He makes many propositions on how to improve the well being of both men and women at google, chiefly he advocates for the reduction of stress or the intruduction of pair programming. If anything his memo came of as a bit too progressive and too forcedly PC. He sounded as if he was walking on eggshells, making sure not to intrude into anyones safespace.
If he had said "we have reached a plateau and I think this is the reason why things are not continuing to improve for women at Google" it would have been fine
Would his memo have been better received if he had claimed that we should just go one as if nothing was wrong?
Instead he ignores that things are getting better
ok, go on...
and that things used to be even better when the proportion of women in CS was much higher
How the hell does that even make remotely sense? Things are getting better but they were even better once? would things not have to be worse to become better first? Is the percentage of women in tech unacceptably low or is it not? Not to mention that the proportion of women vs. men is misleading: Today more women than ever before are working in tech, its just that the total number of men has increased faster than the total number of women.
He ignores that in some cultures women and girls don't fit these averages that he maintains are likely biological.
From historical data, particularly from east-bloc states from before and after the fall of the iron curtain, we know that the percentage of women in tech tends to decrease once they have more choices. The decrease was measurable in Russia, but it was truly massive in the GDR, the soviet part of Germany. Now of course we could go back to having people pressured into assigned jobs or risk arrest by the states secret police, but that seems somewhat... non-optimal. The presence of large percentage of women in tech often correlates with pressure, weather direct or merely economical. Remove the pressure and the percentage drops.
but I think at best you could say that show shows some naivety, with his apparent unfamiliarity with decades of research and how these arguments were considered and rejected multiple times in the relatively recent past.
Is that why he quotes so many academic papers and findings? Or did you actually only read the censored version that was spread in the mainstream media where they "accidentally" removed all the academic stuff he had so carefully researched?
Unless you can argue precisely and based on the collected data why such an event should only, and apparently suddenly, occur after more than 4C warming, I will stick to the assumptions and predictions of established climate science until new evidence becomes available.
Because thats how you get people to ignore global warming.
Meanwhile we had a 1.5C increase in the last 250 years: http://berkeleyearth.org/data/ (I like those guys because of Richard Muller who is not afraid to change sides if the data contradicts his theory)
They estimate that there could be another 1.5C increase within the next 50 years, so 7.8 is completely ridiculous as that would mean almost double that.
Alarmist news like those may be well intentioned in trying to wake people up to the real dangers of CC, but in the end they will just dull the senses of the public to the doom and gloom of it all. Worst, people tend to realize that occasionally they are being lied to or fed exaggerations and may even come to reject CC completely because of that.
Thats odd, why does this timeline start only at 20000 bc when earth and therefore weather is billions of years old (well, granted weather might be a bit younger). We know of multiple ice ages and of multiple "hot periods", some of which were indeed hotter than today, fruit trees were found near the arctic circle for example. Those would not have grown there if it had not been much, much warmer than today.
Yes, the warming in our time is almost surely man-made, nonetheless this graphic reeks of intellectual dishonesty.
He is not anti-diversity, even though the mainstream media like to repeat this as if it had any basis in reality, in fact he comes up with many interesting ways to increase diversity. Its the current methods that do not work at google for increasing diversity that he is criticizing.
Also linking the original, unmodified memo might be a good idea too:
All those screaming conservatives inside Google, the place where he originally put that memo before some offended otherkin-snowflake leaked it to the outside of google you mean?
Yeah I bet all those conservative will now wreak havoc inside google. Both of them!
Its not wrongthink, its provably false, unscientific and too often plain dishonesty. You cannot deliberately make up things, put words into the mouth of that engineer and not expect some moderation consequences when people realize that.
Someone once said "Freedom of expression does not mean freedom of consequences". I wonder who that was...
As already mentioned above, women ARE on average more neurotic. Feel free to use google scholar to confirm that.
That women are less suited to the job is an invention of you and not of him. On the contrary he welcomes women programmers, as he writes, but criticizes the way google aims for a strict 50/50 gender equality.
Or data that would disprove the fact that women chose to avoid stem-related fields when they get a chance? The original was an article about the development in east germany after the wall fell and suddenly all the girls stopped being interested in STEM-related fields even though now they were not assigned to their future job (and thus university subject) but could chose freely. Turns out that many chose more "fulfilling" but lower paying jobs. Its possible that this article was in german, hence why google is not finding it when I search for it using english words.
