What do you mean by "equality of opportunity" here? I'm including such things as education, cultural pressures, etc. If you think equality of opportunity comes with one person having to go to a crap school and another going to an excellent school, I'm going to disagree with you.
You can get a greater short-term profit by destroying the productivity of some workers. If you time it right, you get a new job just before productivity as a whole crashes.
My home has all sorts of things to do that I find enticing that aren't work. This is deliberate. We have a home that we like very much.
So, I can focus on work for one day at home. Two is a challenge. I'm not going to try three,
I do have an option other than finding other employment. I've got a nice retirement set up. I'm still working because I rather like the job and it gives me an even nicer retirement. So, if we go to an open office plan, I'll just wish everybody else the best in that setup.
This. The 1% are thriving by convincing everyone that it's all the white males fault.
That statement is at best incomplete. The 1% is also trying to convince the white males that it's the fault of the women or minorities or whoever. Trump was really successful in telling poor white males that without having any credibility.
His bed will be quite comfy indeed....However, of more interest to me is his bravery.
How brave, to change jobs and also get to go for the gold in the form of a lawsuit. You're contradicting yourself.
He predicted this witch-hunt behavior in his essay,
It isn't clear to me that it's witch-hunt behavior. He caused a fair amount of disruption in a large company, and it's reasonable to fire people who do that. He undoubtedly was bad for profits. It looks to me like some people who reject any social considerations for business are arguing that Google should refrain from firing him for social considerations. Also, behavior that has been predicted is often justified. Consider a poster who writes, "I'll be modded down for this" and then writes something stupid. Should I refrain from downmodding?
I caught myself sometimes not really listening to a competent colleague's ideas because she was short, cute, blonde, and female. I know this is anecdotal, but it suggests to me that some people may listen more to a man, or at least a taller brunette (who was also competent).
To be fair replying to articulate points has never been a strength of the PC crowd.
To be fair, that's not only true of people who program on PCs. It's just as true of mainframe programmers and was just as true of minicomputer programmers. If you want good responses to points brought up, try a philosopher.
I use "mansplaining" to mean explaining something to a person you should know understands it much better than you do. I consider it a moderately amusing word for something that really can use a word.
First of all, "neurotic" in the context used in the memo doesn't mean "affect by neurosis", which most critics wrongly assume, it refers to one of the 5 personality traits [wikipedia.org], and that women on average score higher on this trait than men is recognized in scentific studies cited in the same article.
I'm aware of that meaning. However, it has other meanings. It can denote mental illness (I had "neurotic depression" before I had "dysthymic disorder", without changing symptoms). It is sometimes used as an insult, either by calling a person neurotic or a belief or practice as neurotic. It may have been a poor choice of category name (you can refer to someone as open, conscientious, extroverted, or agreeable without it sounding insulting). Unless you're addressing experimental human psychologists, you need to be very careful with that term, because almost everyone else will initially perceive it as derogatory or insulting.
If there was miscommunication, at least part of the blame is on the person who wrote the thing at least for misjudging his audience.
Someone who's in at 4AM on a Saturday is very likely working too much for optimum productivity, and Google would be better off if he (or she) worked more normal hours. If someone is fixing esoteric ancient code at that time, the fix is likely to be a problem in itself.
I'll just toss in here that, if there are biological differences between men and women that are significant mentally or emotionally, then there can be cases of a woman's brain in a man's body, or vice versa, and therefore what we're doing with transgender people is very reasonable.
Liberalism demands equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
Equality of opportunity is really, really hard to measure. Inequality of outcomes has very often turned out to be inequality of opportunity, so it makes sense to investigate it when it crops up.
More diverse teams may be more productive. I can think of reasons why that could be so. We know that adding a toxic member to a team can destroy productivity; why couldn't adding a selected person without really good technical skills improve productivity?
