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

What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

cspicenter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–530 of 972 posts

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#521

Post by hintymad »

torstenvl wrote: post #502
nsxwolf wrote: post #456

I shut my mouth at work and go along with this stuff because I have no choice. I have a family to take care of. I've accepted this. But man, why do they always throw in the line about striving to make the workplace a "diverse and inclusive culture where everyone can bring their full and authentic self"? Everyone knows that's a goddamn lie. I almost want to cry when I read that - it makes me so angry. I haven't been a…

> Everyone knows that's a goddamn lie. I almost want to cry when I read that "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him." Racism is anti-racist. Objective thinking is biased. Burning down cities is mostly peaceful protest.

If your allegiance is not absolute, then you absolutely do not have allegiance. So, don't question. Do.

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#522

Post by Balgair »

comex wrote: post #132

> You might imagine this policy doesn’t bias the hiring process, since managers are still free to choose who to hire after interviewing the diverse candidates. But because of the number of applicants, most are rejected based on their resumes. Imagine diversity candidates are 1% of the applicants but 15% of those interviewed. This gives those candidates opportunities to do well in interviews that their peers with simi…

Ok, let's do some nice, calm soothing math for a second.

Per the OP previously 'diversity' candidates were 1% of all applicants. I'll assume the null hypothesis here and then also assume that they were 1% of the interviewees too.

Lets assume that diversity interviewees are turned into hires at some factor Y. I'll make no assumptions on if that is different than from non-diversity interviewees.

Now, with the new policy, there is a 15x increase in the probability of turning diversity applicants into interviewees.

However, nothing has been done to change Y, the factor at which diversity interviewees are turned into candidates. They are explicitly stating that they are not changing Y.

So that then means that diversity interviewees are now less likely to move on past the interview stage. Based on the numbers, they then need to interview at 15x the rate as previously to be turned into hires.

Please, correct me if I am wrong here, but this seems to hurt diversity interviewees.

I see it as taking up 15x the time, rejecting at a 15x rate, and eliciting these real human people to become stats in some database that the policy makers can show off to some other boss without any compensation.

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#523

Post by giantg2 »

rrradical wrote: post #287
Manuel_D wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So minority candidates are given an advantage in getting their foot in the door, but still have to prove themselves qualified for the job by doing well in interviews. Discrimination in selecting who to interview is absolutely a form of discrimination. Imagine I tell my recruiters to exclusively interview white Catholics, and I respond "well, those white Catholics still had to pass the skill-based interview. Had we…

> Discrimination in selecting who to interview is absolutely a form of discrimination. Exactly. That's what the parent comment is saying. But they are thinking about the entire funnel, not just the end of it. By the time a slate of candidates reaches a company's hiring process, there has already been an immense selection bias against minority candidates. Two people growing up in different places (not different cities…

Generally agree that the problem is larger. However, I think this quick fix could result in a net negative.

"So a good thing to do is apply some pressure on the funnel to elevate candidates that just barely miss out."

Imagine you're one of the non-minorities who worked hard and misses out because of an artificial pressure. How do I explain to my kid that all else equal they will lose to another candidate because of not being a minority (assume this is similar to minorities of the past; however the results are mixed)? What's the point of trying hard in school? What's the point of working hard at work? These are the types of questions I'm starting to struggle with in real life. Teach the kid the same stuff I was taught (lies), or disillusion them that the world is not a meritocracy, truth and honor count for nothing, hard work may or may not pay off, etc?

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#524

Post by mikkergp »

kardianos wrote: post #304
weakfish wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like a very large leap in logic, if I follow… are you saying the parent is communist for using the term reactionary?

If you do not believe someone can demonstrate merit, you cannot believe in equality of opportunity. If you do not have Equality of Opportunity all you have left are power structures, usually attached to some degree of structural determinism. At that moment, you have the same logic as the Communist/Marxian/Dialectic revolutionaries we have seen time and time again. Once they gain power they label everyone else a react…

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about what I did or didn't say. I didn't say people can't demonstrate merit. I said people are bad at measuring merit, and I think that is relatively true on its face, and the subject of a whole mess of thinkpieces and arguments on Hacker News. Shit I thought it was funny there was one posted today:

https://workweek.com/2022/09/26/performance-reviews-dont-act...

