11–20 of 594 posts
Part of me is glad the "inclusive" practices of only hiring women and minorities isn't being rewarded. At the same time, GitHub really is at the centre of opensource- how can they be losing money when they are literally the defacto code hosting site? And if they go under, who could replace them?
Because, to a first approximation, no-one is paying them for that hosting.
Part of me is glad the "inclusive" practices of only hiring women and minorities isn't being rewarded. At the same time, GitHub really is at the centre of opensource- how can they be losing money when they are literally the defacto code hosting site? And if they go under, who could replace them?
can you substantiate that ideological extrapolation of yours?
I'm not expressing an opinion on the idea, just outlining the debate for you.
Part of me is glad the "inclusive" practices of only hiring women and minorities isn't being rewarded. At the same time, GitHub really is at the centre of opensource- how can they be losing money when they are literally the defacto code hosting site? And if they go under, who could replace them?
Im hoping it's a company run by women and minorities, just for your sake.
The Sillicon Valley episodes write themselves it seems haha. This is hilarious.
Part of me is glad the "inclusive" practices of only hiring women and minorities isn't being rewarded. At the same time, GitHub really is at the centre of opensource- how can they be losing money when they are literally the defacto code hosting site? And if they go under, who could replace them?
Gitlab is a fully featured and ready full replacement for Github. Additionally, the Gitlab team is far more competent and listens better to user feedback.
Part of me is glad the "inclusive" practices of only hiring women and minorities isn't being rewarded. At the same time, GitHub really is at the centre of opensource- how can they be losing money when they are literally the defacto code hosting site? And if they go under, who could replace them?
The thought of losing Github to the startup graveyard is kind of scary. It was bad enough to lose Google Code and when SourceForge had their "great purge" of inactive projects.
That's what happens with centralized systems it is inevitable, from the Roman Empire to Google Code nothing is permanent.
Part of me is glad the "inclusive" practices of only hiring women and minorities isn't being rewarded. At the same time, GitHub really is at the centre of opensource- how can they be losing money when they are literally the defacto code hosting site? And if they go under, who could replace them?
The business itself may not be a great business due to the amount of cost it takes to run it -- but it's necessary for the running of other ventures.
Sort of like highways and non-toll bridges.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
can you substantiate that ideological extrapolation of yours?
As opposed to the hiring of people based on their demonstrated ability to contribute to your team. S/he's reacting to the perception that people are being hired primarily on, or being heavily credited for, their identities. I'm not expressing an opinion on the idea, just outlining the debate for you.
1. does github in fact "only hire women and minorities" at the expense of superior, talented white men?
2. assuming #1 is true, what evidence is there that said hiring practices are at the root of their financial difficulties?
It's easy to throw out loaded statements. I don't think it's nuts to request clarification.