Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter removed their diversity page some time between November 16, 2022 and now

web.archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 92 posts

Re: Twitter removed their diversity page some time between November 16, 2022 and now

#71

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

jdthedisciple wrote: post #37
shakezula wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is disgustingly sexist. Some of the brightest engineers I know are women. Get that attitude off this forum, it does not belong here.

Wrong. Realistically assuming a 4-8x larger pool of potential male engineers, as well as assuming equal average skill among males and females, hiring 50% women is what's disgustingly sexist. If 10 woman and 40 men apply and you hire 5 each based only on sex, you are sexually discriminating against the 35 other men some of whom are statistically highly likely to be better candidates than some of the 5 women hired. Get…

> assuming equal average skill among males and females

do you have data to back this assumption, given the effect of self-selection within each group?

Re: Twitter removed their diversity page some time between November 16, 2022 and now

#72

Post by frontman1988 »

shakezula wrote: post #25
bergenty wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 25% minorities seems trivial to hit with Asians/Indians and is probably naturally higher than that. But wow on the woman quota, I can’t imagine how easy they had to make those interviews to hit that number.

This is disgustingly sexist. Some of the brightest engineers I know are women. Get that attitude off this forum, it does not belong here.

Women engineers on an average aren't any brighter than men. The way twitter was hiring it seems women outperform men in interviews by a factor of 4-5x given their huge numbers. I am sure if somehow you could remove gender from the process, women won't be more than 20% of any bigtech company.

Re: Twitter removed their diversity page some time between November 16, 2022 and now

#73

Post by andylynch »

alexriddle wrote: post #9

Not just the diversity page - it looks like they removed a bunch of pages from the careers site - e.g the "early career" page that is in the header is also removed. Only the "search jobs" button remains. See the header at https://careers.twitter.com

That is also moot since they currently have zero positions posted.

Re: Twitter removed their diversity page some time between November 16, 2022 and now

#74

Post by hobbitstan »

cscurmudgeon wrote: post #61
halpmeh wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Meta’s employees aren’t uniformly distributed across the Earth so comparisons to the global population are irrelevant.

But Meta is free to hire the best no matter where they live.

‘The best’

Re: Twitter removed their diversity page some time between November 16, 2022 and now

#75

Post by jdthedisciple »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #71
jdthedisciple wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong. Realistically assuming a 4-8x larger pool of potential male engineers, as well as assuming equal average skill among males and females, hiring 50% women is what's disgustingly sexist. If 10 woman and 40 men apply and you hire 5 each based only on sex, you are sexually discriminating against the 35 other men some of whom are statistically highly likely to be better candidates than some of the 5 women hired. Get…

> assuming equal average skill among males and females do you have data to back this assumption, given the effect of self-selection within each group?

The only data I have is that males tend to be inherently better at abstract thinking and logic, seem to be inherently more interested in systems as opposed to women.

So if anything, any data would suggest that males are more skilled engineers than women, but I'd like to go easy on the critics here and assume males and females on average are hypothetically equal in that regard.

Re: Twitter removed their diversity page some time between November 16, 2022 and now

#76

Post by shakezula »

jdthedisciple wrote: post #56
shakezula wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m frankly just disappointed. There’s a comment in this thread questioning how much they had to “dumb down” the interviews for women. It’s fucked up in this field and it frustrates me to no end because the women I’ve worked with are far and away some of the best and they constantly deal with this attitude. It’s not okay and the bar should be higher for this orange website.

Here's a reality check for you. "Fire brigade relaxes strength and fitness test to make entry easier for women" [1] This stuff has precedent. [1] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375381/Fire-servic...

> “Here’s a reality check for you with a completely different scenario but a conclusion that reaffirms my bias”

It’s really a terrible argument to compare hiring for a physically intensive job to hiring for technical and administrative roles. it borders on bad faith.

Re: Twitter removed their diversity page some time between November 16, 2022 and now

#77

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

bitshiftfaced wrote: post #65
shakezula wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not identity politics to call out blatantly sexist statements that question the intelligence and capabilities of women in this field. The men aren’t being “sexually discriminated” against, they’re being competed against and that threatens you. Grow up.

You're not responding to the actual argument. Can we agree that men and women are equally capable and intelligent? You have 40 male candidates and 10 female candidates. Let's say only the top 20% of all candidates are good enough. That would mean 40/5 =8 male candidates and 10/5=2 female candidates would be suitable hires. If instead you hired 5 male and 5 female candidates under these conditions, then you would've b…

do we have data showing that men and women who self select into the profession are equally capable?

Re: Twitter removed their diversity page some time between November 16, 2022 and now

#79

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

jdthedisciple wrote: post #75
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> assuming equal average skill among males and females do you have data to back this assumption, given the effect of self-selection within each group?

The only data I have is that males tend to be inherently better at abstract thinking and logic, seem to be inherently more interested in systems as opposed to women. So if anything, any data would suggest that males are more skilled engineers than women, but I'd like to go easy on the critics here and assume males and females on average are hypothetically equal in that regard.

you forget the effect of self-selection into the field, which could easily override whatever attribute you're referencing, that's why we need supporting data before assuming they're the same

Re: Twitter removed their diversity page some time between November 16, 2022 and now

#80

Post by bitshiftfaced »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #77
bitshiftfaced wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not responding to the actual argument. Can we agree that men and women are equally capable and intelligent? You have 40 male candidates and 10 female candidates. Let's say only the top 20% of all candidates are good enough. That would mean 40/5 =8 male candidates and 10/5=2 female candidates would be suitable hires. If instead you hired 5 male and 5 female candidates under these conditions, then you would've b…

do we have data showing that men and women who self select into the profession are equally capable?

Best I could find was "SAT patterns and engineering and computer science college majors: an intersectional, state-level study"

It looked at Virginian public school graduates. Non-URM (underrepresented minority) men and non-URM women who majored in computer science scored similarly on the math part of their SATs. Women scored 3% better on their verbal.

Post reply on HN