Part of the regulation is for the benefit of residents, and removing it causes problems. Hotels have some degree of surveillance over guests, and can try to stop someone from, say, setting up a meth lab in a hotel room. A hotel can be held liable for excessive noise or other disturbances. Hotels are not normally in residential areas, so residents don't have the disadvantages that come with lots of short-term renters in their neighborhood.
To put this another way, AirBnB saves money by imposing costs on the community. That isn't good.
homeowner to recoup some costs of a trip or vacation by temporarily renting their home into a multi-property commercial enterprise that *is* essentially a commercial hostel service competing with hotels.
This is not the economic model being complained about. The problem in TFS is that people are turning apartments into full-time short-term rentals. We want to consider what will happen to your hypothetical homeowner, but he or she isn't the real problem.
The other thing is that AirBnB doesn't really operate a commercial hotel service in the normal sense. A hotel has a strong incentive, for example, to keep meth labs out, and to keep guests from being public disturbances. AirBnB doesn't have those incentives. Hotels are zoned differently from residential neighborhoods, and there's reasons for that. AirBnB is undercutting hotels partly by externalizing costs.
Enron was lobbying the State of California to do stupid things that would get Enron more money, and Enron was plenty dishonest on its own. The fiasco had a lot to do with Enron.
I've accelerated to successfully avoid an accident before, although not all that frequently. If there's an accident waiting to happen in one place, and I'm somewhere else by then, no problem.
and there is still massive (and increasing) inequality among educational opportunities.
Over the century you mentioned, illiteracy was largely wiped out. That's a step towards equality of opportunity. I don't know what you mean by increasing inequality. There's obviously plenty of problems with the public school systems in the US, but many of them are fixable.
when women don't want to hire men, that is because they are uncomfortable and requires a cultural change.
I may have been unclear. I'm not talking about the reactions of female nurses to male nurses. I'm talking about the reactions of female patients to male nurses. Being able to work with patients without unduly distressing them is a vital part of the job of nursing. There may also be a certain amount of sexism in hiring female rather than male nurses, since there's probably a certain amount of sexism in most hiring decisions, but that's not what I'm talking about. (Hiring managers tend to favor people who resemble themselves, for deeply baked-in reasons, and so unless they consciously compensate for that are likely to give at least a slight preference to one gender over another.)
We have already established that you use ["equal opportunity"] that way. And I have already responded: I strongly oppose any form of government that attempts to improve fairness by interfering with liberty; attempting to do so is intrinsically unjust, and on top of that, the price of making it work is too high.
I want to see a cite for your first sentence, since I don't remember ever using "equality of opportunity", unmodified, to mean a simple lack of legal barriers. Your second sentence is a legitimate viewpoint, although one I disagree with. Holding liberty uncompromisingly above all else is not a good idea.
It's not "information problems", it is "the information problem", an explanation for why socialism cannot work.
Currently, we could gather all relevant information and make it available to central planners. Given a sophisticated way of handling this flood of information, do you think socialism would work? I don't.
But it is for the same reason that government cannot create gender equality or racial equality in the workplace.
No, that's not the reason. The government can't create gender or racial equality in the workplace because it's not possible for the government to force beliefs into people's heads. Providing the HR monitors with all available information won't make them able to reliably spot inequalities. The role of government in promoting equality is elsewhere.
After all, setting a price for labor is no different in principle than setting a price for any other good.
And, in principle, it's entirely different. All you need is a different principle which is held by a very large number of people. Economics as a study doesn't really address ethical issues. It's moderately good at predicting what will happen, and suggesting how to achieve a certain outcome, but it's pretty much neutral on outcomes.
The economy is neither natural nor divinely ordained. It's in place to serve people. The cost of, say, a CNC mill is an implementation detail. The cost of a guy to program it is what that guy has to live on.
using truths that are not scientific.
Says the guy who is willing to throw out large numbers of observations because they're inconvenient for his ideology. That's not just unscientific, that's antiscientific.
I'm saying that you failed to have given evidence for it
I already mentioned "Stone Age Economics" by Sahlin. That's more evidence than you've cited.
Anthropologists go out and look at how people live. If this contradicts how somebody thinks they should be behaving, I'm going with the observed facts. You, on the other hand, seem to think that observation is irrelevant.
Therefore, when say that your workplace is an example of a workplace without a dominance hierarchy because you believe those abuses don't exist, your example is not valid.
