391–400 of 464 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consider deleting this post. You can be easily doxxed from your HN post history; it's not worth it.
Which confirms what he said?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand how this didn't raise red flags from legal/HR. From the article: > In a statement, Google said [...] it has a "clear policy to hire candidates based on their merit, not their identity. At the same time, we unapologetically try to find a diverse pool of qualified candidates for open roles[...]" You can't have it both ways. You're either based solely on merit, or on merit and how non-male and non-whi…
> You can't have it both ways. You're either based solely on merit, or on merit and how non-male and non-white they are. Which is discrimination. Actually yes, you can. There are 2 steps in recruiting: 1. Find people who want to apply 2. Have them go through a hiring process to select which one you make an offer You can seek diversity in step 1 and be completely merit-based on step 2. If your step 1. is mostly ask yo…
What are your feelings on blocking all non diverse applications in step one and allowing only diversity candidates to proceed to step 2?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally I wanted to discuss the article yesterday, but it was moved off the front-page too fast despite high interest. It is very common on HN for articles that does not agree with or points out problems in the prevailing viewpoint to be blown off the front page. I think this is emblematic of how tyrannical some of the people subscribing to the prevailing Silicon Valley viewpoint are.
> Personally I wanted to discuss the article yesterday, but it was moved off the front-page too fast despite high interest. You can discuss things that aren't on the front page. You aren't entitled to have what you want to discuss features on the front page, OTOH.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Personally I wanted to discuss the article yesterday, but it was moved off the front-page too fast despite high interest. You can discuss things that aren't on the front page. You aren't entitled to have what you want to discuss features on the front page, OTOH.
The frontpage of HN is quite useless, I go directly to /active it shows the most discussed thread, a better metric than upvote in my opinion.
One thing I never understand is how people claim to support both equality and pro-minority/anti-majority actions at the same time. It's like saying you support democracy and kim jong un.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consider deleting this post. You can be easily doxxed from your HN post history; it's not worth it.
Once there's a reply it can't be deleted, only edited to remove the content. After two hours that's not even an option anymore. Generally, I think it's good policy to be very guarded on the internet and/or change accounts often. There are all kinds of awful people out there, and you can't control who you may come across.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally I wanted to discuss the article yesterday, but it was moved off the front-page too fast despite high interest. It is very common on HN for articles that does not agree with or points out problems in the prevailing viewpoint to be blown off the front page. I think this is emblematic of how tyrannical some of the people subscribing to the prevailing Silicon Valley viewpoint are.
> I think this is emblematic of how tyrannical some of the people subscribing to the prevailing Silicon Valley viewpoint are. Why invoke the "tyrannical" rhetoric in respect to clicking a "flag" link on a website? It's not that big of a deal. Not everything is an attack by the Silicon Valley elite, all sorts of interesting topics get booted off the front page and there is always someone with a particularly strong opi…
It is also disingenuous to say this happens to articles on the prevailing viewpoint to the same degree. Articles on Damore and Fowler was plentiful, and they were not voted off the frontpage. The sin of oppressing critical viewpoints in the valley falls squarely on the social justice warriors.
I have to say, as an Asian male I found this comment by dirtyid in the article to be succinct and all too true: > "Pour one out for Asian males. Get screwed by affirmative action in education, media representation and now employment but can't get screwed on dating apps." Asian men constantly get grouped as a single entity when it comes to tech and aren't considered an added element of diverseness within the industry…
You are entirely correct that despite immigrants being the largest source of diversity in tech, all diversity and inclusion programs in tech misclassify immigrants into US demographic categories from the EEO-1 Instruction Booklet [2] that underpins all diversity and inclusion programs. For instance all of the following are categorized as white Americans; my German colleague, my French colleague of Iranian descent, my…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think this is emblematic of how tyrannical some of the people subscribing to the prevailing Silicon Valley viewpoint are. Why invoke the "tyrannical" rhetoric in respect to clicking a "flag" link on a website? It's not that big of a deal. Not everything is an attack by the Silicon Valley elite, all sorts of interesting topics get booted off the front page and there is always someone with a particularly strong opi…
HN policy states that topics should be relevant to tech and startups. This topic in particular clearly is and also garnered a lot of interest. Arguably a majority might actually be interested in discussing this topic as they might be perceived as a majority and be potential targets of this kind of discrimination. When an ideologically possessed social justice minority then in violation of HN policy and the interest o…
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14946450