Grace Hopper Celebration Cancelled
anitab.org
anitab.org
Since DEI imploded most companies won’t touch anything with a 100 ft pole that looks like it might go anywhere near that, and seems like that didn’t help on funding and sponsors.
This always seemed like a good event and only ever heard positive things about it. The controversies and scandals surrounding DEI were not about this, and thus it would appear this may be collateral damage.
Do we know any sponsors who pulled out? Even if that was the case, pulling the plug like this at t minus two weeks speaks to problems internally.
Corporate lawyers now broadly advise their companies against putting any money towards demographic-specific initiatives due to the risks of being sued for discrimination.
Buying a booth at an event would probably be seen as fine but I can only imagine pitches to be a title sponsor were met with “don’t touch this” advice from corporate lawyers.
To Godwin it (with his assumed blessing (1)), I guess this is how BMW, Hugo Boss, Allianz, etc, ended up being involved in the Holocaust.
The utter degrading of the meanings of powerful words might get us there, though.
This is a rather boring straw man characterisation of the claim you are replying to. Don’t do this.
It is very obvious, surely, that the comment was a dark, sardonic point about the tendency for "anticipatory obedience" in the Trump era (calling AI "superintelligence" etc).
That is to say, stopping doing something fully legal and uncontroversial out of the fear of reprisals that are ultimately the result of a government (the Trump administration) acting beyond their bounds; there is no reason at all for companies to stop their DEI initiatives when Trump's power is limited to federal institutions, and there is even less reason for them to withdraw sponsorship.
Anticipatory obedience absolutely is part of why major German (and US) firms ended up complicit in the Holocaust.
Companies engaging in anticipatory obedience, taking away programs that are still addressing inequality of opportunity, are on that slippery slope. The last couple of years have made it easier to understand how companies get captured by extremism and illegality.
(Law firms especially; Trump has broken, humiliated, defanged and belittled law firms who took on merit-based cases against him and that is part of why corporations are backing out of DEI initiatives; their law firms cannot be counted on to argue for them)
Hitler and Nazi Germany did not start with the Holocaust. It was instead the end result. Something can be compared to Hitler or compared to the Nazis or their rhetoric without being literally the Holocaust.
Keep in mind that Hitler and the Nazis took power starting in 1933 but forcing jews to carry identification (i.e. add israel or sara to non-jewish names and add jewish identification marks to paperwork) didn't start until mid-to-late 1938 with Kristallnacht following only months later in Nov 1938.
But in that early period however Nazis began
- gutting research institution
- literally destroying research institutions and research. (ex the famous 1933 book burning picture was from the demolition of the Institute for Sexual Research which studied gender non conformity, intersex traits, and broader topics in the LGBTQIA academic space. Also was where the first transgender sex reassignment surgery took place.)
- expelling academics
- dismantling social programs
- pressuring companies into aligning with state ideological and industrial objectives
- seizing control of, attacking, or privatising domestic and foreign media
- pressuring domestic and foreign entertainment into aligning with Nazi ideological stances
- punishing, oppressing, and expelling political and cultural enemies of the party from the military and civic institutions.
- converting prisons into work camps.
- building out detention facilities/prisons for "illegals" with deplorable conditions with intent to make them suffer as long as possible. These would later become concentration camps and then death camps once crowding became too extreme. And notably this began with the romani population in the early 1930s who Nazis believed to be criminals illegally present within the country.
--------------------
Nazi germany was so much more than just the Holocaust and genocide of the Jewish people. They were part of it however they were the conclusion not the start.
> Unlike past events, this year, both individual registrations
I think we’re trying to put on a very big conference and hoping that big sponsors would come through at the last minute to make the numbers work.
They’ve had some problems in the recent years. It even made NPR headlines for cops having to show up. Everyone who hasn’t heard of the conference until now is assuming the sponsors are entirely to blame but the conference was not doing well for a couple years.
Since the only god our corporatations worship goes by power and money, they all started tripping over themselves to kiss the ring.
But IMHO DEI answers the wrong question.
Worthwhile lives does not come from equal access to the hamster wheel.
I am much more pro UBI structures og negative taxation - which are inherently difficult to make descriminatory as there is no personal judgement of the people to receive it.
(Showing up to one, or writing a check to one, is as far as I or anyone else on this planet is aware, is not in violation of any law, as much as MAGA would like it to be.)
There's no need to whitewash or come up with excuses for their cowardice.
These programs were, in theory, well intentioned but to suggest they did nothing wrong is simply factually incorrect.
