71–80 of 300 posts
About time and no more easy rides or passes for anyone. Everyone equally gets the brutal Leetcode hards treatment. Either you pass the threshold or you don't. No excuses.
It's not that these diversity policies were effective at addressing the underlying issue, they looked ridiculous to someone from the outside. What is hilarious and scary at the same time, is how these global corporations, the supposed progressive forces, are reversing them in quick succession one after another one 2 weeks into Trump's presidency.
The loss of dei programs is bad but isn't the big bad. The big bad comes when businesses start being forced to prove that they arent doing dei. Every hire may soon have to be examined under inverse lenses: to prove that they are not dei. Real evils will then creep back into business culture. Be under no illusions. Those evils still lurk in every back office.
Well, if businesses had to prove that each hire is related to dei, which was the previous state of affairs, many would argue that is when evil creeps into business culture. So, it goes both ways, supposedly.
The loss of dei programs is bad but isn't the big bad. The big bad comes when businesses start being forced to prove that they arent doing dei. Every hire may soon have to be examined under inverse lenses: to prove that they are not dei. Real evils will then creep back into business culture. Be under no illusions. Those evils still lurk in every back office.
This is a fantastical speculation based on no evidence other than political bias. We do have evidence, though, that candidates had to go through performative hiring practices to prove that they support "diversity".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Well, they've already achieved diversity, haven't they? Whites were already under-represented at Google (and at 18/23 tech companies) back in 2017 For most diversity purposes, Asians and Indians both count as white, if not "even more white". Government programs, other than schools, are the main exception.
I think the real metric should be childhood household income. That transcends race or gender and universally inhibits the child in almost every measurable way.
There used to be programs like that, and they mostly helped the children of Chinese and Vietnamese refugees from communism. Low childhood household income doesn't really have much effect - "low income" in a US context is quite rich in a world context.
Well, they've already achieved diversity, haven't they? Whites were already under-represented at Google (and at 18/23 tech companies) back in 2017 [1]. If they've rolled over for anyone, it was for the Asian lobby, who is over-represented at 23/23 of those tech companies, and now won't be facing DEI pressures to reduce their numbers. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20250127210140/https://informati...
[flagged]
Dead links owned by the very companies being reported on. If a company lets their diversity report 404, why do you hold this against statisticians that gathered the data when it was live?
> from different years
You work with the data you have. Because the data isn't perfect, we should disregard it entirely and rely on your prejudice instead?
> without enough detail to actually assess the impact of any DEI program
The data is about the state of the companies, not the impacts of individual DEI programs.
> isn't it wonderful that Meta has achieved greater black representation through content moderators in Kenya
Given that this data shows Facebook employees as only 3% black, perhaps it does not count content moderators.
If you zoom out far enough, all these companies are making business decisions - not emotional ones. They have to kiss Trump's ring and bend the knee for Elon in order to not get destroyed. When they had DEI, it was created for business reason too - to be seen as socially just so you should buy their products. Now Google thinks it's better for business if they fall in line with what Trump wants.
There's a big difference between obeying laws (which all companies pretty much have to do if they want to stay in business) and voluntarilly aligning with what they think a new president wants without there being any specific law forcing them to do that. I actually think the business reason FOR the DEI stuff (to appeal to customers by coming accross as fair and progressive) made more sense. Have the customers really…
If they stay more "woke", Trump is guaranteed to try to destroy Google.
Google has done the calculus and likely concluded that kissing Trump's ass is better for their shareholders than continuing to align more left.
I think this is a business decision, as it was for Meta, Apple, Microsoft, etc. Blame US citizens for giving so much power to Trump.
When I came over to the states to go to a tech conference at a NASDAQ listed billion dollar corp that bought us, the only black people I met were either working at the hotels (90% of that staff) or living in the nearby inner city. I don't pretend to understand the USA, and maybe that conference wasn't representative, but to me it was quite shocking that the disparity was so clearly visible. So I think its a bit of a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> sources which are occasionally dead links Dead links owned by the very companies being reported on. If a company lets their diversity report 404, why do you hold this against statisticians that gathered the data when it was live? > from different years You work with the data you have. Because the data isn't perfect, we should disregard it entirely and rely on your prejudice instead? > without enough detail to actua…
Why should I trust data I can't verify?
> You work with the data you have. Because the data isn't perfect, we should disregard it entirely and rely on your prejudice instead?
Junk in, junk out.
> The data is about the state of the companies, not the impacts of individual DEI programs.
So when you said "Well, they've already achieved diversity, haven't they", what did you mean?
> Given that this data shows Facebook employees as only 3% black, perhaps it does not count content moderators.
Who actually knows, which is precisely the point.