People who want to kill themselves quickly, breathe a lot of it in a short amount of time. The rest of us are doing it over a longer period of time.
I get the point you were trying to make, but this is an idiotic statement. The reason folks close the garage and run their vehicles to kill themselves is through suffocation. The toxins emitted from your vehicle don't kill that fast.
Look, I'm all for being comfortable in your own skin. As a fellow fatass, I can support that position.
That, however, is not what's going on here.
I am not supportive of forcing that comfort on to others in the name of "acceptance". Healthy is sexy, and carrying around more fat that necessary isn't healthy. I'm not about to whine and cry about how women don't find me attractive because of my weight; I understand my beer gut isn't bringing all the girls to the yard, and that's OK. That's part of accepting my body as it is; not trying to force others to change their perspectives.
And can we lay off the whole "men aren't as impacted by body image issues as women are" please? Look at most of the leading men in hollywood; well muscled. It's a common misconception that men don't suffer from this issue, same as women.
Disagree with the memo all you like, but at least have the integrity to argue against the points it raised instead of making up some bullshit that it didn't say.
That LITERALLY means that because of women's biology, they are less likely to make it to positions of leadership.
You are only demonstrating your inability to understand the document here. It's as applicable to populations, not individuals. Meaning biological differences are what discourage more women than men from pursuing positions of leadership. That says nothing about the capabilities of individuals.
True, but neither of which seem to apply here. The story is he was told specifically why he was fired. Assuming that's true, it's quite a bit different than being told nothing, and it certainly opens the door to possible litigation if they didn't fire him for the stated reasons but instead something else entirely.
The company would have been remarkably wise to *not* give a reason if that were an option available to them.
Fact of the matter is, as he was the firee, not the firer, he cannot speak authoritatively as to why he was fired by his employer.
Not precisely true. He can speak authoritatively on why they said he was fired. Companies would be wise not to mince words on this point, too, as that can come back to bite you in the ass during litigation ( ie: told employee they were fired for x, but instead says y ).
I honestly wonder what management is hoping to achieve here. Is there some deficiency in their products which they hope can be solved by women? Are their current empoyees (men and women ) fundamentally incapable of providing a solution to this deficiency? Why? Or perhaps they find their women to be of significantly higher competency such that they are overworked? Are they further implying that men and women are fundamentally different and that men do not have the mental capacity that they're looking for?
I'm feeling triggered and need to stay home today.
It's a symbiotic relationship ONLY as long as the business is providing what the consumer wants... once it fails to do that, it's dead.
Well yes, that is how it works. Hence "symbiotic".
Note: I never said anything about "trickle down" anything. I was merely responding to your notion that businesses don't drive the economy, which is utterly false. Businesses and consumers drive the economy, they are fully integrated in this regard. Think about it; you can't really talk about one without implicitly referencing the other. Where do consumers get their wealth? Where do business sell their product?
It was kind of surreal, but I've done the same plenty of times myself. I think there should be a class in school about being wrong about whatever and learning to accept new data that challenges our original assumptions.
We already have those classes, and no they're not in the philosophy dept. It's the STEM classes.
Real science isn't forgiving of mistakes. It's either right or wrong, and if it's wrong it's obvious. In order to progress, you must learn to acknowledge your faults.
To that end, I would *love* for more people to take STEM classes. We could use a few more folks around here that have learned how to be wrong.
That's a clever strategy, and I might expect that from google except for the words from their execs who make it clear the memo was "Wrong Think(tm)".
Who knows, could be all part of the game they are playing. I know full well that sometimes, in HR and PR, despite knowing how things are going to end, you have to go through the motions.
As I understand it, he already has at least 1 high profile job offer. To say nothing of the inevitable discrimination suit payout he's very likely looking at.
His bed will be quite comfy indeed.
However, of more interest to me is his bravery. He predicted this witch-hunt behavior in his essay, and decided to go through with it anyway thus kicking off a nationwide conversation that we've needed to have for years/decades now. On top of that, he's exposed the idiotic behavior of the media, to say nothing of all the ignorant execs jumping on the bandwagon.
Microsoft hasn't had a successful entry into a new market since..what? The xbox? Their mobile efforts have not only been disasters, they've been repeated and predictable disasters.
They've got their core markets ( desktop, server/services, gaming ), and are arguably "improving" them successfully ( with some serious mis steps along the way ), but I just don't see how anyone can think they'll pull a rabbit out of their hat here.
As I mentioned in a different comment, that term was incorrect. However, you did seem to get the gist of my comment so it's a moot point.
