The games business is notorious for terrible working conditions, terrible management, and a huge percentage of coworkers who are just plain jerks.
Bad management means you have low job security and a high chance your work will end up getting thrown away when the project is cancelled.
And whether your coworkers are jerks because they're misogynistic, or because they're trolls, or because they're SJWs, or because they're divas, or because they're just social misfits, it still sucks dealing with jerks all the time.
On the other hand, it's a growing business, so even a bad job might lead to a good opportunity eventually.
None the less, these tax breaks are really just a prisoner's dilemma.
Every competitive situation is a "prisoner's dilemma"?
State offer them because other states offer them, but they would all be better off if no one offered them, and factories were optimally placed based on other factors.
Lots of business just wouldn't happen at all because it's not worthwhile to take risks for a tiny after-tax ROI. Businesses can decide to build nothing new and employ no one new. And very often they decide just that.
States are better off with employed citizens, even if that means some government people can't cash in on other people's work.
So? Governments don't exist to make a profit, and businesses don't exist to pay taxes.
Businesses exist to provide goods and services for a profit, which is easier if taxes are low.
Governments exist to serve the citizens, which is easier if the citizens have economically productive work -- like when the governments decide not to drive the businesses away with high taxes.
Seems like both are doing the right thing to accomplish their purpose.
The government of the State of Wisconsin doesn't exist to "break even" or make a profit. They exist to serve the people in the state. A huge factory directly employs thousands, and indirectly employs many more at support businesses and businesses that will provide goods and services for Foxconn employees.
If Wisconsin becomes a prime location for manufacturing of display panels, it will be a huge win for the people of the state, regardless of whether Foxconn ever pays a dime in tax.
... all of the mainstream media reports are summarizing his argument as "not biologically fit" for tech roles.
So the mainstream media are liars, especially in the US. Also water is wet.
If this is a new understanding to you (or to anyone), let me be the first to welcome you into the realm of light -- where we see what's around us and think for ourselves rather than closing our eyes and listening to propaganda.
In general, if you write a '10 page manifesto' about anything, you are probably going to come off as a nutjob and probably won't go well for you professionally.
Solved. It's now called an "essay". So there's no problem.
You should try to come up with something better than things described with negative-sounding words are bad. It's really a poor argument and a poor thought process.
Isn't climate change more-or-less a solved problem now?
Non-carbon energy sources are trending towards being cheaper than fossil fuels sources before 2040. Maybe long before. Until then, cheap natural gas is displacing coal.
Gasoline usage in the developed world has largely leveled off and a large percentage of future vehicles will be electric. The majority of local trips may be electric long before 2040. More cities in developing countries are pushing electric vehicles to solve air quality problems.
Measured rates or warming are coming in at or below the low end of predictions.
So it will warm slowly for a couple decades, carbon emissions will peak and then start falling faster than they rose. It should all add up to a very limited amount of warming.
There is something sad about a PHD in biology getting fired for stating a biological opinion supported by other PHDs in biology
But that's the ideal situation for a political inquisition. Facts and expertise don't matter, only obedience. And now that should be 100% clear to everyone.
Unless his employment contract says otherwise, his employment is "at will" and Google can fire him for any legal reason, or for no reason. It is generally legal to fire someone because you don't agree with them, and that happens all the time.
not one post from the "he speaks the truth!" crowd have bothered to actually advance his point with actual data. Instead, all we see are whiny crying of "PC culture!!".
Because PC culture is an immediate threat, and distributional differences among genders is an academic topic (or it would be if PC culture didn't forbid its academic discussion).
And talking about distributional difference among genders gets you fired, whereas complaining about PC culture apparently doesn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Medical Doctors then? I'm sure they know a lot about 5G communications.
Appeal to minorities and all genders but don't set quotas.
So just don't write down the numbers then.
They should have hired homeless people instead?
I honestly wonder what management is hoping to achieve here.
Setting up a legal defense for future lawsuits by women and minorities.
The games business is notorious for terrible working conditions, terrible management, and a huge percentage of coworkers who are just plain jerks.
Bad management means you have low job security and a high chance your work will end up getting thrown away when the project is cancelled.
And whether your coworkers are jerks because they're misogynistic, or because they're trolls, or because they're SJWs, or because they're divas, or because they're just social misfits, it still sucks dealing with jerks all the time.
On the other hand, it's a growing business, so even a bad job might lead to a good opportunity eventually.
None the less, these tax breaks are really just a prisoner's dilemma.
Every competitive situation is a "prisoner's dilemma"?
