Wojcicki opens by saying her daughter asked her, "Is it true that there are biological reasons why there are fewer women in tech and leadership?" Wojcicki says no, it's not true, but the question has still plagued her throughout her career.
Or she's just wrong. Choosing not to believe in something doesn't make it go away.
I'm sure there are plenty of parents telling their children that climate change isn't real, but that isn't going to stop global temperatures from increasing.
And really it comes down to about the same thing. There are some people who have built their world view around a belief that isn't true, and even when presented with large amounts of evidence to suggest otherwise they will continue to dismiss it. I've found that there are very few people who are scientifically minded and rational and even if they did accept the reality of both climate change and sex-based biological differences, there're just as likely to be off the reservation in some other area like the link between vaccination and autism, GMO food, or even something as laughable as the age of the earth.
I don't think anyone's really immune and humans have some terrible cognitive inclinations that make us unwilling to let go of view points once we've latched on to them. I was recently at a family reunion and watched some of my relatives get into an argument over some idiotic event in the past for almost five hours. Even after someone got annoyed enough to dig up an old photo on Facebook to prove their point, the other person still wouldn't admit they were wrong and started inventing all kinds of fanciful reasons to explain away the photo. 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.
Pick any group and you can find some other group that hates them for existing. You can make the same claim of pretty much any group, but it's not universally true. What people forget it to qualify it, probably for victim points which any group is capable of trying to garner.
Jews are fucking hated for existing (by antisemitic idiots).
Blacks are fucking hated for existing (by race-based nationalist idiots).
Atheists are fucking hated for existing (by religious zealots all many creeds).
While males are fucking hated for existing (by moronic new-aged Marxists).
New York Yankee fans are fucking hated for existing (because they're pricks).
Anyone who has a CS degree can probably call themselves a game designer. I made a Pong clone as part of an assembly class and I imagine most people have either done something similar or made a simple game as a hobby project. Thinking back I even made a crappy little text adventure game as a kid. Technically that was a game as well.
Well they do say Threadripper and Eypic are unaffected, and I think those chips are a different stepping than the initial batch of Ryzen chips so the probably may already be fixed. It may be possible to fix the others with a firmware update, though who knows how long that will take to roll out depending on other things AMD is working on and their other priorities.
Well one is pro-choice and the other is pro-life, and they both bicker over gun rights without really doing anything, but beyond that they're essentially the same. The special interests they cater to differ, but they're still in the catering business.
If women are different from men in a way that would result in them having diverse perspectives, then why is it unreasonable to assume that those same diverse perspectives might lead them to other career choices?
As to your second point, the evidence seems to point the other way. I believe it was you who made a post in the previous thread in this topic indicating that Iranian women were more likely to be involved in software jobs as some evidence that it must be socially based. Interestingly enough, you'll see higher rates in other countries too. India is one example where there are significantly more women in computing. What you fail to understand is that this has little to do with cultural differences (and you'd be hard pressed to argue that either India or Iran have better views towards women in general than western democracies) and is the result of economic ones. Computer science jobs are well paying and in high demand, and do potentially afford you the opportunity to immigrate to a western democracy that may be preferable to the type of people who are intelligent enough to excel in the software development field.
When you remove economic pressures (the Scandinavian countries which have among the best social safety nets have the same low numbers of women in CS as the U.S.) and have a society that leaves you essentially free to pursue whatever ambitions you might have, it is hardly unsurprising that any biological tendencies that may predispose people to one field or another are more prevalent. To use an analogy, you can only really see if one strain of plant yields more only after you ensure that they all have sufficient water to thrive. If you somehow created a society that was able to ensure that everyone in life had an equal start, the only possible variance left would come down to biological differences.
There's a substantial amount of evidence to suggest men and women are different. Even at a surface level, we see large differences in things like personality, which has been demonstrated to be highly heritable. I'm not quite sure how you could look at those differences and come to the conclusion that it isn't going to result in differences in vocation selection or other life choices that can impact a person's career. I suppose you could argue that somehow all of these differences are merely a result of society, but that ignores the heritability of personality as well as evidence from studies that examined sex-based behavior difference in infants. See a recent study that examined children roughly one to two and half years of age in nurseries, a similar earlier study which examined infants 1 - 2 years of age , and another study which examined infants as young as three months old. There was another study that examined toy preference in young monkeys that found similar sex-based differences which does suggest that this is something that goes back quite far in our evolutionary history.