Maybe a few naive people in the movement had good intentions but they were clearly dupes for what was at its core a right-wing white supremacist and incel ideology.
And the proof is in the pudding. Has the anti-DEI movment (and current administration) created a truly fair and equitable society that focuses on merit in the absence of gender and race? No. It has created a society in which the contributions of anyone other than white men are systemically attacked, torn down and even erased from the public record.
People who crusade against DEI generally think that the concept is corruption, rather than being an unrelated side matter.
> There were already laws on the books against hiring discrimination.
Those are exactly the laws being used to attack DEI practices, though they were by consensus not previously wielded against clear violations that were intended virtuously.
Has the DEI movment (and previous administration) created a truly fair and equitable society that focuses on merit in the absence of gender and race? No.
>It has created a society in which the contributions of anyone other than white men are systemically attacked, torn down and even erased from the public record.
It has created a society in which the contributions of anyone other than white men are systemically exalted, praised and even defended from the public record.
Jason Arday.
This isn’t collateral, this was the plan, the planners were just too stupid to see the natural consequences of their plan. See also the price of diesel.
Namely by going too far and breaking the law by becoming discriminatory? So now companies are not going to touch DEI.
DEI killed DEI, not Trump.
1. A company that hires mainly based on on-paper qualifications (which, due to existing disparities in experience and education, means in practice that they hire fewer historically disadvantaged minorities)
2. A company that, believing that talent or merit is more equitably distributed among groups than on-paper qualifications may suggest, goes out of their way to interview a greater proportion of historically disadvantaged minority groups than necessarily would naturally apply to their positions (to discover those as-of-yet-unrecognized talents), and tries to hire based on actual merit and ability rather than on-paper qualifications.
3. A company that has the goal of creating a more equitable and diverse workforce with groups that more closely matches their proportions of the population. They spend a lot of time and effort actively recruiting and seeking out employees from underrepresented minority groups, meaning that it is effectively easier for minority groups to get interviews at this company for this position, but still tries to hire based on actual ability and talent once they get to the interview stage
4. A company which, accounting for the disparities in distribution of measurable abilities of groups, tries to hire based on within-group ability rather than between-group ability; for example trying to hire the top 10th percentile of black, or top 10th percentile asian, or top 10th percentile male, rather than top 10th percentile of all applicants in aggregate (which would likely be overrepresented by over-performing groups). This in practice means using a different standard for different groups, but using the within group distribution of talent; they may say they are "considering race/sex/disability as one of many factors they take into account"
5. A company that in practice has an explicit hiring quota based on the race/sex/etc. of applicants, in order to create a more equitable or diverse workforce that matches the relative sizes of those groups in the local population.
6. A company that, in order to reverse historical and current disparities in achievement within society, actively discriminates in the opposite direction as historical trend, with the goal of evening the playing field more quickly.
7. A company that, in order to address historical grievances and grant some amount of justice to victims of discrimination and oppression, actively and purposefully discriminates against privileged majority and overachieving groups, favoring underprivileged and underachieving groups, up to and including reparations for past injustices to remedy current disparities.
I'm pretty sure 1-3 are legal and 4-7 are illegal, but I'm not a lawyer so that's just my guess. Some hardliners might attack 2 as going too far, but somewhere between 3 and 4 is probably the more common point at which anti-DEI people draw their line.
The history is more than a little complicated. I model it as a set of separate overton windows in different institutions that have shifted, widened, and contracted over the last 60 or so years. So in this picture, courts arguably expanded it to 4-6 in the 80s, but have retreated back to around 2-3 since then. Legislature has mostly stayed around 2-3 with a handful of radicals pushing higher or lower with low-to-moderate success. Academia has been around 5-7 since the 70s. Executive has mostly hovered around 3-5 until Trump. Media/popular culture, big shift up to 6-7 in 2014-2021, retreating back to 3-4 now. Also, motte-and-baileys are common here; pro-DEI activists sometimes frame it as something like 2, but often advocate up to 6 or 7 (e.g. "antiracism" in the 2020s peak). anti-DEI activists often say they simply oppose quotas and illegal discrimination (4-7), but in practice sometimes attack even 2-3 as being too much.
> They spend a lot of time and effort actively recruiting and seeking out employees from underrepresented minority groups, meaning that it is effectively easier for minority groups to get interviews at this company for this position, but still tries to hire based on actual ability and talent once they get to the interview stage
Discriminating against candidates on the basis of protected class at the application review stage is no less illegal than discriminating during interviews.
