Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ blah blah blah

very insightful!

I can dish out rhetoric rather than dialectic if you prefer, but that is more likely to get me an IP ban.

lol. so the only thing you can do other than blather is troll? that makes sense, actually.

guess what. if you learned to value communication, cooperation, and verbal intelligence, you'd learn that long-windedness and a refusal to really say what you're saying, mean that nobody will listen to you. and the more time you spend listening instead of blathering, the more you will understand.

Is there anything you don't presume? If you actually listen to what people have to say, rather than dismiss it out of hand you can have an actual dialog and mutual understanding. Perhaps that isn't your goal by continuing to engage with me?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ blah blah blah

very insightful!

I can dish out rhetoric rather than dialectic if you prefer, but that is more likely to get me an IP ban.

lol. so the only thing you can do other than blather is troll? that makes sense, actually.

guess what. if you learned to value communication, cooperation, and verbal intelligence, you'd learn that long-windedness and a refusal to really say what you're saying, mean that nobody will listen to you. and the more time you spend listening instead of blathering, the more you will understand.

Looks like there was support inside Google for this manifesto.

https://www.wired.com/story/internal-messages-james-damore-google-memo?mbid=nl_8817_p3&CNDID=13677222

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sadly the high achieving women in this field have no husband or kids or they have a lot of help . Or, marry a SAH dad - not a lawyer, not an engineer- maybe a teacher?

Americans love a good Cinderella story… except when it comes to their own marriages. It turns out that if Cinderella had been born in modern-day America, she would be much more likely to marry the butler than she would the prince. A recent NBER paper finds that Americans increasingly practice “positive assortative mating” when picking their spouse. That is to say, “like marries like:” people marry those with similar incomes and educational backgrounds.

The implications of assortative mating for income inequality are greater now than they were in 1960. This is largely because of the rise of women in the workforce. Since women in 1960 were less likely to be working, a wife’s education level contributed less to gaps in household income levels. Nowadays, a college-educated couple has two high salaries, making the gap between their household’s income and a less-educated couple’s income widen substantially.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2014/02/10/opposites-dont-attract-assortative-mating-and-social-mobility/

In other words, as women have made educational and social gains they prefer not to marry those with lower educational or social status. This makes childcare difficult.

couple this trend with the other trend of increasing immigration over historical levels. we have brought in 40 to 50 million low skilled workers to compete with existing low skilled workers. this keeps wages low for the low skilled couple.

we had to find home care for elderly relative in southern town in NC. there were an abundance of nurses willing to work for 10$ an hour to feed/bathe/help toilet/clean house for a person. Hundreds and all women available for this. There was absolutely NO shortage of workers.

low skilled workers have been devastated by the immigration policy of this country

They most certainly have. Americans should be putting the needs of other Americans first, but instead we're all addicted to cheap labour. Its pretty basic economic knowledge that when you have a lot of something (labour), it is cheap, but when there is a scarcity, it goes up in price.

DUH!! We live in a capitalistic society. The bottom line always wins. Did you forget your Ayn Rand?! Labor Unions would fight for workers but nobody like labor unions.

This is going to become an argument that conservative men are being discriminated against. One guy is fired for conservative views but they will ignore the 60+ women lining up a class action lawsuit against Google.

I did like what the YouTube CEO wrote about the memo:

http://fortune.com/2017/08/09/google-diversity-memo-wojcicki/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with Google, and the problem with other modern software houses, is that they have decided to put their laser-like attention on things other than quality of product. They focus on diversity, social good, various arcane theories of user-interface design, and other things that have nothing to do with writing effective code. Unsurprisingly, they aren’t very good at doing any of those new tasks — and because they’ve abandoned the things that they used to do well, the foundations are slipping out from underneath them.

Today’s Google home page is a slow-loading mess compared to what it used to be, loaded with buggy features and featuring plenty of bugs. Browser-dependent, hugely bloated, more like the old Excite! homepage than anything a Google user would have enjoyed a decade ago. It’s simply not very good anymore. That should worry the people at Google. Fixing that should be a priority above “social good” or “diverse teams”. They should hire the smartest people and have them write the best code. Period. That’s what Google is supposed to do. Whenever Google does that, it succeeds. Whenever they try to change the world, it’s a ridiculous failure.

thats because much of Google code is built by H1Bs, replaceable guest workers, imported for low wages and willingness to work late and weekends.

Maybe woman are smarter than men and see what the life of a coder has become and decided that is not worth the cost, there is no benefit in working in a field that imports millions of foreign guest workers to compete and take your job as you get older.