It's funny that you bring up global warming, because a lot of the evidence suggests that you are incorrect, yet you continue to act in much the same way as people who contest the science behind global warming. I seriously question how you could reconcile the studies I've presented above with your beliefs that biology plays such a little role in the outcomes we're observing. I suppose you could claim the science is biased, but then how do you know that the scientists publishing articles about climate change aren't biased?
Well right now you need a pilot at some stage of the flight because the entire system isn't automated so I would say that pilots are currently responsible for all flights that complete their voyage not crashing.
However, if you do have a heavily automated system that fails, how much capacity to save the situation does the pilot have? I can imagine that in a lot of scenarios if things are so unbelievably borked that the automated system can't do anything, the pilot isn't going to have much more luck.
I fully understand that's how modern governments function, but that doesn't make it a good way of operating.
Also, just because you find it valuable doesn't mean that everyone is okay with the few dollars out of their pocket for something that they don't want or have no interest in. I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of other things the government is doing that that take a few dollars per your in your taxes that you don't like or don't think is a fair price to pay for the knowledge that they bring. Do you just accept that and get over it? I have a feeling that you wouldn't accept as an argument that those policies remain just because someone else feels as though its a fair price to pay for that knowledge.
To your first point, does the government save more than they pay out in subsidies or tax credits? Even if that makes the result less impressive, competition itself is still going to be good.
They're tech companies and this a website that discusses things related to technology. I'm sure there are dozens or hundreds of hit pieces (or just regular pieces espousing the position that governments shouldn't be subsidizing things in general) being written about all of those different companies in different papers, magazines, or websites that are being posted to various web forums that focus on those topics, but if you want to read about them, you'll have to go to those other places.
It probably does make for worse leaders in a lot of situations (though in others you're going to want a ruthless leader) but that's really just side-stepping the issue. What you should be looking at is if being driven by status is more likely to result in someone wanting to become a leader or attempting to obtain a leadership position. Even if it is true that women are more cooperative, it doesn't mean that women leaders are necessarily cooperative people. If you're also assuming that being driven by status makes one more likely to attempt to become a leader, then it stands to reason that most women in leadership positions would also be driven by status.
I don't know if being driven by status and being cooperative are mutually exclusive to some degree for the sake of this argument, though they may have some inverse correlation even if they aren't at opposite ends of some personality dimension that has been constructed. However, if you make an assumption that men are more likely to be driven by status, and that people who are driven by status try to assume positions of leadership, then it does logically follow that there will be more men in leadership positions whether they are actually good at them or not.
Google made a shit-ton of money by offering good products. I don't give two fucks about the skin color, sexual orientation, political leanings, etc. of the software developers at Google as long as their search returns fast and accurate results. Diversity has almost nothing to do with quality of product as far as I can tell, but I can tell you that any company that institutes some kind of quota system is going to alienate and drive away some of those people who were responsible for quality products.
If you're recruiting people at disproportionate rates to the pool of available candidates either you need to pay better (and pay everyone else more as well or people will complain about receiving less if they believe that have equal skill or capability) or hire certain demographics at a lower ability threshhold (this assumes that none of the usual diversity demographics have any bearing on ability, which I'll assume you and most of the other people in favor of this crap would argue in favor of anyway) or disproportionately reject candidates who apply but don't fill any diversity quota. This is not an ideal strategy and opens the company up for competitors to offer a better product because they're either utilizing cheaper labor, not adding less skilled workers, or not passing over potentially higher skilled workers.
It might make good short term marketing, but in the end businesses compete on price. If this weren't true we'd still have all manner of goods being made in the United States because there are just as many people who like to virtue signal over their patriotism as there are those who like to about diversity initiatives. People's actions don't always align with their words, and companies run on dollars, not platitudes.