No where in the article is it suggesting that anyone is pressuring managers to promote demonstrably poor performers for racial reasons. They are being asked to adjust their processes to consider the most candidates.

I think for a medium size group of relatively equal performers, it would be nearly impossible to rank order them in a way you could get a small handful of people to consistently agree with. Everyone seems to love to straw men this with some idea that Microsoft is firing all of their principal engineers to replace them with entry level candidates from state universities.

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#526

Post by rcoveson »

adamwk wrote: post #472
nonethewiser wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ya you are, but you know white people and Asians are less likely to be poor compared to Hispanics and African Americans so reality is fighting against your argument. Yet there are more white people in poverty than black people in the US. If we are trying to give opportunity to impoverished people we would judge by poverty. If we want to live in a racist society then we would judge by race.

> Yet there are more white people in poverty than black people in the US Where are you people getting these stats? This is being repeated elsewhere and is not based in reality at all.

It is ambiguous as written, and false by one interpretation but true by the other.

True: There are more white people in poverty (~5.5% of population) than black people [in poverty (~2.5%)] in the US.

False: There are more white people in poverty (~5.5%) than black people [in or out of poverty (~13.6%)] in the US.

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#527

Post by drewbug01 »

torstenvl wrote: post #502
nsxwolf wrote: post #456

I shut my mouth at work and go along with this stuff because I have no choice. I have a family to take care of. I've accepted this. But man, why do they always throw in the line about striving to make the workplace a "diverse and inclusive culture where everyone can bring their full and authentic self"? Everyone knows that's a goddamn lie. I almost want to cry when I read that - it makes me so angry. I haven't been a…

> Everyone knows that's a goddamn lie. I almost want to cry when I read that "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him." Racism is anti-racist. Objective thinking is biased. Burning down cities is mostly peaceful protest.

No post body was provided.

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#528

Post by hbrn »

SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #214
fallingknife wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the whole interview. Just the first part of many questions. You have to print a string abcdefghij... like abcd efgh ijkl... And you would be surprised by the number of people who it takes 20 minutes to do that. Doing it in 2 minutes doesn't mean you're competent, but taking 20 damn sure means you're not

20 minutes might just be interview anxiety, especially if it’s a first question in the interview.

Being able to perform under stress could be a metric he values.

"Hey, the website was down for a few hours. Technically I could fix it in a minute, but have a downtime anxiety".

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#529

Post by maldev »

lr4444lr wrote: post #145

The current U.S. Supreme Court, though perhaps more ideologically bent than I'd like on many other issues, is certainly well poised to start slapping down some of these policies which brazenly dance on the wrong side (gray area at best) of Civil Rights law.

There's a group of Republican AG's that are suing public companies who do this. Along with DI&E investing, as it's not in the shareholders financial interest to invest in these thing, which is all that matters. So hopefully that will end these polcies.

Re: What “diversity and inclusion” means at Microsoft

#530

Post by [deleted] »

omginternets wrote: post #419
Dig1t wrote: post #382

I work at a different FAANG and it seems like more and more the only news that we get from corporate is related to DEI. Also a lot of hiring details are now hidden from ICs. It used to be that you would be apart of the interview panel as an interviewer and then you would get together with your team afterwards and everyone on the team would vote yes/no and that would pretty much be it. Now it’s made by a manager elsew…

Relatedly: I cannot defend the kind of "diversity" that would rather hire a rich brahmin than an inner-city American kid in need of a leg-up, just to fulfill some backwards skin-color quota. It's obscene, and insulting to all parties involved. I also worry that this nonsense will erode support for the kind of diversity I do defend, or worse, prompt some kind of revanchist backlash against visible minorities in genera…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN