I think the joke is the same as everyone who calls an AC they don't want to bother addressing the content of "Vlad" or "Ivan." The next comment down from here is DRJlaw doing just that.
Funny how much you complain when the shoe is on the other foot.
Not likely. A.R.S. says the pedestrian has a duty to yield outside of crossings. It's damned hard to see pedestrians crossing in black at night. And yes, I have seen that before.
I'd delete my FB account over this, but... I never made one in the first place. Selling our private data has always been their business model and I've been using various extensions to prevent them from siphoning the info from me since the beginning because it was so damned obvious.
The real problem, though, is how they siphon your data from your friends & relatives and you can't do much about that because you never gave it to FB to begin with. So it's about 10 years too late to be scandalized by all this, but hey, maybe we'll at least get some privacy out of it? Though I really doubt that. Politicians have a way of exempting themselves from any impact.
It's hilarious because just the other day, Ars Technica in their article on him "losing", despite dropped the NLRB bit a long time ago, linked people to what they claimed was the "full" version on Gizmodo. Yes, the one with no citations... And now that I check back, I find there's no longer any link to the memo at all, so I'm wondering if they did a stealth edit or there's another story.
So they're STILL pulling this same damned trick.
That said, it's funny how they highlight that the NLRB decided that two, well-studied & supported scientific claims happen to be "sexist" so I wonder if we can even do science now.
Wyden was always reliable on this sort of issue. If you search his name, you'll see a lot of past stories not unlike this one on various encryption or privacy issues.
Surprised you don't know his name, Wyden has always been good on issues like encryption and is too often one of the very few voices of reason in Congress on some of these issues.
That's what I get from reading Damore's complaint. They are alleged to hold segregated events and even hold blacklists of various types, up to and including security alerts when someone with dangerous opinions arrives on a Google campus.
There's also the fact that you basically *can't* find an unedited memo with most simple Google searches. They promote a bunch of news articles offering opinions about it. I have to use non-Google search engines to find it.
You can find the memo here for anyone curious about it.
Just to be clear, that's his complaint, not an indictment.
I tend to agree that it looks to me like Google created a hostile workplace, but we should, in all fairness, withhold judgement until Google weighs in as well and any additional facts come out.
The reason for bringing up different preferences and saying they lead to people developing different average skill levels in groups was to find a non-discriminatory way to make Google more woman-friendly, not to write a bunch of sneaky insults. That is, instead of trying to reject more male candidates, they could try to make the job less isolating than sit in a cube for 60+ hours with minimal interaction.
But people were introduced to it as an "anti-diversity screed" which causes an anchoring bias, even though Damore's goal was to present ideas on how to help women be better represented in tech by making the job nicer. Somehow that point continually gets lost and many stories don't even bother to link to Damore's memo.
The basic idea is that a classification of ideas ("this statement is sexist") tells us nothing about the state of the real world ("this statement is true/false.").
A lot of places don't have that much competition to choose from. And many of the choices end up being kinda crappy. We really need both ways to increase real competition and to stop the ISPs from controlling who can visit what online, or we'll end up with some nonsense like long distance internet charges in a generation.
I'm surprised my submission on Donald Trump winning isn't higher on the list, honestly, given that it has the unfair advantage of somehow being a related story for damned near every story on here for the past year. Some of the stories it sorta makes sense, but I know there were more than a few stories where I wondered how it could possibly be related.
So, you're saying that elections would be so much better if foreigners weren't allowed to talk about them on the internet? Or that we should only be lied to by American pundits & politicians?
The emails only hurt Hillary because they were true. In fact, my personal opinion is that this email is the one that lost her the election. Don't give me that "they were altered BS." Donna Brazille was already caught lying about that, I have posted the DKIM keys taken from Hillary's own damned DNS server here on Slashdot which validate the email content. So if you dare trot out that idiotic lie, as others have before, you can be proven mathematically wrong as DKIM provides non-repudiation and enough Slashdotters know what that means to mercilessly mock anyone idiotic enough too make this suggestion in the face of cryptographic proof to the contrary.
I think it comes from identifying people as part of some group with certain common positions on a subject, then getting confused over who does & doesn't share that opinion.
