IBM orders US sales to locate near customers, RTO for cloud staff, DEI purge • Hacker News Board

Re: IBM orders US sales to locate near customers, RTO for cloud staff, DEI purge

#181

Post by rayiner » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 5:58 PM UTC

mulderc wrote: post #125

Etheryte wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To play the devil's advocate, how do we know this carries over to business? If this was the case, it should have a track record at this point, since DEI has been a topic for a long time. Looking at comparable companies where one did do DEI and the other didn't, did one or the other have a statistically significant edge over the other? I have no idea, but I'm far from convinced purely from a reasoning stand point.

NPR had a story on this topic years ago and the researchers they talked with said diversity appears to have a negative impact on startups but a positive impact on established businesses. The logic was startups are smaller and need to move fast and be focused so DEI type efforts distract from the main business at that time. Once established diversity help the business by having people that can see business opportuniti…

That diversity research at big organizations has been called into question: https://www.wsj.com/finance/investing/diversity-was-supposed...

Re: IBM orders US sales to locate near customers, RTO for cloud staff, DEI purge

#182

Post by HelloMcFly » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 5:59 PM UTC

freedomben wrote: post #140

Finnucane wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the anti-DEI stuff is predicated on the idea that civil rights are bad and that white (straight dude) rule is good. There's not really any point in sugar-coating it or pretending the idea has any kind of intellectual or legal legitimacy. It is entirely driven by animus and resentment. The folks driving it aren't even hiding it.

This is classic ad hominem fallacy. I don't think I've seen such a great example in a long time

Critiquing the actions and policies of a political movement—especially when they have clear, documented consequences for marginalized groups—is not attacking the person, it's addressing the substance. There’s ample evidence that recent anti-DEI efforts are not grounded in merit-based reform but in resentment and exclusion. A few examples:

* Executive Order 11246, which prohibited discrimination by federal contractors, was eliminated.

* Civil Rights investigations in schools and colleges were dropped or deprioritized.

* Investigations into racial and gender discrimination in banking were quietly shelved.

These are a few structural, documented actions, not just rhetoric. Their impact falls disproportionately on people of color, LGBTQ+ individuals, and immigrants. That’s not an ad hominem, it’s observable policy.

Re: IBM orders US sales to locate near customers, RTO for cloud staff, DEI purge

#183

Post by rayiner » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 6:00 PM UTC

skizm wrote: post #178

jmward01 wrote: post #100

The anit-DEI stuff is predicated on an idea that there is a clear known 'best fit' for a position and it shouldn't take into account X, whatever X is. The problem is always this, nobody actually knows what a best fit really is. Nature shows us that one trait leads to longer term survival, diversity. When you think you know the traits that pick most suitable and exclude other traits then you are getting rid of the cha…

The "anit-DEI stuff" is the same as the DEI stuff from before this administration: performative. Originally DEI was because the people demanded it of companies, now the anti-DEI version is because the administration will make your life hell if you don't fall in line. Personally I fully agree that building a diverse workforce is more profitable in the long run than ignoring diversity (unless your company will die in t…

Do you think people who have different skin colors do their jobs differently? Can you articulate how you think your white workers do their jobs differently than say your hispanic workers?

Re: IBM orders US sales to locate near customers, RTO for cloud staff, DEI purge

#184

Post by BeetleB » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 6:04 PM UTC

alabastervlog wrote: post #128

tempest_ wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This often just feels like bad management. They go remote, but don't change a lot of other things or attempt to mitigate the downsides (there are downsides, everything is a trade off) and then claim its a failure when they need a stealth layoff. Also IBM has a long history of "Resource Actions" so this type of thing is not all unexpected from them.

About a year ago I moved to a new, largish company and, for the first time in my career, got to see how a company can be bad at remote work. It's by being bad at work, period, but in ways that can be partially mitigated by being in-person. Poor documentation of processes, lots of know-the-right-person involved in getting anything done or figured out, using Teams (its design is remarkably awful for organizing and comm…

> rather than literally any other notable chat system, et c.

What is better? I hate Teams, but Slack really wasn't much better.

Re: IBM orders US sales to locate near customers, RTO for cloud staff, DEI purge

#185

Post by jmward01 » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 6:07 PM UTC

grandempire wrote: post #130

jmward01 wrote: post #100

The anit-DEI stuff is predicated on an idea that there is a clear known 'best fit' for a position and it shouldn't take into account X, whatever X is. The problem is always this, nobody actually knows what a best fit really is. Nature shows us that one trait leads to longer term survival, diversity. When you think you know the traits that pick most suitable and exclude other traits then you are getting rid of the cha…

Why even have an interview or evaluate performance if everything is unknowable? You use your best judgment and consider many factors. You make mistakes and get better with experience. What we don’t want to have happen is a conflict between two opposing goals. That’s very different than disagreement about how to meet a common goal.

I love taking ideas to extremes, but in this case I don't advocate for that. What I mean is, diversity should be sought out and thought of as a positive, but that doesn't mean you throw out what factors you believe are relevant. I am advocating for incorporating diversity, searching for surprise, into hiring, not making it the only factor. Seeking out surprise is the fastest way to learn what you don't know so that you can use that knowledge for the future.