Regardless, by virtue of someone willing to pay 10k for widget X, that assigns value to it. I don't see how debating the value after the fact changes the assigned value.
Explain that to me, I'm legitimately curious. If two parties agree to payment terms and close the transaction successfully, how does anyone else's rationalization change the value inherent in that transaction?
Basically, you're confusing "objective" with "fixed and universal".
Fair enough and you're quite correct. In fact, while reading your post I realized there's a very quick and obvious way to determine an objective measurement of perceived value; how much someone is willing to pay for it.:)
You can say, "There's no objective measure of value," but if someone pays $10,000 for a normal slice of Wonder Bread, we can say that they overpaid.
"Value" is in the eye of the beholder. People spend ungodly amounts of money on stereo equipment, for instance. Sums and values which rival your slice of bread, btw. Yet they are entirely happy with their purchase, so who am I to say any different?
There is no objective measurement of perceived value, which is what the economy runs on.
What is "reality" anyway? Economies are built on nothing more than perception; on the small scale, how much widget X is worth to person Y. On the larger scale, it's run by "feelings" ( how much I feel this company will make long term ).
Sure, we dress it up with pretty graphs and we all stand around in serious suits pretending we know what the hell we're talking about, but any economist will tell you it's all about perception and mood.
The best we can hope for is rationalizing after the fact.
The only reason economists' predictions don't have the same reputation as a meteorologist is because, generally speaking, we are all on the same bus and want to get to the same place ( more money. Hello greed! ).
Anti social asshole here, so forgive me my ignorance......but is video chat something people want? I'm talking actually want, not "oooo, gimmicky, I'll take two and then it ends up in the closet never to be used again"? Like smart phone "want". Notably, I don't actually use my phone to vocally talk to people, so that's probably a bad example.
Seems like 3D movie tech to me; neat idea, nobody actually wants it except the company producing it.
Slashdot Mirror
People who want to kill themselves quickly, breathe a lot of it in a short amount of time. The rest of us are doing it over a longer period of time.
I get the point you were trying to make, but this is an idiotic statement. The reason folks close the garage and run their vehicles to kill themselves is through suffocation. The toxins emitted from your vehicle don't kill that fast.
Look, I'm all for being comfortable in your own skin. As a fellow fatass, I can support that position.
That, however, is not what's going on here.
I am not supportive of forcing that comfort on to others in the name of "acceptance". Healthy is sexy, and carrying around more fat that necessary isn't healthy. I'm not about to whine and cry about how women don't find me attractive because of my weight; I understand my beer gut isn't bringing all the girls to the yard, and that's OK. That's part of accepting my body as it is; not trying to force others to change their perspectives.
And can we lay off the whole "men aren't as impacted by body image issues as women are" please? Look at most of the leading men in hollywood; well muscled. It's a common misconception that men don't suffer from this issue, same as women.
Disagree with the memo all you like, but at least have the integrity to argue against the points it raised instead of making up some bullshit that it didn't say.
That LITERALLY means that because of women's biology, they are less likely to make it to positions of leadership.
You are only demonstrating your inability to understand the document here. It's as applicable to populations, not individuals. Meaning biological differences are what discourage more women than men from pursuing positions of leadership. That says nothing about the capabilities of individuals.
A subtle but critical distinction.
True, but neither of which seem to apply here. The story is he was told specifically why he was fired. Assuming that's true, it's quite a bit different than being told nothing, and it certainly opens the door to possible litigation if they didn't fire him for the stated reasons but instead something else entirely.
The company would have been remarkably wise to *not* give a reason if that were an option available to them.
Didn't read the memo, huh? Just the media articles about it, right? It's obvious.
Here's a link for you; https://diversitymemo-static.s...
Fact of the matter is, as he was the firee, not the firer, he cannot speak authoritatively as to why he was fired by his employer.
Not precisely true. He can speak authoritatively on why they said he was fired. Companies would be wise not to mince words on this point, too, as that can come back to bite you in the ass during litigation ( ie: told employee they were fired for x, but instead says y ).
I honestly wonder what management is hoping to achieve here. Is there some deficiency in their products which they hope can be solved by women? Are their current empoyees (men and women ) fundamentally incapable of providing a solution to this deficiency? Why? Or perhaps they find their women to be of significantly higher competency such that they are overworked? Are they further implying that men and women are fundamentally different and that men do not have the mental capacity that they're looking for?
I'm feeling triggered and need to stay home today.
It's a symbiotic relationship ONLY as long as the business is providing what the consumer wants... once it fails to do that, it's dead.