It's a hierarchy, but an agreed-on hierarchy. Nobody beat me up and said they'd be manager because they could, so it's not like a chimpanzee band. I'm at the bottom of the hierarchy (although in a very nice and well-paid place at the bottom) and nobody tries displays of power or humiliation. If you're going to call that a "dominance hierarchy", I think you're making the phrase largely meaningless. You're also dissociating from your cite, since that's not what your cite was talking about.
I'm hardly a criminal defense lawyer, but selling lunch to a bank robber is legal. I don't know what you mean specifically by "spend the money", or what it has to do with the discussion. This is a situation in which you know someone who needs help, and you help that person without regard to background.
Having read the complaint, I still don't understand what Tesla trying to hire Nikola's chief engineer had to do with anything. The lawsuit claims that Tesla saw the Nikola photo before the offer, and came up with a similar vehicle design beforehand.
I don't have a whole lot of experience, but this is the most rambling legal document I've seen. I don't think I've ever seen a legal complaint discussing someone's childhood dreams before.
The point is that Google didn't want an actively sexist and misogynist employee being aggressive with his views in ways that disrupted the company. You can be sexist and misogynist and still work professionally with women.
Were people aggressively pushing their political views at work in the same sense? Damore was working inside a large population that didn't share his views, and saw things happening around him that he disagreed with, sure. That's not having other views pushed onto you in a disruptive manner.
I did read the Labor Relations Board ruling, which probably means I've looked into his behavior in more detail than most other posters.
Actually, the pictures I've seen have been primarily white, not Asian. That may be a statistical anomaly.
There are forces discouraging women from tech fields that last beyond puberty. I've seen them on occasion. It's hardly a simple fact. There may be long-term advantages in getting Outreachy-suggested people into leadership roles, to provide role models.
Your suggested explanations look like you were trying to be sexist, BTW. Keep that up and it will backfire on you sometime.
If everyone has a different idea as to what an asshole is, that's a great reason to institute some sort of guide to conduct in the community. The Reporting section suggests using informal methods to resolve problems, and spends a lot of time considering face-to-face venues. In any case the code of conduct explicitly applies only to LLVM-controlled virtual and physical spaces. Violating the Code of Conduct doesn't result in any sort of ban unless it's egregious.
I wonder why you consider the CoC that restrictive. If you had a job, and violated it, someone would likely talk to you about it sometime. Violating it would require doing things that could be disruptive to the community, and it's not worth having a disruptive person around, no matter how competent.
The discussion is about interns, which means they don't yet have everyone interested, and failing to apply is not accidentally overlooking.
The "separate interests" or "different nature" arguments are probably millennia old. I'm not at all confident that they're correct now. I'm going to need to see some actual evidence that this is the best of all possible worlds before I buy it as the answer. So, yes, you have an answer that you like, so you want inquiries to be closed.
Anybody denying that is at this time is denying solid scientific facts.
Why should I look for anything? If you know that your claims are solid scientific facts, you should have done enough research to at least give pointers. Heck, there's a good chance I would have encountered such, and I haven't.
You're the one claiming that your prejudices are scientific fact. I'm doubting you. It's not my job to prove your wild claims.
The Code of Conduct looks innocuous enough in language. He seems to have left primarily because he didn't want anything challenging white male privilege, but maybe I've become a touch too cynical in my old age. (I had to become a lot more cynical after Trump's election, and I may have overshot.).
The example I'm thinking of (Erik Naggum in comp.lang.lisp) is way old, but obnoxious people do discourage others. It's something every development group should be prepared to deal with.
Presumably the diversity people aren't actually disrupting the workplace. It isn't a matter of disagreeing with viewpoints, it's a matter of what is done.
It seems fairly common to have dissenting views from the majority, get obnoxious about it, and blame any negative reaction on the views, not the presentation.
We have very, very little on Jesus that doesn't come from the Bible. People study ancient Greek to understand the Gospels without the barrier of translation, and they study the historical period - in other words, they try to read the Bible more accurately and understand the context of his time. I don't remember anything about the Iscari in the Bible; could you provide a cite?
Yup. Read the Labor Relations Board findings. Damore wasn't fired because of his views, but because he was aggressive about pushing them on others to the point of disrupting the workplace and getting his memo leaked.
If you can't get people at work to agree with your political views by calmly discussing them when appropriate, you should stop trying to convince people at work.
