71–80 of 98 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
We've banned this account for using HN primarily for political/nationalistic/racial battle. Please don't create accounts to do that with. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point of all of this stuff is to find a balance between evaluating applicants independently and objectively according to a well-defined set of critera -- equality of opportunity -- and producing an end result that is representational and fair in the societal sense -- equality of outcome. A good illustration of this concept is the "equality vs. equity" cartoon, with people of different heights trying to look over…
Using protected class as a factor in employment is prohibited nation-wide under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There is no "balance" between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. The former is required by law. Using protected class as a factor in hiring doesn't become legal just because it's done in pursuit of equality of outcome. They are not both valid concepts, at least not unless you're wil…
i imagine they are still close enough, and perhaps she still has enough stock, that she understands he's willing to compromise his own morals for the financial benefit of the company on a personal level, it is demoralizing to read though
Probably super easy to launch a Facebook or Instagram competitor app right now. All you have to be is the anti-Zuck and you get free marketing. It's the perfect window of opportunity. Launch, get traction, get funding, scale. It's all teed up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every company I worked at grades interviews based once correctness and performance. A candidate that fails to produce a working solution at all receives a worse score than one that produces a working, but inefficient solution, which get a worse score than one that has a working and optimal solution. And again, if the bias comes from people's tone then the interview can be conducted over text. Or have a transcript of…
You continue to focus very narrowly on the specific details of the hiring process. I'm trying to make points about higher-level stuff, related to the intent and scope of DEI-type initiatives. From these few comments, I gather that you're not really interested in talking about any of those higher-level things, so I'll stop trying to explain them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may be that hire paying fields attract men who want to be able to attract mates. That women prefer men who make more than them is pretty established in research, as is is the lack of interest in what a woman makes as income. (On average in psych studies). Why wouldn’t we expect results and society to reflect this?
It's not -- "why wouldn't we expect important career X to have way more men than women, given " It's -- "if important career X has way more men than women, is this a good thing, at a net societal level, regardless of that can explain why this is the case?" Nobody is looking for complete and perfect parity in all influential careers. The intent is just to make sure that, for the highest-impact careers, we should work…
Your question implies serval beliefs, which may or may not be true. And that others may, or may not share.
For one, I don’t think the average developer has a ton of say on how products get made. So that’s not likely the power you’re seeking to ensure changes hands? Market forces and legal structure pretty much ensure enshitification and other outcomes which many would likely consider sub optimal.
This level of political engagement seems kind of out of character for him Is he just kissing ass, or is there genuine frustration on decaying business culture? It feels like both he and Musk are idealizing some kind of past version of SV where WLB was less of a concern
Maybe he has some political ambitions.
Maybe he's trying to get cred with trump so that he can try to have influence over the tik-tok ban (a huge competitor).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every company I worked at grades interviews based once correctness and performance. A candidate that fails to produce a working solution at all receives a worse score than one that produces a working, but inefficient solution, which get a worse score than one that has a working and optimal solution. And again, if the bias comes from people's tone then the interview can be conducted over text. Or have a transcript of…
You continue to focus very narrowly on the specific details of the hiring process. I'm trying to make points about higher-level stuff, related to the intent and scope of DEI-type initiatives. From these few comments, I gather that you're not really interested in talking about any of those higher-level things, so I'll stop trying to explain them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably super easy to launch a Facebook or Instagram competitor app right now. All you have to be is the anti-Zuck and you get free marketing. It's the perfect window of opportunity. Launch, get traction, get funding, scale. It's all teed up.
Literally every social network launched in the last decade was outspokenly anti-Zuck, all of them failed or are struggling. People don't care.
Even with that read, I have my doubts. Very few if any successful (that is, eventually dominant) social networks positioned themselves as anti-something. Rather, most were based on either an available and generally high-appeal founding cohort, in a largely unregulated space. Facebook was once Literally Harvard (https://mastodon.cloud/@dredmorbius/1058991>), Usenet similarly began at selective research universities, Slashdot with the early Internet / Free Software tech community, HN with the start-up space.
Regulated spaces are far more difficult to grow: banking, finance, the military, and healthcare are cohesive and high-appeal cohorts, but each space has tight regulatory requirements which restrict both what may be discussed and who may join the networks. Bloomberg Terminal, health information systems, and internal communications amongst the banking and government sectors are strong markets of themselves but impose limits to potential expansion and entry by new competitors.
To be clear, Meta's "Diverse Slate Approach" was explicitly discriminatory with regards to protected class. It prohibited hiring managers from proceeding with an offer until at least one of the on-site interviews contained an "underrepresented group", meaning women and URM males. In practice this meant that white and Asian men had to wait a long time to get an offer even after they passed the interview rounds. But wo…
What you're describing is not how it works. Chiefly, the hiring pipelines are not set up for a single role, but a whole family of them. They are filled ahead of need. (Or were, at a time when this would've been taking place.) There are other inaccuracies, but suffice it to say, this comment section is full of comments by people who have never been hiring managers talking about how hiring works.
Wow. Who was the boss? This is contemptible stuff.