As an interesting aside, I had an interesting thought. Typically when these types of stories get posted someone invariably trots out an argument that diversity improves team performance. I don't think anyone has linked a study to ever support their claim, and for all I know such a study does exist, but assuming that claim were true, it would necessarily mean that those very same diversity characteristics (race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) mean that the people who possess them are somehow different. If that weren't the case, you shouldn't expect a different outcome. But if those characteristics make them different, then why would it be surprising if those characteristics didn't also result in fewer (or more as for that matter some minority groups are disproportionately more likely to be in computing) members of those demographics getting into software development or any other field for that matter. I suppose you could argue that those characteristics themselves aren't responsible, only that they are more strongly correlated with other factors such as growing up poor or something like that. However, that just strikes me as stereotyping people by assuming that just because they're a member of a certain demographic that they must possess some characteristic that will lead to this magical diversity performance improvement.
And don't just take this as some condemnation of hiring minority demographics or something equally asinine. In some cases you do quite clearly want to discriminate and have members of certain demographics. For example, if I were trying to make a phone I'd want to have some women on the team just because they're going to use the device in a different way than men in a very general sense. I don't necessarily mean in terms of apps or what they do with it, just that many will probably carry it in a purse or handbag and that they'll generally have smaller hands among several other things I probably haven't imagined might be important aspects of how the product should function. Yes, that itself is a contrived example, but it illustrates a point itself.
To get back on track, I think you and a lot of other posters make this mistake of assuming that you have some kind of morally superior position to base your argument on and that the rest
Birth control outside of a condom is for people in a dedicated relationship and if you're lying about birth control in that situation your relationship is more fucked up than I care to imagine. I wouldn't want to have unprotected sex with someone I've just recently met. Pregnancy isn't the biggest concern compared to getting some STDs. If someone gets pregnant you can always get an abortion, but there's no easy fix for HIV, hepatitis, or herpes.
If it's open access, just put up torrents for everything if you're really worried about hosting costs. There are plenty of other sites out there that would be glad to host copies of the work as well. A lot of universities probably wouldn't mind hosting and distributing either and this is commonly done for open source software projects that are orders of magnitude bigger than the PDF files of journal publications.
It doesn't even matter if they are neutral. Facebook is stuck on the defensive, because there's always a new story and a new source. Further, it doesn't matter if they get it right 99 times out of 100, because people are always going to remember the one time they get it wrong and try to suppress something that turns out to be legitimate news.
The summary and the articles leave out some pretty important information. How much radiation were workers exposed to?
There's one part where CH2M Hill claimed less than you would receive during a chest x-ray, but then it quotes someone else who claims that claim is BS.
I expect that the number of graduation will go down if they need to pass these internships. The people who would just cheat their way through before will probably have a more difficult time of it now, especially if the internships start early in the program.
I really don't have a problem with Sci-Hub or other sites like it because a lot of the research published in those journals comes from taxpayer funds to some degree. I don't really understand why more state (or federal as the case may be) governments don't put stipulations that the research funded by taxpayer dollars is open to the public. Theoretically any other government information (aside from classified information or the like) is public record, so I'm not sure why this should be any different.
I don't think it's necessarily evil any more than any other technology is. The same technology that can do all of the harm that you imagine can also eliminate diseases and other manners of affliction. Humanity has faced this dilemma throughout history, and some have chosen poorly, but those who choose wisely tend to end up ahead of the curve and humanity advances.
I wonder if servants / house keepers will make something of a comeback. House work isn't terribly difficult, but it is rather tedious. I would say that it's more varied than factory work at least.
It won't work. You'll end up with people finding all kinds of clever ways to avoid the problem, similar to how the rich avoid paying taxes on large amounts of their wealth by the use of various loopholes or even legal methods of minimizing their tax burdens.
Nobody has billions in their checking account. Anyone who has substantial amounts of wealth (and a clue what to do with it) has almost all of it invested or tied up in land or other valuable assets. The only people who have tens of millions of dollars immediately at their disposal are drug lords or foolish lottery winners.
I don't think I'd want to associate my brand with something that is just going to piss people off. There are plenty of products I refuse to buy or companies I won't do business with over annoying practices similar to this.
Automative companies still receive new patents for what are largely tweaks or just different ways of doing the same thing and that's on technology that's been around for over one hundred years at this point. There's typically more than one way to accomplish something and Apple was free to use methods for which the patents had expired or to develop their own approach. If they think the patent should be invalid, they had ample chance to demonstrate that during the trial.