The other place codes of conduct come from is when the community is being poisoned by one or more assholes, disrupting communication and driving competent people away. It happens. Software contributions need to be judged on their merit, not on who they came from, and bigots won't adhere to that.
There is communication among developers in F/OSS projects, just not (typically) face-to-face meetings. If one person is obnoxious to certain groups, people of those groups are likely to be less enthusiastic about the project, and the project suffers.
Slashdot Mirror
Part of the regulation is for the benefit of residents, and removing it causes problems. Hotels have some degree of surveillance over guests, and can try to stop someone from, say, setting up a meth lab in a hotel room. A hotel can be held liable for excessive noise or other disturbances. Hotels are not normally in residential areas, so residents don't have the disadvantages that come with lots of short-term renters in their neighborhood.
To put this another way, AirBnB saves money by imposing costs on the community. That isn't good.
This is not the economic model being complained about. The problem in TFS is that people are turning apartments into full-time short-term rentals. We want to consider what will happen to your hypothetical homeowner, but he or she isn't the real problem.
The other thing is that AirBnB doesn't really operate a commercial hotel service in the normal sense. A hotel has a strong incentive, for example, to keep meth labs out, and to keep guests from being public disturbances. AirBnB doesn't have those incentives. Hotels are zoned differently from residential neighborhoods, and there's reasons for that. AirBnB is undercutting hotels partly by externalizing costs.
Enron was lobbying the State of California to do stupid things that would get Enron more money, and Enron was plenty dishonest on its own. The fiasco had a lot to do with Enron.
I've accelerated to successfully avoid an accident before, although not all that frequently. If there's an accident waiting to happen in one place, and I'm somewhere else by then, no problem.
Over the century you mentioned, illiteracy was largely wiped out. That's a step towards equality of opportunity. I don't know what you mean by increasing inequality. There's obviously plenty of problems with the public school systems in the US, but many of them are fixable.
I may have been unclear. I'm not talking about the reactions of female nurses to male nurses. I'm talking about the reactions of female patients to male nurses. Being able to work with patients without unduly distressing them is a vital part of the job of nursing. There may also be a certain amount of sexism in hiring female rather than male nurses, since there's probably a certain amount of sexism in most hiring decisions, but that's not what I'm talking about. (Hiring managers tend to favor people who resemble themselves, for deeply baked-in reasons, and so unless they consciously compensate for that are likely to give at least a slight preference to one gender over another.)
I want to see a cite for your first sentence, since I don't remember ever using "equality of opportunity", unmodified, to mean a simple lack of legal barriers. Your second sentence is a legitimate viewpoint, although one I disagree with. Holding liberty uncompromisingly above all else is not a good idea.
Currently, we could gather all relevant information and make it available to central planners. Given a sophisticated way of handling this flood of information, do you think socialism would work? I don't.
No, that's not the reason. The government can't create gender or racial equality in the workplace because it's not possible for the government to force beliefs into people's heads. Providing the HR monitors with all available information won't make them able to reliably spot inequalities. The role of government in promoting equality is elsewhere.
And, in principle, it's entirely different. All you need is a different principle which is held by a very large number of people. Economics as a study doesn't really address ethical issues. It's moderately good at predicting what will happen, and suggesting how to achieve a certain outcome, but it's pretty much neutral on outcomes.
The economy is neither natural nor divinely ordained. It's in place to serve people. The cost of, say, a CNC mill is an implementation detail. The cost of a guy to program it is what that guy has to live on.
Says the guy who is willing to throw out large numbers of observations because they're inconvenient for his ideology. That's not just unscientific, that's antiscientific.
I already mentioned "Stone Age Economics" by Sahlin. That's more evidence than you've cited.
Anthropologists go out and look at how people live. If this contradicts how somebody thinks they should be behaving, I'm going with the observed facts. You, on the other hand, seem to think that observation is irrelevant.
It's a hierarchy, but an agreed-on hierarchy. Nobody beat me up and said they'd be manager because they could, so it's not like a chimpanzee band. I'm at the bottom of the hierarchy (although in a very nice and well-paid place at the bottom) and nobody tries displays of power or humiliation. If you're going to call that a "dominance hierarchy", I think you're making the phrase largely meaningless. You're also dissociating from your cite, since that's not what your cite was talking about.
I'm hardly a criminal defense lawyer, but selling lunch to a bank robber is legal. I don't know what you mean specifically by "spend the money", or what it has to do with the discussion. This is a situation in which you know someone who needs help, and you help that person without regard to background.
