Actually, the 30% increase is on one particular benchmark when going from a two-core mobile part to the four-core part that sits at the same place in the Coffee Lake lineup. It sounds more like a power efficiency gain than a real throughput gain.
"X creates a hostile [work] environment for Y" is not a question of opinion. It is a question of law and facts, which is why I provided a link earlier to a court's explanation of the law and the fact pattern that courts look for to decide whether an employer can be liable for a hostile work environment. If it came down to your opinion, or the opinion of some member of group Y, courts would have to concede that there was no hostile environment, because holding otherwise would violate due process and perhaps free speech rights.
That goes back to my original assertion, which you rejected, that Google did not have to choose between establishing two different kinds of hostile environment. Court precedents identify a number of ways they can ensure that they do not tolerate a hostile environment for women, while still not creating a hostile environment for people who challenge feminist dogma.
If you don't want to deal with challenging ideas or people who are better-informed than you, try Gizmodo. They establish a safe space for SJWs, for example by stripping out citations and a chart from this memo to make it look like Damore was asserting facts without evidence.
Stop. Go back to your second comment. Read it, asshole, and stop pretending you didn't argue the thing that you very clearly did argue. You got called out on being wrong, man up (sorry if that offends you, snowflake!) and admit it.
A company doesn't have to fire someone to demonstrate severe political slant. Demoting someone from CEO to Chief Toilet-Scrubbing Officer would often be sufficient to get the point across.
The early 1960s called. They want their expectation of static social scenarios back.
Lots of things have changed since the 1980s that also changed how biological differences affect career choices. For example, the spread of personal computers means that a lot more people know what computer programming involves: people are better informed about what the job typically involves. Changes in work environments -- and in particular, the emergency of large, heavily software-focused companies like Microsoft, Google, and Amazon -- have changed the nature of software development as a career. It is frankly stupid to think the dynamics of the 1980s should occur in identical form today.
If you want to help fix some of the sociological problems, maybe you should work with this James Damore guy. He identified particular sources of trouble and offered some specific suggestions of more effective ways to encourage women to work at Google and develop their careers there.
Why are you arguing that men are inferior to women? That's your claim. You can couch it any way you want, but at the end of the day, us right-thinkers will interpret your words to make it so you argue what we already think you will argue.
You're still ranting in an incoherent, factually wrong, and fundamentally irrelevant manner.
The guy's argument was not that these differences are all due to biology, but that these differences exist, and that some are due to biology. Google isn't in a position to remake the world according to the whims of the "I'm a man today, I'm a woman tomorrow, I'm a dog next week" crowd that apparently runs the company, so it has to deal with the world as it is. Tilting at windmills is seldom a successful strategy.
There are a lot of factors that contribute to African-Americans doing worse on average than white- and Asian- Americans. Access to education is a pretty damn minor factor compared to the lack of stable, two-parent households, having a lot more negative role models than positive ones, and others.
Your argument is that Google had only two options. You bear the burden of supporting that contention; I only have to point out that you haven't done so.
To prove your contention, you'd need to show two legally false premises: first, that this essay constituted unlawful harassment; second, that Google had no alternative way to address that than to fire this guy.
They could say that, and so could you, but that doesn't make it so -- any more than saying that Hillary Clinton is president would make that true. Courts have mostly said that this kind of thing is not sufficient to create a hostile environment under federal anti-discrimination law.
Do you have a citation to show that the Google-relevant occupational interests and aptitudes of blondes vs brunettes or shorts vs talls differ in any measurable way? Obviously, tall people tend to make better basketball players, but Google isn't hiring for basketball prowess.
We do have a lot of measurements that show that while, yes, there is very wide within-sex divergence, there is also clear between-sex divergence in occupational interests, work-related skills (some where men do better, some where women do better), and the like. In some of the arguably most relevant cases -- like measures of concrete intelligence -- the distribution for men is wider than for women, so you get a lot more men than women at both ends of the distribution.
Damore's argument seems to be that Google's policies prefer some ideal of equality of outcome over technical excellence, which seems to be supported by Google's reaction to his manifesto.
"At will" employment mostly means that a firing is assumed to be legal unless a plaintiff can show otherwise. In other jurisdictions, the presumption is reversed.