Yes that must be it, and not the observable fact that the more the labor market becomes free, the less girls go into technical fields. Data set: The development of pretty much every single countries in the former Iron curtain states before and after it fell. Before they were told where and what to work, afterwards they could chose freely. End result: less girls in engineering.
So far every single "rebuttal" from google and outside, every autistic screeching, every angry tweet and call for his firing and public outing simply confirms what he said.
Instead to tackling the deep issues of PC culture they are trying to kill the messenger. The very existence of a VP for diversity at an engineering company should be a wake up call. And lets not even get to her asinine "arguments" that are anything but. Sara Meis response is even worse actually (not that I thought it could be possible). Instead of citing data that disproves his arguments (protip: does not exist, neither does the wage gap) she puts words in his mouth ("conclusions that favor his ego") and implies that he did not arrive to those conclusions by observation but apparently HAD to work backwards.
Exactly. Allowing the background to be in focus would not have reduced the quality of the picture and would have been better for the viewers who care about such details.
It is you who seem to confuse things: I mentioned renaissance statues but neoclassic paintings. Those are at least 250 years apart. Example of the first: Pieta by Michelangelo, Example of the second: Oath of the Horatii Those ladies in the background certainly are not necessary. Or even better (quality-wise) the stuff by Edward Blair Leighton. Notice all the "unnecessary" details in the background of his pictures which makes them stand out against the hacks and quacks of the later impressionists, expressionsists and all the various other shitpressionists that came later.
Grain and noise is even worse, you may as well scratch your picture once its printed out and scan it in again. You are basically downgrading your equipement in the name of "aesthetics", not something related to common sense in any way or form. But I guess such things are quite rampant in the world of art, if I look at what passes for art nowadays. Compare for example todays paintings and sculptures with those sculptures of the renaissance where artists went out of their way to add even details like thin cloth on body all using marble. Or the paintings of neo-classicism.
Nonsense. Nothing more annoying than having a half-blurry photo. If the object really is the only thing interesting in the photo, why not cut it out and paste it on a black background instead? And if that fails, have some neon-colored text in comic-sans "This is important" with an arrow pointed to the object. Honestly I think most people are just overcomplicating things needlessly.
Depth of field is some artsy-fartsy garbage like black-white instead of color. In video games its a crude hack to mask the failures of the engine, together with motion blur and 30fps for "cinematic experience".
Let the viewers decide for themselves what details in the photograph is important to them.
What counts is the picture quality, the light sensitivity of the sensor combined with its resistance to optical noise (common problem with smaller CCDs).
Honestly this argument that DoF contributes to the quality reminds me of the same bogus about tube-amplifier having a "warmer" sound. This ignores that the warmness is actually just a distortion (i.e. an error) that sounds pleasant. An amplifier should reproduce the input signal as accurate as possible. Distorting it is then the job of the equalizer.
Iphone is Hardware, Android is Software. How could a serious comparison be made? Yes, I am aware that the writer probably meant "Iphone is years ahead of smartphones running android" but that just shows the faults in his argument.
Imagine I make a movie-grade camera which runs android (not too far off, considering the wealth of functions those cameras tend to have): Boom, now "Android" is at least 30 years ahead of any Iphone.
First: blatant advertisement which makes me a sad panda.
Second: Their technology is nothing new or revolutionary and not fit for actually useful parts either. The whole things is, in the end, still just pressure less sintering with less binding material than other 3D printers. Problem: Sintered parts are not very robust. They might make paperweights with that technique but never, lets say, tubine engine blades.
It is quite unfortunate as a suitable technology already exists but is still rather obscure: LENS (laser engineered net shaping) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Because of the beam pressure, the parts are as robust as if they were forged.
Unfortunately there is not all that much literature on this topic, but I did find one pdf article: http://www.sandia.gov/mst/pdf/...
