Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

Appreciate that this notion exists: Confidence intervals

https://www.mathsisfun.com/data/confidence-interval.html

Let's say I give you a biased coin, but don't tell you what the bias is. You make 10 flips and record what you see. What can you tell about the coin and how much confidence can you have in your assertions?

> But they won't change their position. If anything, their position will be radicalized. For example, from classical liberal to alt-right.

You make an excellent point. I am a lifelong feminist, anti-racist, pro-LBTQ atheist who passionately desires a fair, just, egalitarian world.

In the last three years I've discovered: Many conservatives actually share my fundamental values, and do so with more integrity than most liberals I have known.

I seek out honest, rational, factual people to listen to - only to have the media and my liberal friends try, absurdly, to defame them as "alt right"

What does "alt right" even mean, any more? I understand its racist origins, but going by actual usage, it appears to include "good people, with good intentions, who also value reason and evidence"

Edit: To clarify the relevance of this to your comment - I would never have been exposed to so many views on the right if it hadn't been for the irrational, hateful, totalitarian intolerance that I've experienced in recent years from some parts of the left. Not all, obviously!

> It's open, but you'll be fired.

A gross mischaracterization. Open never means anyone can just say whatever comes to mind.

"Open discussion??? Oh goody!!! Kike, kike, kike, kike, the bosses are cheap Jews! Wait, what??? You're firing me? Whaaaaaaa, look at me tears, you promised open discussion!!! I'm suing, all woe is me!"

I'm confident you're not that naive, and I hope you can see the point of my exaggeration. Everything, even open discussion, has limits.

The CEO made it clear which parts of the memo were ok (almost every part of it). And which parts violated the code of conduct.

Violate the code of conduct, and you're fired. Sed lex, dura lex. Everything has limits. So the discussion then is about what those limits should be.

> If talking about something is considered intimidation or harassment,

It's not. There are almost endless things you can talk about at work that aren't considered harassment or intimidation. There isn't a little rule book to guide you. It's up to you as an adult to to have adult relationships with your co-workers and to figure out for yourself what other people are comfortable hearing and what they consider harassment. I'm sure you already know that you can't tell a female employee she has bigger than average tits, no matter how factual it is or even if it's just "talking about something". But the more subtle points are up to you to work out with your co-workers. Be enough of an jerk to enough people by just "talking about something", and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

This has been the reality since humans have had emotions. Every adult with an ounce of understanding about human relationships knows that there is a lot of stuff you can't talk about at work.

> which is the reality of the situation in USA 2017

Where did you get this idea that you ever had some kind of right at some point in history to talk about whatever you want to talk about at work - with no care towards how it makes your fellow employees feel? For most of America's business history you could get your butt thrown out the door just for saying something the boss doesn't like. You're actually slightly more protected in USA 2017, but a smart boss will find a way if he doesn't like what you say. So will your co-workers.

I guess at one point in USA history you could more easily get away with sexually harassing female employees. Safe to say that's not the point in history you're trying to return to? If I'm right, can you describe the point in history you are trying to return to and why it was better? What was ok then that isn't ok now? Specific examples please?

> All these do-gooders are going to reap what they sow in the long run, and it sure as heck isn't what they think it is.

I guess we should be afraid... of.... something? Your revenge? Back up your vague threat with what you predict will actually happen or with what you plan on doing.

If google showed that their retention of women in tech was similar to men (it isn't), that their pay scales isolated for grade tended to equal outcomes for men and women (ongoing lawsuit says it doesn't in all cases), and that their proportion of women employed was close to the candidate pool?

I think that'd be a fantastic outcome. Then we really could think about "the pipeline problem."

Incorrect question: you want the graduate rates. Not the staff rates.

Google's diversity rates are worse than the graduate rates for most schools I've checked. I have not found a composite data source to compare a larger average to.