In particular, California has made it illegal to fire someone based on their political advocacy or pay affiliation. Unless this ex-employee used done distribution list that wasn't supposed to be used for general purposes (and where that policy was enforced), this strongly smells like a fitting in the basis of his policy advocacy.
His favorite (only?) example wouldn't even need to be labeled under his labeling proposal because the corn in question was accidentally crossbred with a GMO -- it wasn't itself a GMO.
Some IT staffer did apparently tell Podesta that it was a legitimate email, and that he should immediately change his password, when the advice should have been that it was NOT a legitimate email, and change his password using (link goes here).
Maybe in shitty jurisdictions, but in the US of A, truth is an absolute defense to defamation claims.
I could tell people how this guy named Jeffrey Dahmer did... well, even just a few of the terrible things he did... with the intent of damaging his reputation (rather than informing my listeners about what he did), and I would be protected by the First Amendment -- even if Dahmer were still alive, or the US legal system allowed suits over alleged defamation of dead people.
If the facts are accurate, and you don't omit any material facts, then saying what you infer from those facts is probably going to be protected speech. If the inference is underwear-on-head stupid, such as "... and so politicians are clearly running a child-prostitution ring from this pizzeria" (when the facts do not reasonably support that), then a reasonable reader will harshly judge the speaker rather than the politicians in question.
The basic doctrine is called undisclosed defamatory facts. The statement is not "pure" opinion, of the kind that everyone can differ. Rather, it is an inference that is based on fact, without providing those facts so that a listener or reader may draw their own conclusions about whether the inference is sound.
Because Perens explained the parts of the GPL and the actions that he thinks violate the GPL that underlay his conclusions, I expect that the GRSecurity people will have a very hard time winning as a matter of law.
Slashdot Mirror
You gave Intel too much credit. It's actually a two- to four-core transition for a mobile part.
Actually, the 30% increase is on one particular benchmark when going from a two-core mobile part to the four-core part that sits at the same place in the Coffee Lake lineup. It sounds more like a power efficiency gain than a real throughput gain.
"X creates a hostile [work] environment for Y" is not a question of opinion. It is a question of law and facts, which is why I provided a link earlier to a court's explanation of the law and the fact pattern that courts look for to decide whether an employer can be liable for a hostile work environment. If it came down to your opinion, or the opinion of some member of group Y, courts would have to concede that there was no hostile environment, because holding otherwise would violate due process and perhaps free speech rights.
That goes back to my original assertion, which you rejected, that Google did not have to choose between establishing two different kinds of hostile environment. Court precedents identify a number of ways they can ensure that they do not tolerate a hostile environment for women, while still not creating a hostile environment for people who challenge feminist dogma.
If you don't want to deal with challenging ideas or people who are better-informed than you, try Gizmodo. They establish a safe space for SJWs, for example by stripping out citations and a chart from this memo to make it look like Damore was asserting facts without evidence.
Stop. Go back to your second comment. Read it, asshole, and stop pretending you didn't argue the thing that you very clearly did argue. You got called out on being wrong, man up (sorry if that offends you, snowflake!) and admit it.
A company doesn't have to fire someone to demonstrate severe political slant. Demoting someone from CEO to Chief Toilet-Scrubbing Officer would often be sufficient to get the point across.
The early 1960s called. They want their expectation of static social scenarios back.
Lots of things have changed since the 1980s that also changed how biological differences affect career choices. For example, the spread of personal computers means that a lot more people know what computer programming involves: people are better informed about what the job typically involves. Changes in work environments -- and in particular, the emergency of large, heavily software-focused companies like Microsoft, Google, and Amazon -- have changed the nature of software development as a career. It is frankly stupid to think the dynamics of the 1980s should occur in identical form today.
If you want to help fix some of the sociological problems, maybe you should work with this James Damore guy. He identified particular sources of trouble and offered some specific suggestions of more effective ways to encourage women to work at Google and develop their careers there.
Why are you arguing that men are inferior to women? That's your claim. You can couch it any way you want, but at the end of the day, us right-thinkers will interpret your words to make it so you argue what we already think you will argue.
You're still ranting in an incoherent, factually wrong, and fundamentally irrelevant manner.
The guy's argument was not that these differences are all due to biology, but that these differences exist, and that some are due to biology. Google isn't in a position to remake the world according to the whims of the "I'm a man today, I'm a woman tomorrow, I'm a dog next week" crowd that apparently runs the company, so it has to deal with the world as it is. Tilting at windmills is seldom a successful strategy.