What exactly would consist as upping the ante? They are already trying to murder people for voting for the wrong guy. There is a professor that has been caught on video using a very heavy bike lock to crack skulls. What would be "more radicalized" than yelling "kill all whites", "Die cis scum" and many other nasty slogans? Because this is whats happening right now. Backed and emboldened by the mainstream media those domestic terrorists have lost all restraint. Just look up "Berkeley riots" on google (and maybe try to avoid media that are proud of being to the left of Karl Marx).
Do we load rubber bullets and pepper spray when we send out special forces to neutralize terrorists for fear that they would "up the ante"?
I am not talking about how much we remember (application layer) or how much we think we remember, but about the raw storage capacity of our brain (physical layer) here the capacity is enormous. Consider: to our current understanding, information is not stored in neurons but in circuits of neurons. We have 100 billion neurons and each can link to up to 10000 other neurons. I have not found any indicator as to up to how many neurons can form one circuit, but suffice to say that the possible number of circuits is very, very high. In fact without some knowledge of combinatorics and set theory, I dont think its possible to count them. Now lets assume that each circuit can only have two states: on and off. This itself is a gross simplification of reality. Now you can start to estimate how many Tera-, Peta-, Exa- or whateverbytes the brain can hold.
About the planes: Even while using every trick possible they are still vastly inferior when it comes to efficiency compared to birds. Birds fly, planes fly, thats where the similarities end. Not to mention that flying is simpler to archive than intelligence by many orders of magnitudes.
This whole AI debates seems like someone in the 10th century warning about the dangers of global thermonuclear war after seeing a black powder rocket. Yeah sure, eventually it became a concern but it took a very very long time. If the last AI winter has taught us anything then that we should not expect the AI development to move very fast.
We have some understanding of the brain: Its estimated storage capacity alone would require a computer the size of a small moon alone, assuming its built with current storage media. The computing capacity of 100 billion tiny parallel processor alone is another aspect.
Planes were never meant to fly "like birds", or how many wpm does the new Airbus 380 do? (wingflaps per minute).
The idea that suddenly, magically, something new appears which makes our neuronal nets of a few simplified neurons perform like a net of 100 billion natural neurons is just ridiculous. Maybe my firework rocket will suddenly reach the moon, but chances are slim.
yes, also if we had zero point energy modules we would all be living in a star-trek like utopia.
The operative word is always IF. Right now any of those technologies you described comes with massive drawbacks or is simply not invented yet and there is nothing on the horizon which could suggest when it could be invented (unlike fusion for example).
Let me give you a few examples: - Drones only work in very specific scenarios: No AA, underdeveloped compatants. and even then they are shot down or malfunction with a certain regularity. - We do NOT actually have the technology to always (99.999%) recognize humans. Remember the little scandal a few years ago when Googles AI "recognized" blacks as apes? Right now you could draw a human face on the ground and the drone would unload all ammo on it. - swarms are nice for small flyers like quad/hexacopters, not 20m long battle drones. Physics itself (turbulences) prevents them from flying in anything resembling a swarm. - We have no such spread out, explore and take out algorithms outside of lab conditions and advertising movies for military companies. - solar is not powerful enough (not even if we had 100% efficiency) and nuclear would make the drone an even bigger target)
And now the biggest kicker: Renewable munition does not exist and there is nothing, even theoretical, which could make this possible. Also stealth, quietness and closeness to the ground are kinda mutually exclusive. Stealth always means radar stealth. Too deep and you are tracked by infrared simply by the exhaust heat. Fly higher and you need a supercomputer to do the whole image processing and target recognition on the ground.
This is like taking the data from horse breeding programs of the 19th century and extrapolating that horses today would run at 150km/h and all the world would drown in horse manure. Reality does not obey our predictions.
Slashdot Mirror
Non sequitur.
He makes many propositions on how to improve the well being of both men and women at google, chiefly he advocates for the reduction of stress or the intruduction of pair programming. If anything his memo came of as a bit too progressive and too forcedly PC. He sounded as if he was walking on eggshells, making sure not to intrude into anyones safespace.
If he had said "we have reached a plateau and I think this is the reason why things are not continuing to improve for women at Google" it would have been fine
Would his memo have been better received if he had claimed that we should just go one as if nothing was wrong?
Instead he ignores that things are getting better
ok, go on...
and that things used to be even better when the proportion of women in CS was much higher
How the hell does that even make remotely sense?
