facepalm

You mean you would have wanted a search result that talked about the side effect you experienced? Fair enough, but it is not clear that it didn't show up because of Google ranking, or maybe it simply didn't exist? In any case, this seems to be about a real side effect, not an imagined one.

I somewhat agree, except that I don't think there is a useful objective metric for ranking search results. Or what would you suggest? PageRank can be played with SEO shenanigans.

So if somebody searches for vaccines, how should the anti-vaxxers and pro-vaxxers be ranked? Just because somebody has an opinion, does it deserve to be presented as likely as every other opinion? What if I start a new movement vaccines have a chance to turn people into spiderman, should my theory also rank equally to other vaccine sites?

Well I don't have that much time, so for now I only looked at pictures with people in them they have posted since December 1.

Simply counting people yields 29% white women, 19% women of color, 21% men of color, 30% white men.

Not a very exact science, though - I left out groups above a certain size (for example picture from Anti-Trump demonstration or MLKday), and in some cases I couldn't recognize the people. Many white men come from office shots where they linger in the background, whereas there are many tweets explicitly featuring female or black engineers. It seems by only looking at their "media timeline" I also missed photos like this one: https://twitter.com/Every28HoursPla/status/83166688771703193... (which they retweeted).

I'll try to find time for a better "analysis", ideally including texts.

Compared to last time there seem to be now more posts boasting technology at Google. For example there were several about Tensor Flow, all featuring the same white guy (I counted him for every instance).

I couldn't find the time when I last posted about lifeatgoogle, would have liked to look at their tweets from around then.

For comparison employee stats from 2014: http://mashable.com/2014/05/28/google-employee-demographics/... - 70% male, 91% white or asian.

The code of conduct also implies (male) visitors of conferences are rapists unless told otherwise. I personally find it very off putting if a conference of meetup has such a code of conduct. Not because I want to rape or harass (I don't), but because it is insulting.

I think if you organize an event, you should be allowed to assume your target group are good people. For people who nevertheless step over the line, the normal standards of decency apply and they can be dealt with, CoC or no.

My feelings :-) Granted, that is not yet "some", only one, but with millions of white men on the planet, chances seem high others see it the same way.

If you really want to nitpick, quantify my sentence with "in my opinion".

I'll give it a shot, going through the first 100 tweets or so counting men, women, skin colors, is that what you mean? Hope to get round to it later in the day.

And btw I think it gives the impression they don't want to hire men, it doesn't prove that Google doesn't want to hire (white) men. But if they are interested in hiring white men, they might check the message they are sending out.

For sure their reputation is so good that white men will probably still apply in droves, so whatever (same probably goes for women and PoCs, anyway). But in my opinion they will also drive away some people. (edited to add "in my opinion")

And as I said - it is fine if you disagree, but at least there is something tangible to disagree on. That's different from simply playing into some stereotypes. Seriously, you are defending here the equivalent of "I have heard all blacks are criminals, and therefore it is true, no matter what you say". Wtf?

Huh - that Twitter feed obviously is tilted towards only showing women and PoCs as engineers. It is not just a "guess" - you can look at that feed and check for yourself. And at least you can come to a different conclusion than me, because I cited the source. With "I guess", it is just a reinforcing reference to already existing bias. (For reference, here is the feed: https://twitter.com/lifeatgoogle )

Of course the scale of the problem makes a difference. People are also being murdered on a daily basis, but we don't claim it affects the labor force at scale (like "there is a shortage of women in STEM because they have all been murdered"). Just like murders should be prevented, sexual harassment should be prevented. But that doesn't necessarily make it a large scale problem.

As for the linked problem, I criticize that it doesn't properly define sexual harassment. The comparison here is to a guy who proposed sex on a first work day and threatened a stunted career. Is that really what women experience all the time. Or is it mostly that an unwanted colleague is attracted to them? The methodology is also not clear (very likely they only asked women, which seems rather one-sided. For "real" crime there is a reason for there being courts and judges).

Which women? There were no women mentioned, just a guess that it happens often. There was one article by one woman that is the topic here. Afaik nobody claimed that her story is unbelievable.

"all these reported events" - what do you mean? There was one event reported here, and a "guess" that it happens often.