Slashdot Mirror
Wojcicki opens by saying her daughter asked her, "Is it true that there are biological reasons why there are fewer women in tech and leadership?" Wojcicki says no, it's not true, but the question has still plagued her throughout her career.
Or she's just wrong. Choosing not to believe in something doesn't make it go away.
I'm sure there are plenty of parents telling their children that climate change isn't real, but that isn't going to stop global temperatures from increasing.
And really it comes down to about the same thing. There are some people who have built their world view around a belief that isn't true, and even when presented with large amounts of evidence to suggest otherwise they will continue to dismiss it. I've found that there are very few people who are scientifically minded and rational and even if they did accept the reality of both climate change and sex-based biological differences, there're just as likely to be off the reservation in some other area like the link between vaccination and autism, GMO food, or even something as laughable as the age of the earth.
I don't think anyone's really immune and humans have some terrible cognitive inclinations that make us unwilling to let go of view points once we've latched on to them. I was recently at a family reunion and watched some of my relatives get into an argument over some idiotic event in the past for almost five hours. Even after someone got annoyed enough to dig up an old photo on Facebook to prove their point, the other person still wouldn't admit they were wrong and started inventing all kinds of fanciful reasons to explain away the photo. 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.
Pick any group and you can find some other group that hates them for existing. You can make the same claim of pretty much any group, but it's not universally true. What people forget it to qualify it, probably for victim points which any group is capable of trying to garner.
Jews are fucking hated for existing (by antisemitic idiots).
Blacks are fucking hated for existing (by race-based nationalist idiots).
Atheists are fucking hated for existing (by religious zealots all many creeds).
While males are fucking hated for existing (by moronic new-aged Marxists).
New York Yankee fans are fucking hated for existing (because they're pricks).
Anyone who has a CS degree can probably call themselves a game designer. I made a Pong clone as part of an assembly class and I imagine most people have either done something similar or made a simple game as a hobby project. Thinking back I even made a crappy little text adventure game as a kid. Technically that was a game as well.
Well they do say Threadripper and Eypic are unaffected, and I think those chips are a different stepping than the initial batch of Ryzen chips so the probably may already be fixed. It may be possible to fix the others with a firmware update, though who knows how long that will take to roll out depending on other things AMD is working on and their other priorities.
Well one is pro-choice and the other is pro-life, and they both bicker over gun rights without really doing anything, but beyond that they're essentially the same. The special interests they cater to differ, but they're still in the catering business.
If women are different from men in a way that would result in them having diverse perspectives, then why is it unreasonable to assume that those same diverse perspectives might lead them to other career choices?
As to your second point, the evidence seems to point the other way. I believe it was you who made a post in the previous thread in this topic indicating that Iranian women were more likely to be involved in software jobs as some evidence that it must be socially based. Interestingly enough, you'll see higher rates in other countries too. India is one example where there are significantly more women in computing. What you fail to understand is that this has little to do with cultural differences (and you'd be hard pressed to argue that either India or Iran have better views towards women in general than western democracies) and is the result of economic ones. Computer science jobs are well paying and in high demand, and do potentially afford you the opportunity to immigrate to a western democracy that may be preferable to the type of people who are intelligent enough to excel in the software development field.
When you remove economic pressures (the Scandinavian countries which have among the best social safety nets have the same low numbers of women in CS as the U.S.) and have a society that leaves you essentially free to pursue whatever ambitions you might have, it is hardly unsurprising that any biological tendencies that may predispose people to one field or another are more prevalent. To use an analogy, you can only really see if one strain of plant yields more only after you ensure that they all have sufficient water to thrive. If you somehow created a society that was able to ensure that everyone in life had an equal start, the only possible variance left would come down to biological differences.
There's a substantial amount of evidence to suggest men and women are different. Even at a surface level, we see large differences in things like personality, which has been demonstrated to be highly heritable. I'm not quite sure how you could look at those differences and come to the conclusion that it isn't going to result in differences in vocation selection or other life choices that can impact a person's career. I suppose you could argue that somehow all of these differences are merely a result of society, but that ignores the heritability of personality as well as evidence from studies that examined sex-based behavior difference in infants. See a recent study that examined children roughly one to two and half years of age in nurseries, a similar earlier study which examined infants 1 - 2 years of age , and another study which examined infants as young as three months old. There was another study that examined toy preference in young monkeys that found similar sex-based differences which does suggest that this is something that goes back quite far in our evolutionary history.