State offer them because other states offer them, but they would all be better off if no one offered them, and factories were optimally placed based on other factors.
Lots of business just wouldn't happen at all because it's not worthwhile to take risks for a tiny after-tax ROI. Businesses can decide to build nothing new and employ no one new. And very often they decide just that.
States are better off with employed citizens, even if that means some government people can't cash in on other people's work.
Roads, schools and police exist to serve the people, the people don't exist to serve the roads, schools, and police.
So? Governments don't exist to make a profit, and businesses don't exist to pay taxes.
Businesses exist to provide goods and services for a profit, which is easier if taxes are low.
Governments exist to serve the citizens, which is easier if the citizens have economically productive work -- like when the governments decide not to drive the businesses away with high taxes.
Seems like both are doing the right thing to accomplish their purpose.
The government of the State of Wisconsin doesn't exist to "break even" or make a profit. They exist to serve the people in the state. A huge factory directly employs thousands, and indirectly employs many more at support businesses and businesses that will provide goods and services for Foxconn employees.
If Wisconsin becomes a prime location for manufacturing of display panels, it will be a huge win for the people of the state, regardless of whether Foxconn ever pays a dime in tax.
...the cost of not doing so would have been much higher.
I see. Don't be evil ... unless being evil has a cost advantage.
It's a tech news site. Alternative offerings to Intel CPUs are big news. I think most of the announcements and releases are done now though.
More importantly, why is Slashdot posting random commentary?
Obviously the answer is so they can troll us with alarming climate numbers.
Exactly. Why are we listening to what random non-scientists say might happen?
... all of the mainstream media reports are summarizing his argument as "not biologically fit" for tech roles.
So the mainstream media are liars, especially in the US. Also water is wet.
If this is a new understanding to you (or to anyone), let me be the first to welcome you into the realm of light -- where we see what's around us and think for ourselves rather than closing our eyes and listening to propaganda.
So you think people saying I feel bad about what people are pretending was written in this memo should be a governing factor in whether he gets fired?
Thanks for clearly siding against facts and justice.
In general, if you write a '10 page manifesto' about anything, you are probably going to come off as a nutjob and probably won't go well for you professionally.
Solved. It's now called an "essay". So there's no problem.
You should try to come up with something better than things described with negative-sounding words are bad. It's really a poor argument and a poor thought process.
Isn't climate change more-or-less a solved problem now?
Non-carbon energy sources are trending towards being cheaper than fossil fuels sources before 2040. Maybe long before. Until then, cheap natural gas is displacing coal.
Gasoline usage in the developed world has largely leveled off and a large percentage of future vehicles will be electric. The majority of local trips may be electric long before 2040. More cities in developing countries are pushing electric vehicles to solve air quality problems.
Measured rates or warming are coming in at or below the low end of predictions.
So it will warm slowly for a couple decades, carbon emissions will peak and then start falling faster than they rose. It should all add up to a very limited amount of warming.
Not yet, but it's an ideal every Google employee has a supreme moral and professional duty to strive for.
There is something sad about a PHD in biology getting fired for stating a biological opinion supported by other PHDs in biology
But that's the ideal situation for a political inquisition. Facts and expertise don't matter, only obedience. And now that should be 100% clear to everyone.
Political movements are supposed to have specific positions and organize around those positions. It's not "ironic".
...because the right has itself become an ideological echo chamber. ... Maybe 20% women in programming *is* the natural equilibrium.
That's cute. You think disapproving of "the right" will save you from the inquisition.
Google CEO said yesterday:
To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive..
So all Google employees either have identical biology or it's impossible for biological factors to influence work performance at Google.
And if you disagree you'll be excommunicated and shunned.
Sounds like you haven't read the Google Employee Handbook.
Unless his employment contract says otherwise, his employment is "at will" and Google can fire him for any legal reason, or for no reason. It is generally legal to fire someone because you don't agree with them, and that happens all the time.
Here's an alternate legal opinion.
Whether you are correct or this guy from this article, proving you acted legally can sometimes be very, very expensive.
So please join me, along with members of the leadership team at a town hall on Thursday
Meeting is in Room 101. Remember to bring your copy of Google's Employee Handbook.
not one post from the "he speaks the truth!" crowd have bothered to actually advance his point with actual data. Instead, all we see are whiny crying of "PC culture!!".
Because PC culture is an immediate threat, and distributional differences among genders is an academic topic (or it would be if PC culture didn't forbid its academic discussion).
And talking about distributional difference among genders gets you fired, whereas complaining about PC culture apparently doesn't.