That was the original point that PPH made. My counter-point was meant to show that it's not so simple as "oh, no, twice the loss" when there are other variables to consider.
To be explicit, doubling the payload adds no additional risk if all other things are equal. Assuming a 1 in 10 launch failure, 10 launches of a single payload rocket would give you 9 satellites boosted and 1 destroyed vs 18 boosted and 2 destroyed. The ratio is exactly the same.
So if the success ratio is the same and you roughly halve your launch costs, it becomes a no-brainer.
My wife is black, but grew up in the Caribbean. She grew up as the majority in her country and definitely lacks the hard-to-pin-down worldview that you describe. Even so, she recognizes that racism is alive and well in the US and feels that part of her professional success is due to being married to a white guy, and thus other white people feel that she is more approachable. I think she is right, sadly.
I'm failing to see the big disagreement in our figures? You claim 0.75*$53=$39 billion in spending and I claimed $43 in 2012. I suspect the difference is probably in what categories I included vs what you did, and my data was 2 years old. You claim $39 billion in revenue and I claimed "around $30 billion". Either way, your numbers or mine, income from gas tax is lower than spending on highways, which is counter to "Snotnose's" claim.
They overlapped 7 development with 8 for 3 years! I'm all for deliberate, incremental changes, but you had 3 whole years to think, "Huh, I wonder if this code will work on 8?" and then fix it. Do you think that the OS should be backward-compatible forever? You can always run 7 in a jail if you are really hard up.
In addition, this is just the payload package - not the launch vehicle. Apparently this is compatible with the Delta IV, Atlas V, Ariane 5, Proton, and Sea Launch.
Why does there have to be a single step, and in a sequence that you prescribe? Making a concerted effort to eliminate the "victim" mentality is but one piece in the puzzle.
The fact that we segregate people in our minds based on skin tone and hair texture is the problem. The fact that you didn't note the applicants' eye colors but did note their "race" is the problem. I do it, too.
It's not that I "want" diversity. Diversity is here, and it is only getting more diverse. The problem is equality of opportunity.
When diversity causes inequality why should we try to force equality.
Equal opportunity does not "force" equality. If we could get to a point where people were, for some reason, actively choosing to be less educated, living in a crappy area, and making a lot less money than I'd be a happy camper.
I completely agree that people should not be expected to hire more people than are available in the labor pool. Any other expectation would be absurd. That said, IT is not insulated from the larger society. Larger society has systemic problems with race, and there is no reason to expect that IT would be any different.
I don't think I'm trying to "blame" the industry. But it's ridiculous to think that IT is insulated from society at large. Society has these problems, so why wouldn't tech fields? I completely agree that you can't expect tech to hire more blacks than are available in the labor supply. But we're still human, still tribal, and still subject to the same social forces as the rest of society.
Another example is Katrina. I watched in astonishment as people did not flee the hurricane. I watched as they complained that the government was "only giving them cold meals" after plucking them from rooftops.
But in retrospect, I should not have been astonished. These people are the result of 4 generations or so where they are completely dependent on the government for everything. We (and I use that term loosely, since I don't live in LA) have completely failed those people. Their lives completely suck, at least in part because of the way we "help" them.
As I said, there are changes that need to occur all around. Having a pissing contest over what group is more or less racist does very little to engender trust. Everyone is tribal - it's part of human nature.
It was pervasive 20-30 years ago, and worse before that.
Heh, if you are old like me that doesn't seem very long ago.:)
And most of the managers are my age or older...
I fully agree that this attitude will dwindle away, but it is still among us. And just because it no longer exists in a 20-something's world does not mean that their manager is not acting on his/her 30-years-ago social conditioning.
Things change fast... when I left Philly in 2005, my wife and I would get harassed walking down the street. We'd get questions like, "How did YOU two meet?" or, "What do you guys actually have in common?" - as if we were a different species. We moved back in 2009 and that had largely disappeared. The millennials have their shit together on this score.
Slashdot Mirror
Your numbers are equal: $39 billion. What difference are you talking about?
The issue is that black IT people are hard to come by.
Being employed is not the only metric here. If you read The Fine Article, it describes an uncomfortable working atmosphere and lower average salary.
That was the original point that PPH made. My counter-point was meant to show that it's not so simple as "oh, no, twice the loss" when there are other variables to consider.
To be explicit, doubling the payload adds no additional risk if all other things are equal. Assuming a 1 in 10 launch failure, 10 launches of a single payload rocket would give you 9 satellites boosted and 1 destroyed vs 18 boosted and 2 destroyed. The ratio is exactly the same.
