Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomrod | Hacker News Reader

The OP should have left off "ladies" as that was unnecessary -- clueless is a sufficient descriptor for many people in many roles (whether genuine behavior, strategic fiefdoming, or learned helplessness).

Here is the US BLS breakout of demographics by occupation category: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm

View on HN

To save everyone the click: HR managers: 76% female, HR workers: 75% female, HR assistants: 84% female.

The distribution in other categories is fascinating, and HN doesn't format tables well.

Though "saving a click" typically refers to spammy clickbait news articles that bury the lede, which a statistical table directly relevant to the conversation does not qualify as.

I found it useful at least.

That doesn't make the remaining 24% more clueful. Identifying a department by the gender of its workers seems pretty suspect.

I read the original comment as implying that the average HR person reviewing your resume will be a clueless woman. Not as implying that only women work there or that people of other genders working there are more clueful.

The comment is open to interpretation, and you are free to interpret it in a less charitable way. The ambiguity is absolutely something we can and should criticize the comment for

Neat fact: statistical independence means that two factors are orthogonal.

My prior, expressed in my earlier comment, is that cluelessness and gender are orthogonal.

I never implied any of that nonsense that I’ve perhaps triggered nor I want to be responsible for other people’s interpretations outside core meaning

Reply on news.ycombinator.com