Well yes, that is how it works. Hence "symbiotic".
Note: I never said anything about "trickle down" anything. I was merely responding to your notion that businesses don't drive the economy, which is utterly false. Businesses and consumers drive the economy, they are fully integrated in this regard. Think about it; you can't really talk about one without implicitly referencing the other. Where do consumers get their wealth? Where do business sell their product?
That would certainly be a rational response. From executives. Rational executives, if you will.
Uh, ya? That was implied, I felt.
Due process is just revenge grown up, anyway.
I'm forced to concur with AC; where do you think consumers spend their money?
It's a symbiotic relationship. Consumers have the power, ultimately, but it's businesses which create wealth.
It was kind of surreal, but I've done the same plenty of times myself. I think there should be a class in school about being wrong about whatever and learning to accept new data that challenges our original assumptions.
We already have those classes, and no they're not in the philosophy dept. It's the STEM classes.
Real science isn't forgiving of mistakes. It's either right or wrong, and if it's wrong it's obvious. In order to progress, you must learn to acknowledge your faults.
To that end, I would *love* for more people to take STEM classes. We could use a few more folks around here that have learned how to be wrong.
That's a clever strategy, and I might expect that from google except for the words from their execs who make it clear the memo was "Wrong Think(tm)".
Who knows, could be all part of the game they are playing. I know full well that sometimes, in HR and PR, despite knowing how things are going to end, you have to go through the motions.
I was getting more an Agernon-vibe off the summary.
As I understand it, he already has at least 1 high profile job offer. To say nothing of the inevitable discrimination suit payout he's very likely looking at.
His bed will be quite comfy indeed.
However, of more interest to me is his bravery. He predicted this witch-hunt behavior in his essay, and decided to go through with it anyway thus kicking off a nationwide conversation that we've needed to have for years/decades now. On top of that, he's exposed the idiotic behavior of the media, to say nothing of all the ignorant execs jumping on the bandwagon.
I haven't had this much fun since the election.
A fair point.
Microsoft hasn't had a successful entry into a new market since..what? The xbox? Their mobile efforts have not only been disasters, they've been repeated and predictable disasters.
They've got their core markets ( desktop, server/services, gaming ), and are arguably "improving" them successfully ( with some serious mis steps along the way ), but I just don't see how anyone can think they'll pull a rabbit out of their hat here.
The agreed upon price between the parties. If Person A agrees to buy Widget X from Person B for 10k, the inherent value of Widget X is 10k.
As I mentioned in a different comment, that term was incorrect. However, you did seem to get the gist of my comment so it's a moot point.
Regardless, by virtue of someone willing to pay 10k for widget X, that assigns value to it. I don't see how debating the value after the fact changes the assigned value.
Explain that to me, I'm legitimately curious. If two parties agree to payment terms and close the transaction successfully, how does anyone else's rationalization change the value inherent in that transaction?
Basically, you're confusing "objective" with "fixed and universal".
Fair enough and you're quite correct. In fact, while reading your post I realized there's a very quick and obvious way to determine an objective measurement of perceived value; how much someone is willing to pay for it. :)
I don't think you know what you're talking about.
I don't think you fully understand what I'm saying, personally. If you did, you'd understand why your 10k slice of bread is a meaningless analogy.
You can say, "There's no objective measure of value," but if someone pays $10,000 for a normal slice of Wonder Bread, we can say that they overpaid.
"Value" is in the eye of the beholder. People spend ungodly amounts of money on stereo equipment, for instance. Sums and values which rival your slice of bread, btw. Yet they are entirely happy with their purchase, so who am I to say any different?
There is no objective measurement of perceived value, which is what the economy runs on.
What is "reality" anyway? Economies are built on nothing more than perception; on the small scale, how much widget X is worth to person Y. On the larger scale, it's run by "feelings" ( how much I feel this company will make long term ).
Sure, we dress it up with pretty graphs and we all stand around in serious suits pretending we know what the hell we're talking about, but any economist will tell you it's all about perception and mood.
The best we can hope for is rationalizing after the fact.
The only reason economists' predictions don't have the same reputation as a meteorologist is because, generally speaking, we are all on the same bus and want to get to the same place ( more money. Hello greed! ).
Anti social asshole here, so forgive me my ignorance... ...but is video chat something people want? I'm talking actually want, not "oooo, gimmicky, I'll take two and then it ends up in the closet never to be used again"? Like smart phone "want". Notably, I don't actually use my phone to vocally talk to people, so that's probably a bad example.
Seems like 3D movie tech to me; neat idea, nobody actually wants it except the company producing it.