> You appreciate that it is possible to criticise feminism without being sexist, right?
Yes, but I haven't found many other people willing to admit to it. For what it's worth, I apologize for the misunderstanding. I had heard the charge of sexism from so many, I did not realize you weren't one of those making it.
If I read your post as a whole, you end up saying that you think he's making straw man arguments against feminism, but that's not sexist?
I read it as saying that all one-dimensional claims are overly simplistic, regardless of which one-dimensional claims are being made. The tweets appear to be separate, as is usual of Twitter conversations. But don't you think it's a bit weird to label a call for more discussion of nuance as a straw-man? His whole point is to stop making this an adversarial, moralistic thing and to try to cooperate to make things better for everyone in the interests of fairness.
Which is weird because I would have thought that's what you wanted. I'm not wrong, about that, am I?
> Whatever else the guy is, he is monumentally stupid for expressing a forbidden opinion inside the company. I'd fire him as well, for doing something so damn stupid.
It's funny how when you disagree with him, you try to say that he's sexist, but not that he's wrong. So many people have this mental shortcut that leaps from from X is _ist to X is wrong and there appears to be no attempt to consult with reality to see what is or isn't the case. This may surprise you, but there's nothing that prevents reality from being uncomfortable.
If you're going to dispute him, you should actually argue against his sources. I find it weird that you left the sources out of your quotes, almost as if they were invisible to you, though I will give you credit for linking to his Twitter. Here they are the same quotes, with sources, in context -
Well, the Quora article is interesting. But it's weird how it takes Damore's statement about things not being absolute and goes on to say that... it's not absolute.
Damore: "On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed " Quora: "His implicit model is that cognitive traits must be either biological (i.e. innate, natural, and unchangeable) or non-biological (i.e., learned by a blank slate). This nature versus nurture dichotomy is completely outdated and nobody in the field takes it seriously."
They're agreeing with him but claiming to disagree. He's saying it's not all biological. That does NOT imply that everything is therefore personality, turning this into a binary distinction is the Quora writer is stuffing words in his mouth. Also, Quora takes a section talking about interest and turns that into a statement about ability:
Damore: "I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions." Quora: "At what point did we jump from talking about personalities to abilities? "
He was talking about interest, not ability, here. Even the Economist, when discussing that part, realizes he didn't actually say that, writing: "Then you make a giant leap from group differences between men and women on such measures as interest in people rather than things, or systematising versus empathising, to differences in men’s and women’s ability to code. At least that’s what you seem to be doing; you don’t quite say so."
This is a really low trick, to stuff words in someone's mouth, inventing evil motivations, and then arguing against those imaginary intentions instead of any idea you can actually point to in his writing. Quora actually does this multiple times, claiming him to be variously alt-right, racist, etc. without basis.
Frankly, in the Economist, we run into trouble right at the very start where they write:
"You’re probably expecting me to start by claiming that there are no differences in the average abilities, aptitudes and interests of men and women. Or that the fact that four times as many of Google’s software engineers are men than are women is proof of discrimination."
The sentiment here is reasonable. The problem is that the second statement contradicts what a "disparate impact" analysis does. Just look here at the 80% rule and tell me that 80% isn't four times as much as 20%... So yes, that absolutely would be considered evidence by the courts anywhere that this disparate impact analysis is applied.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the joke is the same as everyone who calls an AC they don't want to bother addressing the content of "Vlad" or "Ivan." The next comment down from here is DRJlaw doing just that.
Funny how much you complain when the shoe is on the other foot.
So if "destabilizing us" is the problem, doesn't that mean that #resist are unwitting (?) Russian agents?
I mean, here's an album of what the Russian trolls were posting.
Apparently the Russians were colluding with BLM, who knew? Is that why you guys always call out to your buddy Ivan?
Not likely. A.R.S. says the pedestrian has a duty to yield outside of crossings. It's damned hard to see pedestrians crossing in black at night. And yes, I have seen that before.
I'd delete my FB account over this, but... I never made one in the first place. Selling our private data has always been their business model and I've been using various extensions to prevent them from siphoning the info from me since the beginning because it was so damned obvious.
