I hope you put pants on before answering the door for the delivery person!
Hell no. I've answered the door wearing all manner of clothing items. Like the delivery guy cares. He's handing me food and I'm handing him payment. My clothing has no relevance to this interaction.
Well, it's a taught behaviour that becomes automatic when receiving something. That doesn't make it pointless; it's still an acknowledgement, and it helps lubricate a social interaction.
Don't knock civil courtesies, they add a lot of value.
(I'm really not sure the term reflexive is appropriate.)
Well, that and people like the other two that have replied to my post. They aren't even interested in understanding the complexities of the situation and instead resort to ad hominem attacks based on their own prejudices.
I think you ask the wrong question. The question is not primarily "why do only get white males hired" but "why do only white males enter this job segment".
Google's hiring practices strongly disagree with you - to the extent that white people are highly under-represented at the company, compared to the national demographics.
Which is why it was lovely to see that even on the Guardian people are calling out media lies on this - see the comments on https://www.theguardian.com/co...
This media misinformation is only damaging the media.
Sane companies manage to comply with the law and provide a safe and welcoming work environment by gently discouraging contentious speech.
If Google had shut down all conversations on gender, race and political affiliation then everybody would be treated equally and company resources wouldn't be getting used to create a work environment hostile to men, white people or conservatives.
So really the treatment of Altheide was the correct approach; they just went wrong by only going half-cocked on it.
Note that it's possible to discuss and promote diversity without creating company wide forums. You just need to be adult about it - something it's clear is a struggle at Google.
One in which rape, sexual assault and actual harassment continue to be illegal, continue to be socially unacceptable and continue to be prosecuted. But also one in which people can flirt, initiate relationships and engage socially without being publicly humiliated or barred from their industry.
I don't think I've ever been in a company where management and employees were on the same wavelength...not for long, anyway.
At a broad level there are often disconnects, but where legal constraints exist there's seldom any major difference. None of the companies I've worked at would tolerate sexism, racism or illegal discrimination at a management or employee level.
Politics is an acceptable conversation item but bullying or demeaning people because of their views is not. Religion tends to be a more difficult area because of the fuckwit religions that mandate death to unbelievers; makes it hard to point out how full of shit they are without their idiotic adherents getting horribly offended.
No, you'd need to be intelligent, understand what I am and am not arguing and have the fucking sense not to call people retards before you could help me.
But that's fine, you're probably too old to buy a fucking clue now.
This makes it a bit of hard to argue GW isn't real.
No. It makes it hard to argue that the climate in your location hasn't changed, but that's got fuck all to do with global warming without a fuckload more evidence.
After all, the planet went through multiple temperature changes long before humans existed; good luck blaming homo sapiens for those.
So your entire point is that virus scanners can't detect new attacks, only ones previously discovered?
So fucking what. Those previously discovered attacks are still out there, and by far the largest threat. So people will still benefit from preventing them.
While true, good ways to get your boss to like you - do your work - do your work well - be competent - help the team deliver its objectives - help the company deliver its targets - get good feedback from others
All these things are good for the company and most of them make the boss look good, which is also a useful way to get them to like you.
Sure, you can also build a personal relationship, but that's just good management. You do manage your boss?
What the chart doesn't show is that black women get paid less than white men for doing the same job.
It's aggregated too highly. No control for industry or company, their methodology relies on a source of 'hours worked' that I'd need convincing is reliable, no factoring in whether the jobs are full time or part time, no reference to whether career breaks are included as 'years experience', very crude assessment of 'education' and doesn't explore the quality of the experience acquired (e.g. someone working 50 hour weeks as a lawyer will gain more experience than someone working 30, even if they've both been lawyers for four years).
It's interesting and it would be good to explore more deeply and add some scientific rigour and certainty to it. Instead they posted inflammatory bullshit about women having to work 7 months into the following year to earn the same amount, resulting in the authors' credibility plummeting and forcing resultant scepticism in their findings.
would you pick a system where 50% of the workers arbitrarily make 30% less pay for the same work or a system where the pay for 100% of the workers was roughly the same?
Why would I pick one of those two systems, when there's a third alternative that's not only superior, but already the one that most closely matches reality: Workers getting paid according to their skills, experience and contribution.
Only pay me the same as some people that pretend to be my peers and watch me drop to a 15 hour week, during which I'll easily match their level of (non)performance.
Because the evidence shows that men work longer hours than women, have fewer days off sick and negotiate harder for raises. Why wouldn't that be true for people doing the same job role?
It would be horrifically inequitable if one gender got paid the same for doing less work.
Slashdot Mirror
I hope you put pants on before answering the door for the delivery person!
Hell no. I've answered the door wearing all manner of clothing items. Like the delivery guy cares. He's handing me food and I'm handing him payment. My clothing has no relevance to this interaction.
Well, it's a taught behaviour that becomes automatic when receiving something. That doesn't make it pointless; it's still an acknowledgement, and it helps lubricate a social interaction.
Don't knock civil courtesies, they add a lot of value.
(I'm really not sure the term reflexive is appropriate.)
People aren't saying thank you to the car, but the people that they know are behind the operation of said car.
That's not necessarily true. I say thank you to inanimate objects when they do good things for me - and delivering my pizza is a very good thing.
Given how much I swear at my computer it seems only reasonable to thank it from time to time too.