Engineering as a profession, especially in the area of computer software, has been hugely devalued in the last couple of decades. Businesses needed not good software, but software anyone could write. After all, when all you’re chasing is your next quarterly earnings report, how can you possibly afford to develop anything that requires more than six months? Furthermore, how can you afford a large staff of well-trained, and well-educated engineers? Former giants like IBM and HP kept cutting their staff until they became unable to develop anything of any value anymore. For your added quarterly earnings benefit, universities will now churn out graduates with two-year “developer” degrees. Not to worry, they know Java, and Agile, and Scrum (and little else). So when the sales team says “JUMP!”, they will obediently ask “How high?”

Thus we have a problem when the people running things have no idea how the sausage is made. To them, “software” is just a bunch of people hammering out code. They don’t realize that good software needs an architect/engineer with a clear idea what the software is supposed to do. Ideally, the software engineer knows what the software needs to do, and personally needs to use it. the software engineer(s) need to be laying out all reasonable use cases and writing the specifications.

On the other hand, you can off-shore it to Bangalore and hope for the best. I’ve been dealing with that for a few years now; yes, people can be taught how to write C code and they can read the programmer’s guide to whatever uCom you’re using, but unless your spec is airtight you’re going to get back spaghetti code which is going to be a nightmare to debug. In these cases, if your spec is lousy, your software is going to going to be garbage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sadly the high achieving women in this field have no husband or kids or they have a lot of help . Or, marry a SAH dad - not a lawyer, not an engineer- maybe a teacher?

Americans love a good Cinderella story… except when it comes to their own marriages. It turns out that if Cinderella had been born in modern-day America, she would be much more likely to marry the butler than she would the prince. A recent NBER paper finds that Americans increasingly practice “positive assortative mating” when picking their spouse. That is to say, “like marries like:” people marry those with similar incomes and educational backgrounds.

The implications of assortative mating for income inequality are greater now than they were in 1960. This is largely because of the rise of women in the workforce. Since women in 1960 were less likely to be working, a wife’s education level contributed less to gaps in household income levels. Nowadays, a college-educated couple has two high salaries, making the gap between their household’s income and a less-educated couple’s income widen substantially.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2014/02/10/opposites-dont-attract-assortative-mating-and-social-mobility/

In other words, as women have made educational and social gains they prefer not to marry those with lower educational or social status. This makes childcare difficult.

couple this trend with the other trend of increasing immigration over historical levels. we have brought in 40 to 50 million low skilled workers to compete with existing low skilled workers. this keeps wages low for the low skilled couple.

we had to find home care for elderly relative in southern town in NC. there were an abundance of nurses willing to work for 10$ an hour to feed/bathe/help toilet/clean house for a person. Hundreds and all women available for this. There was absolutely NO shortage of workers.

low skilled workers have been devastated by the immigration policy of this country

They most certainly have. Americans should be putting the needs of other Americans first, but instead we're all addicted to cheap labour. Its pretty basic economic knowledge that when you have a lot of something (labour), it is cheap, but when there is a scarcity, it goes up in price.

I wonder if a Google employee would get fired if it was known that he/she supported a traditional or biblical view of marriage?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sadly the high achieving women in this field have no husband or kids or they have a lot of help . Or, marry a SAH dad - not a lawyer, not an engineer- maybe a teacher?

Americans love a good Cinderella story… except when it comes to their own marriages. It turns out that if Cinderella had been born in modern-day America, she would be much more likely to marry the butler than she would the prince. A recent NBER paper finds that Americans increasingly practice “positive assortative mating” when picking their spouse. That is to say, “like marries like:” people marry those with similar incomes and educational backgrounds.

The implications of assortative mating for income inequality are greater now than they were in 1960. This is largely because of the rise of women in the workforce. Since women in 1960 were less likely to be working, a wife’s education level contributed less to gaps in household income levels. Nowadays, a college-educated couple has two high salaries, making the gap between their household’s income and a less-educated couple’s income widen substantially.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2014/02/10/opposites-dont-attract-assortative-mating-and-social-mobility/

In other words, as women have made educational and social gains they prefer not to marry those with lower educational or social status. This makes childcare difficult.

couple this trend with the other trend of increasing immigration over historical levels. we have brought in 40 to 50 million low skilled workers to compete with existing low skilled workers. this keeps wages low for the low skilled couple.

we had to find home care for elderly relative in southern town in NC. there were an abundance of nurses willing to work for 10$ an hour to feed/bathe/help toilet/clean house for a person. Hundreds and all women available for this. There was absolutely NO shortage of workers.

low skilled workers have been devastated by the immigration policy of this country

Anonymous wrote:

Sadly the high achieving women in this field have no husband or kids or they have a lot of help . Or, marry a SAH dad - not a lawyer, not an engineer- maybe a teacher?