I don't doubt men are often attracted to women, even colleagues. Whether that alone should count as sexist harassment I consider debatable, but in any case it is not the same level as a boss proposing sex on the first work day, with threat of career disadvantages for rebuffing the offer.

what do you mean?

I didn't say anything about disbelieving any women - I take issue with simply "guessing" that stuff like that happens all the time. That is just confirming bias with bias, completely removed from reality.

Apart from that, I wonder what evidence you are talking about? References? How often are claims waved away? Or is that just something you intuitively know?

And by the way, people coming out in response to such an article is also just classic confirmation bias. You need to put stories in relation to the total workforce before you claim almost everybody gets harassed.

I took issue with the "I guess it is very common that women expect that kind of harassment", because it plays into sexist stereotypes. I think in these matters )(sexism, racism, bias), it pays to be precise. How else can you counter bias? What if countless people told me they had been mugged by black people?

Don't understand your comment about lines in the sand. What do you mean?

It's technically sexist, but not really that bad sexist. Likewise the statement "I believe women tend to be more often attracted to men than to women" is sexist, but not very shocking.

Then don't write "I guess it is common", state the number of women who told you such things. Personally I haven't heard many such stories from women in tech.

Also differentiate between some colleague being interested in them and boss proposing sex on first day.

I don't know what is true, but with the media, with some experience, you can see signs. For example they often leave out parts of the story. If you really think about it, you notice the story has holes and you start wondering what they left out.

Also, they usually have an agenda, and you'll notice how all the facts presented somehow highlight that agenda.

Also, simply try to think about all the ways the story could be wrong, or that would disprove the assumption. Are theses things addressed in the story? If not, they probably don't have an interest in conveying the truth. An article usually works by shining a light on certain aspects of an event. Try to mentally shine the light on other aspects.

Essentially, don't fall for "proof by anecdote". If they present you with a sob-story of somebody to relate to, try to generalize and ask yourself if it is still true.

If they make that claim as an excuse for not having to learn things, probably you won't be able to change their "beliefs".

Otherwise maybe point out other complex things that are doing.

It's annoying, but I wouldn't consider it unfair. In the end, nobody forces you to pay more than you are prepared to pay.

I still think it is pretty good for following interesting people. I have signed off from Facebook because I kept getting drawn into useless political discussions. That happens on Twitter, too, but it doesn't lend itself to neverending arguments in the same way. And it is easier to follow a diverse crowd of people.

Maybe because it is difficult to rotate one's head for 180°...

This is part of how I explain to me the outrage over the travel ban: people have been denial over being at war with certain countries. Travel ban makes it public - people get angry because their self-perception is challenged. (And of course there are the inconveniences of not being allowed to travel - but imo it is not completely nonsensical to limit travel from countries one is at war with).

Couldn't somebody make a phone company with better security? It seems stories about accounts being stolen via the phone company as weak link have been around for several years now.

Nice read, although I have to say, 2001 I took my first job as a web developer, writing Java apps that would run on Tomcat. Back then Java was a revelation after fumbling with perl - the experience that code would actually work the first time it was run was amazing... (these days I am tired of Java, though).

McDonalds is an American company. So maybe that is not so much about countries trading, as countries under US influence.

How is that a constraint of modern capitalism? Because capitalism wouldn't build ugly, cheap skyscrapers in the town center?

Even if you build government housing in town centers and give it to people for cheap, you haven't really changed the dynamics. You only subsidize a lucky set of people (the ones who get to live near the town center). How will they be chosen? Adherence to the party line?

I guess in the future workers will wear VR headgear all the time, so the surroundings will matter less?

The place you are looking for exists: it is called home :-)

Any reason to expect women will be more likely to be rocket pilots in the future than truck drivers today?

Not sure what would be libertarian, but it sounds like an obvious externality?

I think it is not quite as easy as that. There are also stories of people who got shut down by PayPal. So at some point you'll be dependent on somebody, at least a payment processor - at least until Bitcoin becomes more prevalent...

And what about the search engine - if you fall out of Google's Index, business will also be harder.

There may be ways around it, like opening a physical shop where people can pay you in cash, but these are not automatically the better businesses to build.