Re: IBM orders US sales to locate near customers, RTO for cloud staff, DEI purge

#186

Post by AnthonyMouse » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 6:08 PM UTC

Timon3 wrote: post #175

achenet wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

counter-example: Most systems that work with standardized tests, while they can systematically fail to capture certain types of talent, are fairly objective - "if you're in the top 10% on this test, then we take you". The format and subject matter of the test is known in advance, people are free to prepare for it in whatever way they want. Of course, being good at passing tests doesn't mean one will be good at other…

> Of course, being good at passing tests doesn't mean one will be good at other things, in much the same way that one can be good at Leetcode problems but not good at building and maintaining large scale software systems in a large corporate environment. Still, it remains a 'credible' example of 'how to do meritocracy right', [...] It's important not to forget Goodhart's law in this context: "When a measure becomes a…

This is presented as an argument against objective metrics, but a) the alternative is subjective metrics, which is even worse, b) "disparate impact" is just another metric subject to Goodhart's law, and c) resources aren't the only thing that determines test scores.

If you're poor but determined, you can't afford a high cost test prep course, but you can go to the library. The rich kid has their private tutor come to their house and then saves time that allowed them to be chauffeured to tennis lessons. The poor kid has to take the bus to the library and spend twice as long with the study books and then doesn't get any tennis lessons, but it's possible for someone to do that if they actually care about it. Whereas, how is a low-income white kid supposed to overcome a race quota where every slot for their race was already filled by nepotism?

Re: IBM orders US sales to locate near customers, RTO for cloud staff, DEI purge

#187

Post by archagon » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 6:08 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #176

chimpanzee wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with what you’re explicitly stating, but I can’t tell if you acknowledge and accept the implications. As it stands, your statement boils down to “DEI is not diverse enough.” If one also accepts gp’s point, then it seems DEI should continue, but be applied more carefully and thoughtfully. This would likely mean an increase in resources dedicated to DEI. I agree and would welcome this (without requiring it lega…

[flagged]

Why are you always all over these DEI threads?

Re: IBM orders US sales to locate near customers, RTO for cloud staff, DEI purge

#188

Post by archagon » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 6:09 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #169

text0404 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but DEI isn't just about race, nor is the idea behind it that a superficial characteristic makes someone more qualified for a job. DEI addresses the systemic barriers that have historically disadvantaged certain populations (like race, gender, socioeconomic status, etc). DEI aims to give them the same opportunities as their counterparts. for example, DEI is meant to provide opportunities to impoverished white individ…

That’s the motte. But the bailey is anti-white discrimination through the application of different standards to different races: https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/new-chart-illustrates-graphic...

“White” is not a race, but a vague signifier of pan-European identity that has shifted dramatically over the years: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43720538

Re: IBM orders US sales to locate near customers, RTO for cloud staff, DEI purge

#189

Post by freedomben » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 6:09 PM UTC

HelloMcFly wrote: post #182

freedomben wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is classic ad hominem fallacy. I don't think I've seen such a great example in a long time

Critiquing the actions and policies of a political movement—especially when they have clear, documented consequences for marginalized groups—is not attacking the person, it's addressing the substance. There’s ample evidence that recent anti-DEI efforts are not grounded in merit-based reform but in resentment and exclusion. A few examples: * Executive Order 11246, which prohibited discrimination by federal contractors…

Yes I agree almost completely with what you wrote. However, I disagree with your premise that GP was "critiquing the actions and policies of a political movement":

> Critiquing the actions and policies of a political movement

Here is their entire comment:

> No, the anti-DEI stuff is predicated on the idea that civil rights are bad and that white (straight dude) rule is good. There's not really any point in sugar-coating it or pretending the idea has any kind of intellectual or legal legitimacy. It is entirely driven by animus and resentment. The folks driving it aren't even hiding it.

Reading that yet again, it seems to me to be clearly making an argument that we shouldn't listen to any of the points/arguments/information they present because they don't have pure motives.

From the wikipedia page on Ad Hominem:

> this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself.

If you believe that GP was critiquing actions and policies, can you kindly point out which actions and policies?

Re: IBM orders US sales to locate near customers, RTO for cloud staff, DEI purge

#190

Post by alabastervlog » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 6:10 PM UTC

BeetleB wrote: post #184

alabastervlog wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About a year ago I moved to a new, largish company and, for the first time in my career, got to see how a company can be bad at remote work. It's by being bad at work, period, but in ways that can be partially mitigated by being in-person. Poor documentation of processes, lots of know-the-right-person involved in getting anything done or figured out, using Teams (its design is remarkably awful for organizing and comm…

> rather than literally any other notable chat system, et c. What is better? I hate Teams, but Slack really wasn't much better.

Teams' core problem is that the actual Teams-section is more like a bulletin board than a chat system, almost like it was targeting that weird impulse companies had for a few years to build "company facebooks" or whatever.

The real chat part is cordoned off in ad-hoc channels that individual users can sticky, but that aren't "structural" and can't really have order imposed on them, if that makes sense.

It's like if Slack only had the DM and group-message feature, and no channels.