Things are getting better but they were even better once? would things not have to be worse to become better first? Is the percentage of women in tech unacceptably low or is it not?
Not to mention that the proportion of women vs. men is misleading: Today more women than ever before are working in tech, its just that the total number of men has increased faster than the total number of women.
He ignores that in some cultures women and girls don't fit these averages that he maintains are likely biological.
From historical data, particularly from east-bloc states from before and after the fall of the iron curtain, we know that the percentage of women in tech tends to decrease once they have more choices. The decrease was measurable in Russia, but it was truly massive in the GDR, the soviet part of Germany.
Now of course we could go back to having people pressured into assigned jobs or risk arrest by the states secret police, but that seems somewhat... non-optimal.
The presence of large percentage of women in tech often correlates with pressure, weather direct or merely economical. Remove the pressure and the percentage drops.
but I think at best you could say that show shows some naivety, with his apparent unfamiliarity with decades of research and how these arguments were considered and rejected multiple times in the relatively recent past.
Is that why he quotes so many academic papers and findings?
Or did you actually only read the censored version that was spread in the mainstream media where they "accidentally" removed all the academic stuff he had so carefully researched?
Unless you can argue precisely and based on the collected data why such an event should only, and apparently suddenly, occur after more than 4C warming, I will stick to the assumptions and predictions of established climate science until new evidence becomes available.
Because thats how you get people to ignore global warming.
Meanwhile we had a 1.5C increase in the last 250 years: http://berkeleyearth.org/data/ (I like those guys because of Richard Muller who is not afraid to change sides if the data contradicts his theory)
This here only talks about the recent findings:
http://berkeleyearth.org/berke... (2014-2015ish)
They estimate that there could be another 1.5C increase within the next 50 years, so 7.8 is completely ridiculous as that would mean almost double that.
source on the 1.5C/50years: https://www.quora.com/Why-did-...
Alarmist news like those may be well intentioned in trying to wake people up to the real dangers of CC, but in the end they will just dull the senses of the public to the doom and gloom of it all. Worst, people tend to realize that occasionally they are being lied to or fed exaggerations and may even come to reject CC completely because of that.
Thats odd, why does this timeline start only at 20000 bc when earth and therefore weather is billions of years old (well, granted weather might be a bit younger).
We know of multiple ice ages and of multiple "hot periods", some of which were indeed hotter than today, fruit trees were found near the arctic circle for example. Those would not have grown there if it had not been much, much warmer than today.
Yes, the warming in our time is almost surely man-made, nonetheless this graphic reeks of intellectual dishonesty.
He is not anti-diversity, even though the mainstream media like to repeat this as if it had any basis in reality, in fact he comes up with many interesting ways to increase diversity. Its the current methods that do not work at google for increasing diversity that he is criticizing.
Also linking the original, unmodified memo might be a good idea too:
https://diversitymemo.com/
https://assets.documentcloud.o...
And for those that use Zeronet:
http://127.0.0.1:43110/1MUeJj6...
This is what drives people away from mainstream media and leads them to label them wholesale as fake news.
All those screaming conservatives inside Google, the place where he originally put that memo before some offended otherkin-snowflake leaked it to the outside of google you mean?
Yeah I bet all those conservative will now wreak havoc inside google.
Both of them!
Its not wrongthink, its provably false, unscientific and too often plain dishonesty.
You cannot deliberately make up things, put words into the mouth of that engineer and not expect some moderation consequences when people realize that.
Someone once said "Freedom of expression does not mean freedom of consequences".
I wonder who that was...
As already mentioned above, women ARE on average more neurotic.
Feel free to use google scholar to confirm that.
That women are less suited to the job is an invention of you and not of him. On the contrary he welcomes women programmers, as he writes, but criticizes the way google aims for a strict 50/50 gender equality.
Why makes you think they don't exist?
Have you actually tried looking for evidence to the contrary of your beliefs?
The wage gap you mean?
http://www.washingtonexaminer....
http://time.com/3222543/wage-p...
Or data that would disprove the fact that women chose to avoid stem-related fields when they get a chance?
