s73ver

When it rains, it pours, I guess.

No, it isn't. Not when many of their female employees were willing to leave the company, and when the existence of that manifesto would make their recruiting efforts much, much harder.

Here's an article from someone who would have a much better grasp on the subject than you or I: http://blog.goldieblox.com/2017/08/open-letter-james-damore-...

Here's another breakdown: https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-bio...

Basically, all of them say that, while men and women are not purely identical, the differences between them are nowhere near as great as the manifesto makes them out to be. The purely biological differences have little to no bearing on coding ability, and the bigger issues are societal. Like the effect of having something like this coming out on young women who hear it as being told that they're not welcome in tech.

This idea that one can only disagree with it because they haven't read it is extremely uncivil, and does nothing but attempt to shut down the discussion here.

Both of those theses are quite sexist, and no, neither one is appropriate for discussion in the workplace. Especially a workplace that wishes to appear as welcoming for all, not just conservative white men.

"No. His firing confirmed part of Demore's thesis; that Google has monoculture issues and sits in some sort of bubble."

Google had to decide which they value more: Demore's manifesto, or the contributions of a third of their workforce.

"By doing it in an anti-science, anti-evidence way"

But they didn't. That man's argument was not science. It wasn't. There was absolutely no scientific evidence behind his argument. He misrepresented studied, and he cherry picked what he wanted. For more on that, check here: http://blog.goldieblox.com/2017/08/open-letter-james-damore-... It's an article from a female engineer who read the manifesto, and takes issue with the conclusions drawn from the studies.

The ones claiming that his manifesto was "scientifically sound" are those who are anti-science and anti-evidence.

"They could have simply said that they were taking punitive actions and kept him in the fold."

No, they couldn't. By keeping him, they would be legitimizing his views. And by doing that, they would be further alienating all of their female employees, and a lot of others, both current and future. Just about no woman would want to work there, knowing that they endorse those viewpoints.

"Healthcare, like, the mandatory profits for insurance companies?"

Like the end to discrimination against pre-existing conditions. Like the end to yearly and lifetime caps on coverage. Like the end to insurance companies just being able to drop you the minute you get sick.

"Immigration is a loaded topic."

No, it's not.

"And calling an argument intellectually lazy is being "intellectually lazy" itself."

No, it's not. It's pointing out the faults in your argument.

"You're delusional if you think the Democrats and Republicans by and large have any real interest in the American people."

And you're far too cynical if you think they don't, or if you think that they're the same.

"If you vote Democrat you're just as bad (maybe worse since you should know better) as Republicans."

Wrong. No matter how much you hope that they're the same, they are not. Again, all it takes is looking at the various issues facing people today. Healthcare. Immigration. Minority rights. Voting rights. For you to say they are equally as bad is for you to say you have never actually looked at anything, and want an excuse not to.

I have absolutely no respect for lazy people like you who don't even bother to look at the issues, and just choose the easy way out. Do not bother responding back with another easily disproven and shot down argument.

No, I got exactly what you wrote. I don't buy it, and I incredibly do not buy this bunk idea that the disagreements are entirely superficial. To those millions who would have lost health coverage under the GOP plan, do you think that difference was "entirely superficial"? To the transgender people who are having their ability to exist in public spaces assaulted by the GOP, do you think those differences are "entirely superficial"? To the masses of people being deported solely for committing the crime of wanting a better life for them and their family, do you think the differences are "entirely superficial"?

And saying that people who disagree with you just "don't know what they're talking about" is incredibly intellectually lazy.

Only if you're intellectually dishonest, or you've not been paying attention. For instance, how many parties are actively trying to suppress minority voters?

They're being downvoted because their point, and yours, is absolutely bunk. You pick one or two token things on which they agree, and ignore an entire host of issues on which they have significant differences.

Part of the problem, I suspect, is that most startups only target cities, and those who live in them.

No. This both-sidesism is laughably wrong. There are extremely clear distinctions between the two parties. Anyone claiming they are the same is either intellectually lazy or corrupt.

And how does that get me better internet access?

Saying "rewrite the app" is pure hyperbole. You have a few things to update, but that's it.

You don't see anything wrong with the company being it's own ghostwriter? The company, who is clearly going to agree with the contents that are charitable to itself?

You assign it. Everyone knows that there's going to be some of that; that's why it's called "work". But you have to make sure to spread it around as best you can, so that one person isn't constantly being bombarded with the crappy tasks. Maybe after they're done, give them first choice of other tasks.

While most of those boil down to the most common reason: Crappy management, I'm not seeing the second most common reason: Crappy pay (which is just another way that Crappy management presents itself).

Isn't that the problem, though? Bitcoin was supposed to be a medium of exchange. Cash for the internet, in other words. Investing means that people really aren't going to be doing that, and it's just going to sit on a dusty flash drive on the shelf.

I mean, I clearly do as that is my profession. And I really don't think the decision is between "nurse" and "software engineer".

The guy has just alienated over a third of the company. Likely any of the women on his team don't trust him anymore.

"While the author used dubious rhetorical tactics (e.g. stating scientific "facts" without citation), he was never hostile towards any one person or group of people."

Most of the members of those groups would highly disagree with you. Most of the female Google employees who have expressed opinions about it on twitter are quite angry over it. And, regardless of how it was meant, saying that a third of the people at the company don't deserve to be there is hostile.

But are they less interested just because? Or less interested because of things like Uber?

To re-examine why you rejected them, and see if other candidates were rejected for similar reasons or not. There are several studies that show that women and minorities are simply judged harsher than their peers despite having similar levels of talent and ability[1]. Examine if perhaps you fell into that trap. Obviously if someone couldn't do fizzbuzz, they shouldn't be hired. But I would wager that in many cases, there are those candidates that are very close, and they end up getting picked or rejected based on these unconscious factors.

And, also, to look at why diverse candidates are not applying to work at your company is decent numbers.

[1]One such article: http://fortune.com/2014/08/26/performance-review-gender-bias...

Let's be frank, here. This is not someone merely "expressing an opinion." This is someone rallying against diversity, using pseudoscience to back up claims that women and minorities are inferior, and thus shouldn't have been hired. On top of that, they ranted about how Google had not done enough to make conservatives feel they have a safe space, when the only thing Google has done on the subject is to make others feel safe at Google.

As a thought experiment: have you ever seen a team work well together when one of the members has publically said that half of their team doesn't deserve to be there and shouldn't have been hired in the first place?

If the preponderance of current science is against the lone voice, then it's highly likely that the lone voice is not in the right.

Several of them have tweeted about it.

Clueless implies they didn't know what they were doing, or what the outcome of doing that would be.

Unfortunately, how do you control that both groups are the same except for the metric you're trying to measure? And, once again, how do you accurately measure maintenance costs, especially over different projects that would likely have variations in requirements? And, most importantly, how do you come up with objective measurements for these things?