Americans love a good Cinderella story… except when it comes to their own marriages. It turns out that if Cinderella had been born in modern-day America, she would be much more likely to marry the butler than she would the prince. A recent NBER paper finds that Americans increasingly practice “positive assortative mating” when picking their spouse. That is to say, “like marries like:” people marry those with similar incomes and educational backgrounds.

The implications of assortative mating for income inequality are greater now than they were in 1960. This is largely because of the rise of women in the workforce. Since women in 1960 were less likely to be working, a wife’s education level contributed less to gaps in household income levels. Nowadays, a college-educated couple has two high salaries, making the gap between their household’s income and a less-educated couple’s income widen substantially.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2014/02/10/opposites-dont-attract-assortative-mating-and-social-mobility/

In other words, as women have made educational and social gains they prefer not to marry those with lower educational or social status. This makes childcare difficult.

Anonymous wrote:The problem with Google, and the problem with other modern software houses, is that they have decided to put their laser-like attention on things other than quality of product. They focus on diversity, social good, various arcane theories of user-interface design, and other things that have nothing to do with writing effective code. Unsurprisingly, they aren’t very good at doing any of those new tasks — and because they’ve abandoned the things that they used to do well, the foundations are slipping out from underneath them.

Today’s Google home page is a slow-loading mess compared to what it used to be, loaded with buggy features and featuring plenty of bugs. Browser-dependent, hugely bloated, more like the old Excite! homepage than anything a Google user would have enjoyed a decade ago. It’s simply not very good anymore. That should worry the people at Google. Fixing that should be a priority above “social good” or “diverse teams”. They should hire the smartest people and have them write the best code. Period. That’s what Google is supposed to do. Whenever Google does that, it succeeds. Whenever they try to change the world, it’s a ridiculous failure.

thats because much of Google code is built by H1Bs, replaceable guest workers, imported for low wages and willingness to work late and weekends.

Maybe woman are smarter than men and see what the life of a coder has become and decided that is not worth the cost, there is no benefit in working in a field that imports millions of foreign guest workers to compete and take your job as you get older.

Anonymous wrote:^^ blah blah blah

very insightful!

I can dish out rhetoric rather than dialectic if you prefer, but that is more likely to get me an IP ban.

The problem with Google, and the problem with other modern software houses, is that they have decided to put their laser-like attention on things other than quality of product. They focus on diversity, social good, various arcane theories of user-interface design, and other things that have nothing to do with writing effective code. Unsurprisingly, they aren’t very good at doing any of those new tasks — and because they’ve abandoned the things that they used to do well, the foundations are slipping out from underneath them.

Today’s Google home page is a slow-loading mess compared to what it used to be, loaded with buggy features and featuring plenty of bugs. Browser-dependent, hugely bloated, more like the old Excite! homepage than anything a Google user would have enjoyed a decade ago. It’s simply not very good anymore. That should worry the people at Google. Fixing that should be a priority above “social good” or “diverse teams”. They should hire the smartest people and have them write the best code. Period. That’s what Google is supposed to do. Whenever Google does that, it succeeds. Whenever they try to change the world, it’s a ridiculous failure.

I wonder what former Treasury Secretary and Harvard University President Larry Summers thinks about all of this?

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2005/1/14/summers-comments-on-women-and-science/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's a rank and file nobody. He probably thinks, "I've made it to Google! I'm the best of the best!" while he plays ping pong and rides the bus back to San Francisco to go sleep in a shared yurt.

Guys like this are the worst. They're completely insecure now that they're among the best, and look around to see who they might put down to elevate themselves.

One of my friends is a woman who was an English major who took a few computer science courses and went from that to programming and running all sorts of IT systems. She's just plain smarter than most other people.

It seems to me that the Google engineer who started the current controversy was probably exaggerating the magnitude of sex-based differences, but that Google went overboard when it fired a guy who expressed a controversial opinion about this.

But I think the real issue is trying to figure out some way to make jobs like Google software engineer and new physician more compatible with making the daycare pickup deadline.

Whether women are, on average, worse at programming than men or not, many women are clearly capable of being great coders. But it's hard to combine working an 18-hour day and being the lead parent for a child.

Figuring out how to put a hard 12-hour cap on people's workdays might do a lot more to help get ahead than obsessing about sexism.

I agree except can't you see the obvious? why should women be the "lead parent"? the fact is that many arguments about women not being "willing" to do time consuming jobs are premised on her husband's failure to be an equal partner. If highly motivated women could be serenely assured that their children were receiving excellent loving care by their other parent (and dinner and clean laundry magically appeared) then they would be free to shoot for the stars. High acheiving men very often have a sah.

Sadly the high achieving women in this field have no husband or kids or they have a lot of help . Or, marry a SAH dad - not a lawyer, not an engineer- maybe a teacher?