There are a lot of factors that contribute to African-Americans doing worse on average than white- and Asian- Americans. Access to education is a pretty damn minor factor compared to the lack of stable, two-parent households, having a lot more negative role models than positive ones, and others.
Do you usually mistake "differ[ent]" for "inferior"?
Your argument is that Google had only two options. You bear the burden of supporting that contention; I only have to point out that you haven't done so.
Once you learn how logic works, here is some typical reading: http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/j...
To prove your contention, you'd need to show two legally false premises: first, that this essay constituted unlawful harassment; second, that Google had no alternative way to address that than to fire this guy.
They could say that, and so could you, but that doesn't make it so -- any more than saying that Hillary Clinton is president would make that true. Courts have mostly said that this kind of thing is not sufficient to create a hostile environment under federal anti-discrimination law.
"The memo claims that women are more neurotic."
No, it doesn't. Learn to read.
How sure are you that it was legal for Google to fire him? http://leginfo.legislature.ca....
That's not the choice that Google had to make, though. It's a false dichotomy.
Can you specifically quote any part where he said someone was inferior?
You haven't ruled out the moon being made of green cheese, so your particular preferences are invalid?
Seriously, if you have a point, learn how to express it coherently.
Do you have a citation to show that the Google-relevant occupational interests and aptitudes of blondes vs brunettes or shorts vs talls differ in any measurable way? Obviously, tall people tend to make better basketball players, but Google isn't hiring for basketball prowess.
We do have a lot of measurements that show that while, yes, there is very wide within-sex divergence, there is also clear between-sex divergence in occupational interests, work-related skills (some where men do better, some where women do better), and the like. In some of the arguably most relevant cases -- like measures of concrete intelligence -- the distribution for men is wider than for women, so you get a lot more men than women at both ends of the distribution.
Damore's argument seems to be that Google's policies prefer some ideal of equality of outcome over technical excellence, which seems to be supported by Google's reaction to his manifesto.
Rule #4: If the CEO jumps off a cliff to yell "You're fired for jumping off that cliff!", that is your fault, because rule #1 and #2?
Brendan Eich called. He wants his browser back...
"At will" employment mostly means that a firing is assumed to be legal unless a plaintiff can show otherwise. In other jurisdictions, the presumption is reversed.
In particular, California has made it illegal to fire someone based on their political advocacy or pay affiliation. Unless this ex-employee used done distribution list that wasn't supposed to be used for general purposes (and where that policy was enforced), this strongly smells like a fitting in the basis of his policy advocacy.
That's because he is dishonest. Compare: https://psmag.com/social-justi... (which mentions that "GMOs as allergens" has been debunked)
http://www.supermarketnews.com... (lots of products have undeclared allergens that could cause problems for consumers)
His favorite (only?) example wouldn't even need to be labeled under his labeling proposal because the corn in question was accidentally crossbred with a GMO -- it wasn't itself a GMO.
Some IT staffer did apparently tell Podesta that it was a legitimate email, and that he should immediately change his password, when the advice should have been that it was NOT a legitimate email, and change his password using (link goes here).
Maybe in shitty jurisdictions, but in the US of A, truth is an absolute defense to defamation claims.
I could tell people how this guy named Jeffrey Dahmer did ... well, even just a few of the terrible things he did ... with the intent of damaging his reputation (rather than informing my listeners about what he did), and I would be protected by the First Amendment -- even if Dahmer were still alive, or the US legal system allowed suits over alleged defamation of dead people.
If the facts are accurate, and you don't omit any material facts, then saying what you infer from those facts is probably going to be protected speech. If the inference is underwear-on-head stupid, such as "... and so politicians are clearly running a child-prostitution ring from this pizzeria" (when the facts do not reasonably support that), then a reasonable reader will harshly judge the speaker rather than the politicians in question.
The basic doctrine is called undisclosed defamatory facts. The statement is not "pure" opinion, of the kind that everyone can differ. Rather, it is an inference that is based on fact, without providing those facts so that a listener or reader may draw their own conclusions about whether the inference is sound.
Because Perens explained the parts of the GPL and the actions that he thinks violate the GPL that underlay his conclusions, I expect that the GRSecurity people will have a very hard time winning as a matter of law.