They simply follow the research which shows biology is not a prime driver of gender inequities in our society. Compare that to conservatives who still believe gender is a binary condition, and the far right is clearly less educated in their beliefs here as well.
Certified Fresh = The Last Jedi with a 93% critics approval.
Put the exclamation point on that "Certified Fresh" doesn't mean anything.
While I agree with much of the criticism over The Last Jedi, I still see their 93% rotten tomato score as the site working correctly. The movie was still entertaining, and I'm still glad I saw it. Also most of my gripes had more to do with my level of "fanboyism" which I would never expect these rating sites to adhere to.
These scores are not going to guarantee you will like the movie. At best they validate you will most likely enjoy the movie if it fits within a genre you enjoy. A high enough score (especially on metacritic) would likely mean you will enjoy it if you don't normally like that genre.
It would be interesting to see a rating site that gave you a log in and had to rate 100+ movies yourself on a 1-5. Then it can check how each reviewer reviewed those movies and give you your own weighted score for each movie. If only I had more time for a side project.
When these sorts of sweetheart deals have been analyzed, it's generally been found that the promised benefits to the local economy are much more anemic than hoped. But, yeah, it's not like Amazon is behaving any differently than any other company (or sports team, or ...)
And it's not like that is different than any product sold by any company ever. Whether buying a software suite, a car, or shampoo, if you blindly go by what a salesman or marketing campaign tells you then you will be swindled every time.
We need more home grown doctors. I don't know about the rest of /. but I'm getting older. Right now we've been able to poach doctors from poorer countries but those countries are modernizing so that's not going to last forever.
We are facing a shortage of doctors, but training more doctors is unlikely to be the best answer to the problem. We need to offload work currently done by doctors to other staff who don't need as much training. I doubt it takes 6 years of post-bachelor training to diagnose a toddler's ear infection. It won't be easy to make such a transition in our medical industry, but it may be less painful than medical costs increasing 5%+ higher than inflation every year.
The media industry exists because they have persuaded the corporate and political worlds that persuasion works and that the media industry knows best how to persuade.
I have worked closely with many marketing campaigns over the year, and they really do work. It can be hard to tell what works, and it isn't as easy as spend $20 on ads to make $30, but marketing and advertising are effect ways to influence people. Worldwide companies aren't spending half a trillion dollars per year on marketing for nothing.
At one point it was noted that Trump had $1.2 million on hand vs Hillary Clinton's had $42.4 million
While that may have been true at one point in the election, actual spending by both candidates (and super pacs) was $1.2 billion for Clinton and $650 million for Trump source.
If there is anything the 2016 election in the US taught us it is that political ads... aren't all that relevant.
What is probably should teach us is that paid political ads aren't all that relevant. Free advertising in social media and new channels are far more relevant. One marketing research firm estimates that Trump benefited from $4.96 billion in free advertising while Clinton benefited from $3.24 billion. Both of these figures are far higher than any money they directly spent. And when added together Trump received nearly $1.2 billion more pro-Trump advertising than Clinton did.
Who knows if that 26% higher advertising figure tipped the election towards Trump, but only about 1 in 200 voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin essentially tipped the scales and declared Trump the winner. One thing is for sure, if an extra $1 billion in advertising (paid or free) cannot persuade an extra 0.5% of the electorate, then advertising truly is meaningless.
It's not common in the US. The whole medical bankruptcy is the most common reason for bankruptcy was a myth. There were slightly more bankruptcies in 2017 than in 2007, so obviously Obamacare didn't have some huge effect on reducing them, either. In terms of total bankruptcy, In 2001, 1.45 million households filed for bankruptcy. In 2007, that number was 727,167.
(Posting as AC as I already moderated in the discussion earlier).
That is quite some cherry picking of data used by you and that article, considering 2007 had a record low number of bankruptcy filings. To put it into context, 2006 had 1,085,209 non-business filings, 2007 had 775,344 filings, and 2008 had 1,004,171. 2007 was an aberration as the trend from 2005-2010 was an increase of over 100,000 more non-business bankruptcy filings per year. After it peaked in 2010, it has been reducing by about 125,000 filings per year from 2010-2016. 2017 potentially has shown an end to that trend, as filings only dropped by 13,400.
Just to be clear, non-business bankruptcies have been cut in half since Obamacare took effect. That is not just because of Obamacare, since the Great Recession was a large driver of bankruptcies in 2009/2010, but it is still a significant factor. Even if you compare today's bankruptcies to 2005-2007 (before the recession, it has been a nearly 20% drop in non-business bankruptcies. And considering the population is 10% higher today than in 2006, the drop is even more dramatic.
The fact the story you cited used such skewed and cherry picked data puts a cloud over everything else it states. Its obvious the author had an agenda, even if it was just to be provocative. Considering it goes against the strong consensus regarding the prevalence of medical bankruptcies, it isn't surprising the author needed to fudge the numbers to come to those conclusions.
As long there is strong regulation behind it keep things honest and upfront. No-small-print capitalism.
These surveys are more likely a result of ambiguous definitions behind capitalism and socialism. If you think of Scandanavia as socialism then you will probably have a better opinion of socialism than if you are thinking about China/USSR.
My guess is nearly everyone who disliked capitalism and like socialism thinks Sweden is a socialist country and that Communism was merely a perversion of socialism.
Try the alternative. Medical bankruptcy is pretty common.
Common where? I'm sure that it happens, but I'm in my mid 60's and no one I've ever known even slightly has had a medical bankruptcy.
Common in the US. Depending on how you define a "medical bankruptcy", estimates range from 250,000 - 640,000 medical bankruptcies per year in the US. Split the difference and you have just under half a million medical bankruptcies per year, or about 1 in 300 households per year. Considering less than 20% of bankruptcy filers are repeat filers, my guess is only around 1 in 150-200 households ever declare a medical bankruptcy.
I'm not sure how many households you are close enough with for them to admit a medical bankruptcy with you, but it could easily be under 200. Medical bankruptcies can certainly affect millions of people per year and you could still not really notice it in your life. That doesn't mean it isn't happening though.
Wow! I guess all the tomato hothouses here in the Oxnard, CA area are stupid for upping their CO2 levels to > 1000 PPM! Who knew that growth of plants plateaus at 500 PPM - someone better tell NOAA!
The 500 PPM value came from a story about wheat and rice, and did mention it is different for different plants (corn is even lower). The article appeared to be focusing more on the large cash crops.
I was referencing the only actual figures given in the article, which show culturally diverse board of directors perform even better than companies that are only culturally diverse at the rank and file level. Since the article does show gender diversity is not as important as cultural diversity, you would expect the benefit of a gender diverse board to be lower.
Considering transgender women are even more rare than other women, if a few transgender women are added to the board as well it will only improve diversity further. Same would go for adding a transgender man to the board and counting him as a woman.