Having read the complaint, I still don't understand what Tesla trying to hire Nikola's chief engineer had to do with anything. The lawsuit claims that Tesla saw the Nikola photo before the offer, and came up with a similar vehicle design beforehand.
I don't have a whole lot of experience, but this is the most rambling legal document I've seen. I don't think I've ever seen a legal complaint discussing someone's childhood dreams before.
The point is that Google didn't want an actively sexist and misogynist employee being aggressive with his views in ways that disrupted the company. You can be sexist and misogynist and still work professionally with women.
Were people aggressively pushing their political views at work in the same sense? Damore was working inside a large population that didn't share his views, and saw things happening around him that he disagreed with, sure. That's not having other views pushed onto you in a disruptive manner.
I did read the Labor Relations Board ruling, which probably means I've looked into his behavior in more detail than most other posters.
The Labor Board also discussed what Damore was actually doing, not just what his views were.
Except that I added the report of the Labor Relations Board to what the Damore partisans were saying.
Actually, the pictures I've seen have been primarily white, not Asian. That may be a statistical anomaly.
There are forces discouraging women from tech fields that last beyond puberty. I've seen them on occasion. It's hardly a simple fact. There may be long-term advantages in getting Outreachy-suggested people into leadership roles, to provide role models.
Your suggested explanations look like you were trying to be sexist, BTW. Keep that up and it will backfire on you sometime.
If everyone has a different idea as to what an asshole is, that's a great reason to institute some sort of guide to conduct in the community. The Reporting section suggests using informal methods to resolve problems, and spends a lot of time considering face-to-face venues. In any case the code of conduct explicitly applies only to LLVM-controlled virtual and physical spaces. Violating the Code of Conduct doesn't result in any sort of ban unless it's egregious.
I wonder why you consider the CoC that restrictive. If you had a job, and violated it, someone would likely talk to you about it sometime. Violating it would require doing things that could be disruptive to the community, and it's not worth having a disruptive person around, no matter how competent.
The discussion is about interns, which means they don't yet have everyone interested, and failing to apply is not accidentally overlooking.
The "separate interests" or "different nature" arguments are probably millennia old. I'm not at all confident that they're correct now. I'm going to need to see some actual evidence that this is the best of all possible worlds before I buy it as the answer. So, yes, you have an answer that you like, so you want inquiries to be closed.
Why should I look for anything? If you know that your claims are solid scientific facts, you should have done enough research to at least give pointers. Heck, there's a good chance I would have encountered such, and I haven't.
You're the one claiming that your prejudices are scientific fact. I'm doubting you. It's not my job to prove your wild claims.
The Code of Conduct looks innocuous enough in language. He seems to have left primarily because he didn't want anything challenging white male privilege, but maybe I've become a touch too cynical in my old age. (I had to become a lot more cynical after Trump's election, and I may have overshot.).
The example I'm thinking of (Erik Naggum in comp.lang.lisp) is way old, but obnoxious people do discourage others. It's something every development group should be prepared to deal with.
Presumably the diversity people aren't actually disrupting the workplace. It isn't a matter of disagreeing with viewpoints, it's a matter of what is done.
It seems fairly common to have dissenting views from the majority, get obnoxious about it, and blame any negative reaction on the views, not the presentation.
We have very, very little on Jesus that doesn't come from the Bible. People study ancient Greek to understand the Gospels without the barrier of translation, and they study the historical period - in other words, they try to read the Bible more accurately and understand the context of his time. I don't remember anything about the Iscari in the Bible; could you provide a cite?
Some coders, sure, and that's a good thing. Others have assorted prejudices and inflict them on others.
Yup. Read the Labor Relations Board findings. Damore wasn't fired because of his views, but because he was aggressive about pushing them on others to the point of disrupting the workplace and getting his memo leaked.
If you can't get people at work to agree with your political views by calmly discussing them when appropriate, you should stop trying to convince people at work.
The other place codes of conduct come from is when the community is being poisoned by one or more assholes, disrupting communication and driving competent people away. It happens. Software contributions need to be judged on their merit, not on who they came from, and bigots won't adhere to that.
Do you have any evidence that Outreachy controls internships?
There is communication among developers in F/OSS projects, just not (typically) face-to-face meetings. If one person is obnoxious to certain groups, people of those groups are likely to be less enthusiastic about the project, and the project suffers.