In one case, a guy publicly complained (on Facebook) about the quality of food at a company party, and that was ruled to be protected speech.
In another case, a guy put "Bob is such a NASTY M***** F***** don’t know how to talk to people!!!!!! F*** his mother and his entire f****** family!!!! What a LOSER!!!!" on his Facebook page, and the NLRB agreed that it was protected speech.
If I had been Google, I would have given him a big severance package along with a nondisclosure agreement to avoid lawsuits. However, it's also possible management at Google doesn't care if they lose a lawsuit, as long as they are perceived as fighting for the correct side.
The realistic solution is to wait for technology to improve. When electric cars are cheaper than regular cars, and when solar/wind can endure through the night more cheaply than coal, that is when our CO2 output will drop to a small fraction of before.
If you're actually worried about AGW being a problem, then you can speed the process along with government funding for battery research technology., etc
It was a political opinion piece which casually referenced some cherry picked "evidence" in an effort to seem more credible.
I'd be interested in seeing the evidence that opposes it (ie, if it's cherry picked, then there must be plenty of science that opposes it). Really, that would be helpful.
The problem with Tech isn't that men dominate it, it's that men do so by passively aggressively forcing women out.
A woman is more likely to be backstabbed by another woman at work than another man.
A man who actually tries to help a woman can get accused of mansplaining.
Given all the data in the summary, it sounds like they've already announced it. What is left to reveal, the non-code name? I'll bet it will be i7, i5, etc......
Well, based on your own link, " isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not rise to the level of illegality."
re btw that's good to know, but I don't think this guy was a supervisor, he was a senior engineer which isn't usually a position of supervising others.
He wasn't just reporting statistical trivia. He was saying that a relatively small difference (check the numbers, it's somewhere between zero and very small depending on the country)
I want to point out that your fact-based response here is more powerful than Google's PR response + firing. So good job, you did better than a VP of diversity.
The legal analysis I've seen says that he'd have a strong case in a wrongful termination suit. Google would have been better off to pay him money with a nondisclosure agreement.
and "understand and thinking the point was inane".
Now you are lying to cover the fact that you didn't understand.
You should learn, and your writing will be better. People will respect you more. It's not shameful to say you need to improve.
This is frankly ridiculous. If you are saying any programmer can't find a job, or get a better job, merely because he is male, I would counter with the evidence that men occupy jobs at all levels in almost every company.
It's worth mentioning here that the way he used it, neurotic does not mean crazy, nor is it a mental disability or infirmity. Neurotic can be defined as merely a cluster of personality traits, although it is definitely a poor choice of words.
Had they shown him the psychology journals and that the studies show otherwise, he'd have stood corrected. Probably with a warning to write substance backed claim, he'd have a better depth.
Exactly. If they had shown the evidence that women aren't neurotic (hint: they aren't), then the whole thing would have calmed down. Firing people just adds anxiety, and now people are going to wonder, "am I neurotic but no one dares to tell me because I'll get fired?"
I see nothing in that section that says women are worse programmers than men. I see that paragraph as saying, "Since women like using their people skills at work, make it easy for them to use their people skills while programming." You can argue that the premise is false, but once it is accepted as true, then the conclusion follows naturally.
Do you really think he is insulting the programming skills of women in that section?
Slashdot Mirror
The NLRA has some real protections. See here for an analysis.
In one case, a guy publicly complained (on Facebook) about the quality of food at a company party, and that was ruled to be protected speech.
In another case, a guy put "Bob is such a NASTY M***** F***** don’t know how to talk to people!!!!!! F*** his mother and his entire f****** family!!!! What a LOSER!!!!" on his Facebook page, and the NLRB agreed that it was protected speech.
If I had been Google, I would have given him a big severance package along with a nondisclosure agreement to avoid lawsuits. However, it's also possible management at Google doesn't care if they lose a lawsuit, as long as they are perceived as fighting for the correct side.