So if the success ratio is the same and you roughly halve your launch costs, it becomes a no-brainer.
My wife is black, but grew up in the Caribbean. She grew up as the majority in her country and definitely lacks the hard-to-pin-down worldview that you describe. Even so, she recognizes that racism is alive and well in the US and feels that part of her professional success is due to being married to a white guy, and thus other white people feel that she is more approachable. I think she is right, sadly.
But then we would have polluted the asteroid with radioactivity, rendering it inhospitable to all but mutant life.
Grrr... I meant "less than or equal" of course.
I'm failing to see the big disagreement in our figures? You claim 0.75*$53=$39 billion in spending and I claimed $43 in 2012. I suspect the difference is probably in what categories I included vs what you did, and my data was 2 years old. You claim $39 billion in revenue and I claimed "around $30 billion". Either way, your numbers or mine, income from gas tax is lower than spending on highways, which is counter to "Snotnose's" claim.
This does not square with the facts. Total highway spending was under $43 billion in 2012. Total gas tax was around $30 billion.
They overlapped 7 development with 8 for 3 years! I'm all for deliberate, incremental changes, but you had 3 whole years to think, "Huh, I wonder if this code will work on 8?" and then fix it. Do you think that the OS should be backward-compatible forever? You can always run 7 in a jail if you are really hard up.
In addition, this is just the payload package - not the launch vehicle. Apparently this is compatible with the Delta IV, Atlas V, Ariane 5, Proton, and Sea Launch.
Half as many launches means half as many chances to blow up.
The same could be true of blacks unfortunately.
Sure, it "could" be. I'd argue that a simpler explanation is that IT is not insulated from the ills that infect the rest of society.
The article also goes on with other grievances, but I wanted to point to the salary gap because it is a number rather than a "feeling".
Why does there have to be a single step, and in a sequence that you prescribe? Making a concerted effort to eliminate the "victim" mentality is but one piece in the puzzle.
Did you read the article? Blacks with still make less than whites, even in IT, even controlling for variables such as education, age, and geography.
The fact that we segregate people in our minds based on skin tone and hair texture is the problem. The fact that you didn't note the applicants' eye colors but did note their "race" is the problem. I do it, too.
It's not that I "want" diversity. Diversity is here, and it is only getting more diverse. The problem is equality of opportunity.
When diversity causes inequality why should we try to force equality.
Equal opportunity does not "force" equality. If we could get to a point where people were, for some reason, actively choosing to be less educated, living in a crappy area, and making a lot less money than I'd be a happy camper.
I completely agree that people should not be expected to hire more people than are available in the labor pool. Any other expectation would be absurd. That said, IT is not insulated from the larger society. Larger society has systemic problems with race, and there is no reason to expect that IT would be any different.
So racism is just an issue that "blacks face"?
Statistically, they have a much harder time of it, yes.
Maybe you want equality under the law or maybe you want equal outcomes (typically, inequality under the law).
I want skin color to matter exactly as much as eye color does right now.
I don't think I'm trying to "blame" the industry. But it's ridiculous to think that IT is insulated from society at large. Society has these problems, so why wouldn't tech fields? I completely agree that you can't expect tech to hire more blacks than are available in the labor supply. But we're still human, still tribal, and still subject to the same social forces as the rest of society.
Another example is Katrina. I watched in astonishment as people did not flee the hurricane. I watched as they complained that the government was "only giving them cold meals" after plucking them from rooftops.
But in retrospect, I should not have been astonished. These people are the result of 4 generations or so where they are completely dependent on the government for everything. We (and I use that term loosely, since I don't live in LA) have completely failed those people. Their lives completely suck, at least in part because of the way we "help" them.
Yes, that is true. But most of us don't spend much time hanging around "gang bangers" in any form.
As I said, there are changes that need to occur all around. Having a pissing contest over what group is more or less racist does very little to engender trust. Everyone is tribal - it's part of human nature.
Maybe, but Malcolm Gladwell also did not write Freakonomics.
It was pervasive 20-30 years ago, and worse before that.
Heh, if you are old like me that doesn't seem very long ago. :)
And most of the managers are my age or older...
I fully agree that this attitude will dwindle away, but it is still among us. And just because it no longer exists in a 20-something's world does not mean that their manager is not acting on his/her 30-years-ago social conditioning.
Things change fast... when I left Philly in 2005, my wife and I would get harassed walking down the street. We'd get questions like, "How did YOU two meet?" or, "What do you guys actually have in common?" - as if we were a different species. We moved back in 2009 and that had largely disappeared. The millennials have their shit together on this score.
You clearly don't talk about anything that matters if you still don't have some empathy for their situation.