The real problem, though, is how they siphon your data from your friends & relatives and you can't do much about that because you never gave it to FB to begin with. So it's about 10 years too late to be scandalized by all this, but hey, maybe we'll at least get some privacy out of it? Though I really doubt that. Politicians have a way of exempting themselves from any impact.
It's weird what Reddit considers 'toxic', too. I mean, for some odd reason, they don't appear to have any issue with these subs...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Shoplifting/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Stealing/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Pickpocket/
It's hilarious because just the other day, Ars Technica in their article on him "losing", despite dropped the NLRB bit a long time ago, linked people to what they claimed was the "full" version on Gizmodo. Yes, the one with no citations... And now that I check back, I find there's no longer any link to the memo at all, so I'm wondering if they did a stealth edit or there's another story.
So they're STILL pulling this same damned trick.
That said, it's funny how they highlight that the NLRB decided that two, well-studied & supported scientific claims happen to be "sexist" so I wonder if we can even do science now.
Wyden was always reliable on this sort of issue. If you search his name, you'll see a lot of past stories not unlike this one on various encryption or privacy issues.
We could use more people in Congress like him.
Surprised you don't know his name, Wyden has always been good on issues like encryption and is too often one of the very few voices of reason in Congress on some of these issues.
That's what I get from reading Damore's complaint. They are alleged to hold segregated events and even hold blacklists of various types, up to and including security alerts when someone with dangerous opinions arrives on a Google campus.
There's also the fact that you basically *can't* find an unedited memo with most simple Google searches. They promote a bunch of news articles offering opinions about it. I have to use non-Google search engines to find it.
You can find the memo here for anyone curious about it.
Just to be clear, that's his complaint, not an indictment.
I tend to agree that it looks to me like Google created a hostile workplace, but we should, in all fairness, withhold judgement until Google weighs in as well and any additional facts come out.
Damore is talking about a big 5 personality trait with neuroticism, not a mental illness.
The reason for bringing up different preferences and saying they lead to people developing different average skill levels in groups was to find a non-discriminatory way to make Google more woman-friendly, not to write a bunch of sneaky insults. That is, instead of trying to reject more male candidates, they could try to make the job less isolating than sit in a cube for 60+ hours with minimal interaction.
But people were introduced to it as an "anti-diversity screed" which causes an anchoring bias, even though Damore's goal was to present ideas on how to help women be better represented in tech by making the job nicer. Somehow that point continually gets lost and many stories don't even bother to link to Damore's memo.
The basic idea is that a classification of ideas ("this statement is sexist") tells us nothing about the state of the real world ("this statement is true/false.").
But you don't have to take my word for it.
It's funny how often people say "that's racist" or "that's sexist" but don't actually even try to refute whether or not the statement is true.
Then again, most people probably think that Hume's fork is something you'd use to eat a salad.
A lot of places don't have that much competition to choose from. And many of the choices end up being kinda crappy. We really need both ways to increase real competition and to stop the ISPs from controlling who can visit what online, or we'll end up with some nonsense like long distance internet charges in a generation.
Now load all of these submissions into a Markov chain and spin some text and you'll see more or less what actual AI written stuff looks like.
I'm surprised my submission on Donald Trump winning isn't higher on the list, honestly, given that it has the unfair advantage of somehow being a related story for damned near every story on here for the past year. Some of the stories it sorta makes sense, but I know there were more than a few stories where I wondered how it could possibly be related.
So, you're saying that elections would be so much better if foreigners weren't allowed to talk about them on the internet? Or that we should only be lied to by American pundits & politicians?
The emails only hurt Hillary because they were true. In fact, my personal opinion is that this email is the one that lost her the election. Don't give me that "they were altered BS." Donna Brazille was already caught lying about that, I have posted the DKIM keys taken from Hillary's own damned DNS server here on Slashdot which validate the email content. So if you dare trot out that idiotic lie, as others have before, you can be proven mathematically wrong as DKIM provides non-repudiation and enough Slashdotters know what that means to mercilessly mock anyone idiotic enough too make this suggestion in the face of cryptographic proof to the contrary.