The original was an article about the development in east germany after the wall fell and suddenly all the girls stopped being interested in STEM-related fields even though now they were not assigned to their future job (and thus university subject) but could chose freely. Turns out that many chose more "fulfilling" but lower paying jobs. Its possible that this article was in german, hence why google is not finding it when I search for it using english words.
In the meantime I found something similar:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/q...
I actually had 9gag in mind.
Well its interesting to see that the cancer that is PC-culture has spread even here.
Interesting and very sad.
My thoughts exactly, although I had hoped that this time its was simply done randomly because the dice of ad-hominem had fallen on it.
Yes that must be it, and not the observable fact that the more the labor market becomes free, the less girls go into technical fields. Data set: The development of pretty much every single countries in the former Iron curtain states before and after it fell. Before they were told where and what to work, afterwards they could chose freely. End result: less girls in engineering.
So far every single "rebuttal" from google and outside, every autistic screeching, every angry tweet and call for his firing and public outing simply confirms what he said.
Instead to tackling the deep issues of PC culture they are trying to kill the messenger.
The very existence of a VP for diversity at an engineering company should be a wake up call.
And lets not even get to her asinine "arguments" that are anything but. Sara Meis response is even worse actually (not that I thought it could be possible). Instead of citing data that disproves his arguments (protip: does not exist, neither does the wage gap) she puts words in his mouth ("conclusions that favor his ego") and implies that he did not arrive to those conclusions by observation but apparently HAD to work backwards.
Bloomberg had a nice article on this a while back:
(Apparently they paywalled it so Im posting the google cache version)
https://webcache.googleusercon...
Exactly. Allowing the background to be in focus would not have reduced the quality of the picture and would have been better for the viewers who care about such details.
It is you who seem to confuse things: I mentioned renaissance statues but neoclassic paintings. Those are at least 250 years apart.
Example of the first: Pieta by Michelangelo, Example of the second: Oath of the Horatii Those ladies in the background certainly are not necessary. Or even better (quality-wise) the stuff by Edward Blair Leighton. Notice all the "unnecessary" details in the background of his pictures which makes them stand out against the hacks and quacks of the later impressionists, expressionsists and all the various other shitpressionists that came later.
I wasnt aware that they had cameras with DoF either.
You basically confirm my point.
Grain and noise is even worse, you may as well scratch your picture once its printed out and scan it in again.
You are basically downgrading your equipement in the name of "aesthetics", not something related to common sense in any way or form.
But I guess such things are quite rampant in the world of art, if I look at what passes for art nowadays.
Compare for example todays paintings and sculptures with those sculptures of the renaissance where artists went out of their way to add even details like thin cloth on body all using marble. Or the paintings of neo-classicism.
Nonsense.
Nothing more annoying than having a half-blurry photo.
If the object really is the only thing interesting in the photo, why not cut it out and paste it on a black background instead?
And if that fails, have some neon-colored text in comic-sans "This is important" with an arrow pointed to the object.
Honestly I think most people are just overcomplicating things needlessly.
Depth of field is some artsy-fartsy garbage like black-white instead of color.
In video games its a crude hack to mask the failures of the engine, together with motion blur and 30fps for "cinematic experience".
Let the viewers decide for themselves what details in the photograph is important to them.
What counts is the picture quality, the light sensitivity of the sensor combined with its resistance to optical noise (common problem with smaller CCDs).
Honestly this argument that DoF contributes to the quality reminds me of the same bogus about tube-amplifier having a "warmer" sound. This ignores that the warmness is actually just a distortion (i.e. an error) that sounds pleasant. An amplifier should reproduce the input signal as accurate as possible. Distorting it is then the job of the equalizer.
Iphone is Hardware, Android is Software. How could a serious comparison be made?
Yes, I am aware that the writer probably meant "Iphone is years ahead of smartphones running android" but that just shows the faults in his argument.
Imagine I make a movie-grade camera which runs android (not too far off, considering the wealth of functions those cameras tend to have): Boom, now "Android" is at least 30 years ahead of any Iphone.
First: blatant advertisement which makes me a sad panda.
Second: Their technology is nothing new or revolutionary and not fit for actually useful parts either.
The whole things is, in the end, still just pressure less sintering with less binding material than other 3D printers.