IF you don't carry electronics, then how do you hack other people?
This prediction is looking really bad, from someone who is an acknowledged expert at the top of his field.
The realistic solution is to wait for technology to improve. When electric cars are cheaper than regular cars, and when solar/wind can endure through the night more cheaply than coal, that is when our CO2 output will drop to a small fraction of before.
If you're actually worried about AGW being a problem, then you can speed the process along with government funding for battery research technology., etc
It was a political opinion piece which casually referenced some cherry picked "evidence" in an effort to seem more credible.
I'd be interested in seeing the evidence that opposes it (ie, if it's cherry picked, then there must be plenty of science that opposes it). Really, that would be helpful.
The problem with Tech isn't that men dominate it, it's that men do so by passively aggressively forcing women out.
A woman is more likely to be backstabbed by another woman at work than another man.
A man who actually tries to help a woman can get accused of mansplaining.
There's a huge chunk of stuff that has neither been verified nor debunked, but pretty much everything we know has been verified, not debunked.
We are told that everything that's leaked by Wikileaks is true and good
I see your point, but so far everything they've released has been surprisingly reliable.
By the same logic, women also occupy jobs at all levels in almost every company, therefore women are not denied opportunities.
What opportunities are you referring to that they being denied?
Given all the data in the summary, it sounds like they've already announced it. What is left to reveal, the non-code name? I'll bet it will be i7, i5, etc......
Well, based on your own link, " isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not rise to the level of illegality."
re btw that's good to know, but I don't think this guy was a supervisor, he was a senior engineer which isn't usually a position of supervising others.
Hmmmmm so you are refusing to learn. That's too bad.
the list of reasons why an at-will employer cannot fire an employee who decides, unprompted, to openly criticize the employer's policies and
The NRLA specifically protects openly criticizing employer's policies.
He wasn't just reporting statistical trivia. He was saying that a relatively small difference (check the numbers, it's somewhere between zero and very small depending on the country)
I want to point out that your fact-based response here is more powerful than Google's PR response + firing. So good job, you did better than a VP of diversity.
the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes
The legal analysis I've seen says that he'd have a strong case in a wrongful termination suit. Google would have been better off to pay him money with a nondisclosure agreement.
and "understand and thinking the point was inane".
Now you are lying to cover the fact that you didn't understand.
You should learn, and your writing will be better. People will respect you more. It's not shameful to say you need to improve.
If you actually improve, it is admirable.
Oh yeap, you're right, I missed that. Good find.
Some men are assholes, it doesn't mean all men are, but every man is equally punished for what a few assholes do.
Trump is not exactly a role-model here........
He gets a lot of his "facts" wrong
Which ones are you thinking of in particular here?
toxic ideas like rewarding people who put in unhealthy hours is the standard by which everyone should be measured.
I do agree that this is toxic and generally a bad idea.
we men are denied opportunities.
This is frankly ridiculous. If you are saying any programmer can't find a job, or get a better job, merely because he is male, I would counter with the evidence that men occupy jobs at all levels in almost every company.
It's worth mentioning here that the way he used it, neurotic does not mean crazy, nor is it a mental disability or infirmity. Neurotic can be defined as merely a cluster of personality traits, although it is definitely a poor choice of words.
Had they shown him the psychology journals and that the studies show otherwise, he'd have stood corrected. Probably with a warning to write substance backed claim, he'd have a better depth.
Exactly. If they had shown the evidence that women aren't neurotic (hint: they aren't), then the whole thing would have calmed down. Firing people just adds anxiety, and now people are going to wonder, "am I neurotic but no one dares to tell me because I'll get fired?"
Supporting free speech is the best option.
I see nothing in that section that says women are worse programmers than men. I see that paragraph as saying, "Since women like using their people skills at work, make it easy for them to use their people skills while programming." You can argue that the premise is false, but once it is accepted as true, then the conclusion follows naturally.
Do you really think he is insulting the programming skills of women in that section?