It's funny that you bring up global warming, because a lot of the evidence suggests that you are incorrect, yet you continue to act in much the same way as people who contest the science behind global warming. I seriously question how you could reconcile the studies I've presented above with your beliefs that biology plays such a little role in the outcomes we're observing. I suppose you could claim the science is biased, but then how do you know that the scientists publishing articles about climate change aren't biased?
Well right now you need a pilot at some stage of the flight because the entire system isn't automated so I would say that pilots are currently responsible for all flights that complete their voyage not crashing.
However, if you do have a heavily automated system that fails, how much capacity to save the situation does the pilot have? I can imagine that in a lot of scenarios if things are so unbelievably borked that the automated system can't do anything, the pilot isn't going to have much more luck.
I fully understand that's how modern governments function, but that doesn't make it a good way of operating.
Also, just because you find it valuable doesn't mean that everyone is okay with the few dollars out of their pocket for something that they don't want or have no interest in. I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of other things the government is doing that that take a few dollars per your in your taxes that you don't like or don't think is a fair price to pay for the knowledge that they bring. Do you just accept that and get over it? I have a feeling that you wouldn't accept as an argument that those policies remain just because someone else feels as though its a fair price to pay for that knowledge.
To your first point, does the government save more than they pay out in subsidies or tax credits? Even if that makes the result less impressive, competition itself is still going to be good.
Otherwise, excellent points.
They're tech companies and this a website that discusses things related to technology. I'm sure there are dozens or hundreds of hit pieces (or just regular pieces espousing the position that governments shouldn't be subsidizing things in general) being written about all of those different companies in different papers, magazines, or websites that are being posted to various web forums that focus on those topics, but if you want to read about them, you'll have to go to those other places.
It probably does make for worse leaders in a lot of situations (though in others you're going to want a ruthless leader) but that's really just side-stepping the issue. What you should be looking at is if being driven by status is more likely to result in someone wanting to become a leader or attempting to obtain a leadership position. Even if it is true that women are more cooperative, it doesn't mean that women leaders are necessarily cooperative people. If you're also assuming that being driven by status makes one more likely to attempt to become a leader, then it stands to reason that most women in leadership positions would also be driven by status.
I don't know if being driven by status and being cooperative are mutually exclusive to some degree for the sake of this argument, though they may have some inverse correlation even if they aren't at opposite ends of some personality dimension that has been constructed. However, if you make an assumption that men are more likely to be driven by status, and that people who are driven by status try to assume positions of leadership, then it does logically follow that there will be more men in leadership positions whether they are actually good at them or not.
Google made a shit-ton of money by offering good products. I don't give two fucks about the skin color, sexual orientation, political leanings, etc. of the software developers at Google as long as their search returns fast and accurate results. Diversity has almost nothing to do with quality of product as far as I can tell, but I can tell you that any company that institutes some kind of quota system is going to alienate and drive away some of those people who were responsible for quality products.
If you're recruiting people at disproportionate rates to the pool of available candidates either you need to pay better (and pay everyone else more as well or people will complain about receiving less if they believe that have equal skill or capability) or hire certain demographics at a lower ability threshhold (this assumes that none of the usual diversity demographics have any bearing on ability, which I'll assume you and most of the other people in favor of this crap would argue in favor of anyway) or disproportionately reject candidates who apply but don't fill any diversity quota. This is not an ideal strategy and opens the company up for competitors to offer a better product because they're either utilizing cheaper labor, not adding less skilled workers, or not passing over potentially higher skilled workers.
It might make good short term marketing, but in the end businesses compete on price. If this weren't true we'd still have all manner of goods being made in the United States because there are just as many people who like to virtue signal over their patriotism as there are those who like to about diversity initiatives. People's actions don't always align with their words, and companies run on dollars, not platitudes.