I think it comes from identifying people as part of some group with certain common positions on a subject, then getting confused over who does & doesn't share that opinion.
I was going to suggest removing the plug, but this would be more useful.
> You appreciate that it is possible to criticise feminism without being sexist, right?
Yes, but I haven't found many other people willing to admit to it. For what it's worth, I apologize for the misunderstanding. I had heard the charge of sexism from so many, I did not realize you weren't one of those making it.
If I read your post as a whole, you end up saying that you think he's making straw man arguments against feminism, but that's not sexist?
I read it as saying that all one-dimensional claims are overly simplistic, regardless of which one-dimensional claims are being made. The tweets appear to be separate, as is usual of Twitter conversations. But don't you think it's a bit weird to label a call for more discussion of nuance as a straw-man? His whole point is to stop making this an adversarial, moralistic thing and to try to cooperate to make things better for everyone in the interests of fairness.
Which is weird because I would have thought that's what you wanted. I'm not wrong, about that, am I?
> Whatever else the guy is, he is monumentally stupid for expressing a forbidden opinion inside the company. I'd fire him as well, for doing something so damn stupid.
Should consult with the lawyers first before you do such things. In addition to the NLRB complaints, he might have a California state law claim because they prohibit discrimination based on political activities or affiliations.
It's funny how when you disagree with him, you try to say that he's sexist, but not that he's wrong. So many people have this mental shortcut that leaps from from X is _ist to X is wrong and there appears to be no attempt to consult with reality to see what is or isn't the case. This may surprise you, but there's nothing that prevents reality from being uncomfortable.
If you're going to dispute him, you should actually argue against his sources. I find it weird that you left the sources out of your quotes, almost as if they were invisible to you, though I will give you credit for linking to his Twitter. Here they are the same quotes, with sources, in context -
"Canâ(TM)t we all just agree that women having more sexual capital than men has its positives and negatives?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_capital
"Feminist women are more masculine than average, which may explain why most women don't identify as feminists:"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4158978/
And here's the quote you left off of that image:
"One dimensional models of group âoeoppressionâ are only useful for twisting reality to fit political agendas, not for understanding/improving."
Did you not realize that he's criticizing that image for being one-dimensional, rather than supporting its message?
Well, the Quora article is interesting. But it's weird how it takes Damore's statement about things not being absolute and goes on to say that... it's not absolute.
Damore: "On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed "
Quora: "His implicit model is that cognitive traits must be either biological (i.e. innate, natural, and unchangeable) or non-biological (i.e., learned by a blank slate). This nature versus nurture dichotomy is completely outdated and nobody in the field takes it seriously."
They're agreeing with him but claiming to disagree. He's saying it's not all biological. That does NOT imply that everything is therefore personality, turning this into a binary distinction is the Quora writer is stuffing words in his mouth. Also, Quora takes a section talking about interest and turns that into a statement about ability:
Damore: "I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions."
Quora: "At what point did we jump from talking about personalities to abilities? "
He was talking about interest, not ability, here. Even the Economist, when discussing that part, realizes he didn't actually say that, writing: "Then you make a giant leap from group differences between men and women on such measures as interest in people rather than things, or systematising versus empathising, to differences in men’s and women’s ability to code. At least that’s what you seem to be doing; you don’t quite say so."
This is a really low trick, to stuff words in someone's mouth, inventing evil motivations, and then arguing against those imaginary intentions instead of any idea you can actually point to in his writing. Quora actually does this multiple times, claiming him to be variously alt-right, racist, etc. without basis.
Frankly, in the Economist, we run into trouble right at the very start where they write:
"You’re probably expecting me to start by claiming that there are no differences in the average abilities, aptitudes and interests of men and women. Or that the fact that four times as many of Google’s software engineers are men than are women is proof of discrimination."
The sentiment here is reasonable. The problem is that the second statement contradicts what a "disparate impact" analysis does. Just look here at the 80% rule and tell me that 80% isn't four times as much as 20%... So yes, that absolutely would be considered evidence by the courts anywhere that this disparate impact analysis is applied.