There's several exams, in fact. There's the written preliminary, and then you get to your oral prelims, which at the grad school I went to were feared. I saw a woman's face being white from stress several hours after hers. Then there's the dissertation defense, which you will not be allowed to take unless it's sure you'll pass. The faculty hears you out, kick you out of the room, tell jokes for fifteen minutes, and then come out and congratulate you.
My wife had to argue with her boss for some time to get a limited account on her computer. She had found too many times in which she'd written something and it worked just fine, but required some admin privilege she missed, and so it wouldn't work for the users.
One of Larry Wall's Three Cardinal Virtues of programming. Lazy developers do things efficiently.
they don't care about the total package size
Programmers are adept at optimizing for what they're asked to optimize. As long as there's no money in reducing package size, developers will continue not to care about it.
For a program maintained by a few people but used by millions, the costs on the user side are amplified by 1 million, so for it is a bad thing for society
If it causes significant extra use of fossil fuel, then, yes, it's a bad thing for society. Individual user costs accrue to the user, and if an application is sufficiently annoying in some ways (like being a terabyte download) people simply won't buy it. It's a free market, and more successful businesses do a better job of matching their priorities to the users' priorities.
If users developed a preference for buying smaller apps, you'd see smaller apps. It's not Apple's job to decide what you should have in phone apps (although they do a fair amount of it anyway).
Last I looked, Apple would change the battery for eighty dollars, and there were lots of places charging less. The iPhone battery is removable, just not conveniently so.
TFS also claims that Swift programs can't count on stable libraries, so they have to include their own runtime libraries. That's perfectly reachable code that shouldn't have to be there.
Exactly who here called the Hulk Hogan tape "journalism" or indicated that Gawker was acting reasonably in posting it? Insofar as I can tell, without doing any actual research, those people aren't claiming that the revenge porn website is bad.
She trusted someone she shouldn't have, and got a lot of heartache for it. She realizes that. That doesn't mean she deserves everything her asshole ex does.
Now, suppose you told an off-color joke at the wrong moment at work, and the office prude heard it (personally, the funniest off-color joke I ever heard at work was told by a woman) and hauled you up on sexual harassment charges. You're fired, blacklisted, your girlfriend leaves you, etc. You deserve this, don't you, because you did something you shouldn't have. You need to be held accountable for your actions.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you mean by "equality of opportunity" here? I'm including such things as education, cultural pressures, etc. If you think equality of opportunity comes with one person having to go to a crap school and another going to an excellent school, I'm going to disagree with you.
Brain hemispheres are reversed, so leftists are in their right minds.
You can get a greater short-term profit by destroying the productivity of some workers. If you time it right, you get a new job just before productivity as a whole crashes.
I've known some competent ones. Oddly enough, they're my two most leftist friends.
My home has all sorts of things to do that I find enticing that aren't work. This is deliberate. We have a home that we like very much.
So, I can focus on work for one day at home. Two is a challenge. I'm not going to try three,
I do have an option other than finding other employment. I've got a nice retirement set up. I'm still working because I rather like the job and it gives me an even nicer retirement. So, if we go to an open office plan, I'll just wish everybody else the best in that setup.
That statement is at best incomplete. The 1% is also trying to convince the white males that it's the fault of the women or minorities or whoever. Trump was really successful in telling poor white males that without having any credibility.
How brave, to change jobs and also get to go for the gold in the form of a lawsuit. You're contradicting yourself.
It isn't clear to me that it's witch-hunt behavior. He caused a fair amount of disruption in a large company, and it's reasonable to fire people who do that. He undoubtedly was bad for profits. It looks to me like some people who reject any social considerations for business are arguing that Google should refrain from firing him for social considerations. Also, behavior that has been predicted is often justified. Consider a poster who writes, "I'll be modded down for this" and then writes something stupid. Should I refrain from downmodding?
I caught myself sometimes not really listening to a competent colleague's ideas because she was short, cute, blonde, and female. I know this is anecdotal, but it suggests to me that some people may listen more to a man, or at least a taller brunette (who was also competent).