Well, that and people like the other two that have replied to my post. They aren't even interested in understanding the complexities of the situation and instead resort to ad hominem attacks based on their own prejudices.
I think you ask the wrong question. The question is not primarily "why do only get white males hired" but "why do only white males enter this job segment".
Google's hiring practices strongly disagree with you - to the extent that white people are highly under-represented at the company, compared to the national demographics.
I'll confess, that doesn't help me at all.
Physical: the body
Physiological: how it works
Well, a cock works like a cock whether its attached to a man, a woman or an attack helicopter. It's still a cock.
Which is why it was lovely to see that even on the Guardian people are calling out media lies on this - see the comments on
https://www.theguardian.com/co...
This media misinformation is only damaging the media.
Sane companies manage to comply with the law and provide a safe and welcoming work environment by gently discouraging contentious speech.
If Google had shut down all conversations on gender, race and political affiliation then everybody would be treated equally and company resources wouldn't be getting used to create a work environment hostile to men, white people or conservatives.
So really the treatment of Altheide was the correct approach; they just went wrong by only going half-cocked on it.
Note that it's possible to discuss and promote diversity without creating company wide forums. You just need to be adult about it - something it's clear is a struggle at Google.
Oddly enough there's a non-extreme route.
One in which rape, sexual assault and actual harassment continue to be illegal, continue to be socially unacceptable and continue to be prosecuted.
But also one in which people can flirt, initiate relationships and engage socially without being publicly humiliated or barred from their industry.
Is that too absurd?
I don't know, seems to be veering towards zoophile..
I don't think I've ever been in a company where management and employees were on the same wavelength...not for long, anyway.
At a broad level there are often disconnects, but where legal constraints exist there's seldom any major difference. None of the companies I've worked at would tolerate sexism, racism or illegal discrimination at a management or employee level.
Politics is an acceptable conversation item but bullying or demeaning people because of their views is not. Religion tends to be a more difficult area because of the fuckwit religions that mandate death to unbelievers; makes it hard to point out how full of shit they are without their idiotic adherents getting horribly offended.
If you do the research you'll find that this definition is in fact a lie made up by racists to try and cover for their racist views and behaviour.
No, you'd need to be intelligent, understand what I am and am not arguing and have the fucking sense not to call people retards before you could help me.
But that's fine, you're probably too old to buy a fucking clue now.
Right, "actual cost". Which is verified by what... Starting to understand yet? No? Can't help you friend.
Receipts.
Do you actively fucking enjoy being investigated for tax fraud?
This makes it a bit of hard to argue GW isn't real.
No. It makes it hard to argue that the climate in your location hasn't changed, but that's got fuck all to do with global warming without a fuckload more evidence.
After all, the planet went through multiple temperature changes long before humans existed; good luck blaming homo sapiens for those.
Fine, let them import fish from fish farms (that don't use plastics or other oil based products, including fuel for boats).
Well, now that raw processor speed is suddenly more important, the GHz numbers could start being relevant again.
No, really, it's trivial to block updates.
What's a real pain in the arse is remembering how you did it so that you can re-enable them when you do want to update.
So your entire point is that virus scanners can't detect new attacks, only ones previously discovered?
So fucking what. Those previously discovered attacks are still out there, and by far the largest threat. So people will still benefit from preventing them.
While true, good ways to get your boss to like you
- do your work
- do your work well
- be competent
- help the team deliver its objectives
- help the company deliver its targets
- get good feedback from others
All these things are good for the company and most of them make the boss look good, which is also a useful way to get them to like you.
Sure, you can also build a personal relationship, but that's just good management. You do manage your boss?
Fuck productivity, where's the equality in income tax?
The Office of National Statistics states that there is a gender gap on median hourly earnings of 9.1%
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employm...
Yet men pay over 72% of income tax (from https://www.gov.uk/government/... )
Don't hear the fucking feminists demanding equality there.
What the chart doesn't show is that black women get paid less than white men for doing the same job.
It's aggregated too highly. No control for industry or company, their methodology relies on a source of 'hours worked' that I'd need convincing is reliable, no factoring in whether the jobs are full time or part time, no reference to whether career breaks are included as 'years experience', very crude assessment of 'education' and doesn't explore the quality of the experience acquired (e.g. someone working 50 hour weeks as a lawyer will gain more experience than someone working 30, even if they've both been lawyers for four years).
It's interesting and it would be good to explore more deeply and add some scientific rigour and certainty to it. Instead they posted inflammatory bullshit about women having to work 7 months into the following year to earn the same amount, resulting in the authors' credibility plummeting and forcing resultant scepticism in their findings.
would you pick
a system where 50% of the workers arbitrarily make 30% less pay for the same work
or
a system where the pay for 100% of the workers was roughly the same?
Why would I pick one of those two systems, when there's a third alternative that's not only superior, but already the one that most closely matches reality: Workers getting paid according to their skills, experience and contribution.
Only pay me the same as some people that pretend to be my peers and watch me drop to a 15 hour week, during which I'll easily match their level of (non)performance.
Because the evidence shows that men work longer hours than women, have fewer days off sick and negotiate harder for raises. Why wouldn't that be true for people doing the same job role?
It would be horrifically inequitable if one gender got paid the same for doing less work.
This is going to get messy. How do France surrender to something that doesn't exist?