781–790 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Never join one of these teams if you're not the modal race. This isn't the case for every team, but there will be important conversations in a language you don't know, and worst case, you were brought on so they have someone to let go when the company demands another 5%.
How do you know the conversation is important if you don't know the language?
Does this mean we can go back to using "master" as our git repo's default branch?
The damage had already been done for Git. The master -> main change was a totally ridiculous move and caused unnecessary breakages into many tools that use Git and in internal systems. I'm still waiting for Mastercard to change their name to a less "offensive" name: [0] /s (They never did.) [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32044361
I'm fortunate enough to have worked for Google during a period of time when Big Tech started to gain at least a modicum of self-awareness of its toxic culture and history of excesses and indiscretions. I arrived on the scene slightly late to witness the worst of it, but the stories were actively circulating, and the structure was very much still present. SRE teams had bars next to their desks, and office parties ende…
What a sad story, you can’t say “courage”, “allyship” anymore and get a promotion!
I don't care whether who made the products I use is "diverse". I care about their quality, which has been sacrificed at the altar of DEI for far too long. Not surprising to see this happen once the population realised the truth. Finally a slow return to sanity.
Genuinely curious, which product’s quality has been sacrificed at the altar of DEI? Could you name some?
It was always a sham anyway. We now return to our regularly scheduled programming: making $$$ I don't expect BigTech to care about people -- it's clear that they never have. BUT what makes me sick is that they pretend to care, pretend that they are "solving the world's problems", "building communities", etc. They're no better, and perhaps just as destructive, as WalMart. 15-20 years ago I was very excited about and s…
I'm a PoC, and stuff like this reads extremely bizarre to me. On the one hand, you're acknowledging rolling back DEI initiatives in part because of the "political landscape," and that you were already committed to diversity on your teams. That's all well and good, but then, why the initiative in the first place? It seems to me you're doing at least 1 thing here, and acknowledging that such DEI program was performativ…
> acknowledging that such DEI program was performative in the first place. That's exactly what they're doing and I don't think that's a secret. > This kind of announcement seems extremely self defeating and unlikely to please anyone and piss off just about anyone that cares about this in any way shape or form, on either side. It's not about making users or bloggers happy. They don't care whether those people are "pis…
DEI was a song and dance that companies put on for the media, politicians, investors, employees, and the public at large. Now anti-DEI is a song and dance for the exact same reason. If you have been in the business long enough, you will know that the company has NO ONE's interests at heart. Never had and never will. They will discriminate against any race they have to, whether majority or minority, if it leads to an…
Sure, megacorps never had genuine interest in liberation at the very top. But it is a genuine sign of renewed danger when megacorps are perceiving the general public as valuing reactionary politics instead of valuing diversity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apparently they consider platforming hate speech to be beneficial because it could bolster sympathy for the groups being attacked. I wish I was joking. https://www.platformer.news/meta-new-trans-guidelines-hate-s... Alex Schultz, the company’s chief marketing officer and highest-ranking gay executive, suggested in an internal post that people seeing their queer friends and family members abused on Facebook and Instag…
Is there anything that couldn't be justified with this style of thinking? Would this person support legalizing murder since more murders might raise awareness of how bad murder is?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, megacorps never had genuine interest in liberation at the very top. But it is a genuine sign of renewed danger when megacorps are perceiving the general public as valuing reactionary politics instead of valuing diversity.
“Reactionary” is a pejorative and not an argument.
Not only is it not, as you note, an argument, it's a pejorative label designed to discount and demonize the opponent. It's also likely to be used by someone in a political cult (or "high demand new political movement" if you prefer).
George Orwell had a really fun article on "Politics and the English Language" which goes into some detail on the controlling nature of such language and the people who use it.