Problem: Sintered parts are not very robust. They might make paperweights with that technique but never, lets say, tubine engine blades.
It is quite unfortunate as a suitable technology already exists but is still rather obscure: LENS (laser engineered net shaping) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Because of the beam pressure, the parts are as robust as if they were forged.
Unfortunately there is not all that much literature on this topic, but I did find one pdf article:
http://www.sandia.gov/mst/pdf/...
What exactly would consist as upping the ante?
They are already trying to murder people for voting for the wrong guy. There is a professor that has been caught on video using a very heavy bike lock to crack skulls.
What would be "more radicalized" than yelling "kill all whites", "Die cis scum" and many other nasty slogans? Because this is whats happening right now. Backed and emboldened by the mainstream media those domestic terrorists have lost all restraint. Just look up "Berkeley riots" on google (and maybe try to avoid media that are proud of being to the left of Karl Marx).
Do we load rubber bullets and pepper spray when we send out special forces to neutralize terrorists for fear that they would "up the ante"?
I am not talking about how much we remember (application layer) or how much we think we remember, but about the raw storage capacity of our brain (physical layer) here the capacity is enormous. Consider: to our current understanding, information is not stored in neurons but in circuits of neurons. We have 100 billion neurons and each can link to up to 10000 other neurons. I have not found any indicator as to up to how many neurons can form one circuit, but suffice to say that the possible number of circuits is very, very high. In fact without some knowledge of combinatorics and set theory, I dont think its possible to count them.
Now lets assume that each circuit can only have two states: on and off. This itself is a gross simplification of reality. Now you can start to estimate how many Tera-, Peta-, Exa- or whateverbytes the brain can hold.
About the planes: Even while using every trick possible they are still vastly inferior when it comes to efficiency compared to birds. Birds fly, planes fly, thats where the similarities end. Not to mention that flying is simpler to archive than intelligence by many orders of magnitudes.
This whole AI debates seems like someone in the 10th century warning about the dangers of global thermonuclear war after seeing a black powder rocket.
Yeah sure, eventually it became a concern but it took a very very long time.
If the last AI winter has taught us anything then that we should not expect the AI development to move very fast.
We have some understanding of the brain: Its estimated storage capacity alone would require a computer the size of a small moon alone, assuming its built with current storage media.
The computing capacity of 100 billion tiny parallel processor alone is another aspect.
Planes were never meant to fly "like birds", or how many wpm does the new Airbus 380 do? (wingflaps per minute).
The idea that suddenly, magically, something new appears which makes our neuronal nets of a few simplified neurons perform like a net of 100 billion natural neurons is just ridiculous.
Maybe my firework rocket will suddenly reach the moon, but chances are slim.
yes, also if we had zero point energy modules we would all be living in a star-trek like utopia.
The operative word is always IF.
Right now any of those technologies you described comes with massive drawbacks or is simply not invented yet and there is nothing on the horizon which could suggest when it could be invented (unlike fusion for example).
Let me give you a few examples:
- Drones only work in very specific scenarios: No AA, underdeveloped compatants. and even then they are shot down or malfunction with a certain regularity.
- We do NOT actually have the technology to always (99.999%) recognize humans. Remember the little scandal a few years ago when Googles AI "recognized" blacks as apes? Right now you could draw a human face on the ground and the drone would unload all ammo on it.
- swarms are nice for small flyers like quad/hexacopters, not 20m long battle drones. Physics itself (turbulences) prevents them from flying in anything resembling a swarm.
- We have no such spread out, explore and take out algorithms outside of lab conditions and advertising movies for military companies.
- solar is not powerful enough (not even if we had 100% efficiency) and nuclear would make the drone an even bigger target)
And now the biggest kicker: Renewable munition does not exist and there is nothing, even theoretical, which could make this possible.
Also stealth, quietness and closeness to the ground are kinda mutually exclusive. Stealth always means radar stealth. Too deep and you are tracked by infrared simply by the exhaust heat. Fly higher and you need a supercomputer to do the whole image processing and target recognition on the ground.
This is like taking the data from horse breeding programs of the 19th century and extrapolating that horses today would run at 150km/h and all the world would drown in horse manure.
Reality does not obey our predictions.