As an interesting aside, I had an interesting thought. Typically when these types of stories get posted someone invariably trots out an argument that diversity improves team performance. I don't think anyone has linked a study to ever support their claim, and for all I know such a study does exist, but assuming that claim were true, it would necessarily mean that those very same diversity characteristics (race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) mean that the people who possess them are somehow different. If that weren't the case, you shouldn't expect a different outcome. But if those characteristics make them different, then why would it be surprising if those characteristics didn't also result in fewer (or more as for that matter some minority groups are disproportionately more likely to be in computing) members of those demographics getting into software development or any other field for that matter. I suppose you could argue that those characteristics themselves aren't responsible, only that they are more strongly correlated with other factors such as growing up poor or something like that. However, that just strikes me as stereotyping people by assuming that just because they're a member of a certain demographic that they must possess some characteristic that will lead to this magical diversity performance improvement.
And don't just take this as some condemnation of hiring minority demographics or something equally asinine. In some cases you do quite clearly want to discriminate and have members of certain demographics. For example, if I were trying to make a phone I'd want to have some women on the team just because they're going to use the device in a different way than men in a very general sense. I don't necessarily mean in terms of apps or what they do with it, just that many will probably carry it in a purse or handbag and that they'll generally have smaller hands among several other things I probably haven't imagined might be important aspects of how the product should function. Yes, that itself is a contrived example, but it illustrates a point itself.
To get back on track, I think you and a lot of other posters make this mistake of assuming that you have some kind of morally superior position to base your argument on and that the rest
Birth control outside of a condom is for people in a dedicated relationship and if you're lying about birth control in that situation your relationship is more fucked up than I care to imagine. I wouldn't want to have unprotected sex with someone I've just recently met. Pregnancy isn't the biggest concern compared to getting some STDs. If someone gets pregnant you can always get an abortion, but there's no easy fix for HIV, hepatitis, or herpes.
If it's open access, just put up torrents for everything if you're really worried about hosting costs. There are plenty of other sites out there that would be glad to host copies of the work as well. A lot of universities probably wouldn't mind hosting and distributing either and this is commonly done for open source software projects that are orders of magnitude bigger than the PDF files of journal publications.
It doesn't even matter if they are neutral. Facebook is stuck on the defensive, because there's always a new story and a new source. Further, it doesn't matter if they get it right 99 times out of 100, because people are always going to remember the one time they get it wrong and try to suppress something that turns out to be legitimate news.
The summary and the articles leave out some pretty important information. How much radiation were workers exposed to?
There's one part where CH2M Hill claimed less than you would receive during a chest x-ray, but then it quotes someone else who claims that claim is BS.
I expect that the number of graduation will go down if they need to pass these internships. The people who would just cheat their way through before will probably have a more difficult time of it now, especially if the internships start early in the program.
I really don't have a problem with Sci-Hub or other sites like it because a lot of the research published in those journals comes from taxpayer funds to some degree. I don't really understand why more state (or federal as the case may be) governments don't put stipulations that the research funded by taxpayer dollars is open to the public. Theoretically any other government information (aside from classified information or the like) is public record, so I'm not sure why this should be any different.
I don't think it's necessarily evil any more than any other technology is. The same technology that can do all of the harm that you imagine can also eliminate diseases and other manners of affliction. Humanity has faced this dilemma throughout history, and some have chosen poorly, but those who choose wisely tend to end up ahead of the curve and humanity advances.
I wonder if servants / house keepers will make something of a comeback. House work isn't terribly difficult, but it is rather tedious. I would say that it's more varied than factory work at least.
It won't work. You'll end up with people finding all kinds of clever ways to avoid the problem, similar to how the rich avoid paying taxes on large amounts of their wealth by the use of various loopholes or even legal methods of minimizing their tax burdens.
Nobody has billions in their checking account. Anyone who has substantial amounts of wealth (and a clue what to do with it) has almost all of it invested or tied up in land or other valuable assets. The only people who have tens of millions of dollars immediately at their disposal are drug lords or foolish lottery winners.
I don't think I'd want to associate my brand with something that is just going to piss people off. There are plenty of products I refuse to buy or companies I won't do business with over annoying practices similar to this.
Automative companies still receive new patents for what are largely tweaks or just different ways of doing the same thing and that's on technology that's been around for over one hundred years at this point. There's typically more than one way to accomplish something and Apple was free to use methods for which the patents had expired or to develop their own approach. If they think the patent should be invalid, they had ample chance to demonstrate that during the trial.
"We are constantly experimenting with ways to improve the search experience for our users"
Then why the hell are you using autoplay videos?