To be fair, that's not only true of people who program on PCs. It's just as true of mainframe programmers and was just as true of minicomputer programmers. If you want good responses to points brought up, try a philosopher.
I use "mansplaining" to mean explaining something to a person you should know understands it much better than you do. I consider it a moderately amusing word for something that really can use a word.
I'm aware of that meaning. However, it has other meanings. It can denote mental illness (I had "neurotic depression" before I had "dysthymic disorder", without changing symptoms). It is sometimes used as an insult, either by calling a person neurotic or a belief or practice as neurotic. It may have been a poor choice of category name (you can refer to someone as open, conscientious, extroverted, or agreeable without it sounding insulting). Unless you're addressing experimental human psychologists, you need to be very careful with that term, because almost everyone else will initially perceive it as derogatory or insulting.
If there was miscommunication, at least part of the blame is on the person who wrote the thing at least for misjudging his audience.
Someone who's in at 4AM on a Saturday is very likely working too much for optimum productivity, and Google would be better off if he (or she) worked more normal hours. If someone is fixing esoteric ancient code at that time, the fix is likely to be a problem in itself.
I'll just toss in here that, if there are biological differences between men and women that are significant mentally or emotionally, then there can be cases of a woman's brain in a man's body, or vice versa, and therefore what we're doing with transgender people is very reasonable.
Equality of opportunity is really, really hard to measure. Inequality of outcomes has very often turned out to be inequality of opportunity, so it makes sense to investigate it when it crops up.
More diverse teams may be more productive. I can think of reasons why that could be so. We know that adding a toxic member to a team can destroy productivity; why couldn't adding a selected person without really good technical skills improve productivity?
Anybody got a cite on this?
There's several exams, in fact. There's the written preliminary, and then you get to your oral prelims, which at the grad school I went to were feared. I saw a woman's face being white from stress several hours after hers. Then there's the dissertation defense, which you will not be allowed to take unless it's sure you'll pass. The faculty hears you out, kick you out of the room, tell jokes for fifteen minutes, and then come out and congratulate you.
My wife had to argue with her boss for some time to get a limited account on her computer. She had found too many times in which she'd written something and it worked just fine, but required some admin privilege she missed, and so it wouldn't work for the users.
One of Larry Wall's Three Cardinal Virtues of programming. Lazy developers do things efficiently.
Programmers are adept at optimizing for what they're asked to optimize. As long as there's no money in reducing package size, developers will continue not to care about it.
If it causes significant extra use of fossil fuel, then, yes, it's a bad thing for society. Individual user costs accrue to the user, and if an application is sufficiently annoying in some ways (like being a terabyte download) people simply won't buy it. It's a free market, and more successful businesses do a better job of matching their priorities to the users' priorities.
If users developed a preference for buying smaller apps, you'd see smaller apps. It's not Apple's job to decide what you should have in phone apps (although they do a fair amount of it anyway).
For some time now, on the x86 architecture, compilers did a better job with output code than all but the very best humans.
Last I looked, Apple would change the battery for eighty dollars, and there were lots of places charging less. The iPhone battery is removable, just not conveniently so.
TFS also claims that Swift programs can't count on stable libraries, so they have to include their own runtime libraries. That's perfectly reachable code that shouldn't have to be there.
Exactly who here called the Hulk Hogan tape "journalism" or indicated that Gawker was acting reasonably in posting it? Insofar as I can tell, without doing any actual research, those people aren't claiming that the revenge porn website is bad.
She trusted someone she shouldn't have, and got a lot of heartache for it. She realizes that. That doesn't mean she deserves everything her asshole ex does.
Now, suppose you told an off-color joke at the wrong moment at work, and the office prude heard it (personally, the funniest off-color joke I ever heard at work was told by a woman) and hauled you up on sexual harassment charges. You're fired, blacklisted, your girlfriend leaves you, etc. You deserve this, don't you, because you did something you shouldn't have. You need to be held accountable for your actions.
Same reasoning.