#2 may or many not be illegal, depending what you mean by, "goes out of their way to interview a greater proportion of historically disadvantaged minority groups than necessarily would naturally apply to their positions." If this involves using protected class as a factor, in any way, on which candidates to advance to interviews, then yes it is illegal discrimination.
Furthermore, disparate impact theory has been largely rolled back in recent years.
Trump (and his ilk) presented a straw man to the dumb, then shot the straw man, without ever thinking of the innocent people standing down range of their target, which included the dumb the whole time.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v...
Edit: forgot to to write "and asians".
DOJ sued Deloitte over DEI programs, they ended up settling for $21.5 million: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/deloitte-pay-215-mi...
Texas Attorney General declared DEI initiatives unconstitutional in a legal opinion: https://www.gibsondunn.com/texas-attorney-general-declares-p...
Several state Attorneys General sent legal threats to 20 major law firms over DEI: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republican-led-states-deman...
Texas Attorney General warned major banks that DEI programs violate feduciary duty: https://today.westlaw.com/Document/Ibce2fdc5dcec11efb708bbad...
They are settling because, like the law firms Trump suborned, they didn't want the MAGA rage; especially in the case of Texas, where Trump may (correctly as it goes) think Paxton is a disgusting slug of a man, but still vocally supports him.
The legal system was just the venue. All of this is bullshit corporate spinelessness in the face of threats without merit, especially in firms like Deloitte, who do not want their M&A interfered with.
> You understand that ...?
Yes I do
As an aside I think my brain jumped the track and had me thinking I was replying to another commenter I'd replied to already -- who wrote a sibling comment to yours.
My apologies.
But I highly doubt most companies were saying that or implying it. There's more to DEI than having minority quotas. Would DEI practices such as campaigns to encourage more men to go into nursing, midwifery or teaching be targeted too?
These aren't illegal and have never been the problem.
Discriminational hiring practices and quotas are, unfortunately DEI activists decided to do these.
This is being contested right now. And so, unless you enjoy getting sued, you won't do it.
Just because you agree with the current administration on certain topics, does not mean that you necessarily agree with them on all topics. This is a case of you projecting your opinion based on what your beliefs without checking whether reality matches.
But plenty of companies very publicly instituted policies to financially penalize their employees if they fail to meet gender quotas. Remember, a policy of giving a bonus when an "inclusion milestone" of X% women in technical roles is reached is fundamentally the same thing as instituting a penalty when that X% quota is missed.
Such should rightfully be illegal.
At our place, it did not influence hiring decisions other than having a formal DEI position in the org which was disposed of almost immediately when it was seen as a cost and not a benefit.
* https://riks.se/nyheter/wallenberg%C3%A4gda-ericsson-tonar-n...
* https://swedenherald.com/article/ericsson-ceo-explains-dropp...
Here's one example.
It just silently evaporated here during a "restructure".
Shocking.
But when the powers that be are intent to kill off "DEI", and their definition includes anything related to women, this is what happens. Too many business cowards don't want to have problems with their merger, acquisition, IPO, FCC license, etc for supporting celebrating a great American like this, just because she was a woman.
According to the Wikipedia article on the event (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper_Celebration_of_Wo...), "In 1994, Anita Borg and Telle Whitney founded the Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing. With the initial idea of creating a conference by and for women computer scientists, Borg and Whitney met over dinner, with a blank sheet of paper, having no idea how to start a conference, and started to plan out their vision. The first Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing was held in Washington, D.C., in June 1994, and brought together 500 technical women.".
Having a specific conference for women in computing is definitely a DEI concern; from the very beginning, the entire point of having a formal celebration of Grace Hopper was to be a locus for this female-specific conference. Grace Hopper's importance to this conference is that she was a woman, not that she invented FLOW-MATIC.
The phrasing is ambiguous.
A specific conference celebrating women in a field they have been historically underrepresented in is exactly what DEI is about.
So for whom is this a concern? I am guessing for people who are anti-DEI?
Again, the phrasing does not make it very clear.
I read it as a damning indictment against anti-“DEI” fanatics that they’re on the wrong side of history when they push the envelope too far in the direction of “merit-based hiring”, as if DEI was something relatively-recently concocted.
Laughably, in the days before “DEI”, “merit-based hiring” usually equated to “good old boys club”. Based on the industries in which I’ve been involved, it’s still very much “good old boys club”, despite best efforts for DEI to try to make things more merit-based.
In fact, the distinction between political appointments and those other things is critical. In politics, you appoint people to reward your various constituencies. That’s just how politics works. But jobs and universities shouldn’t work that way.
University admissions were not part of the DEI movement, they were part of the affirmative action movement. By conflating the two you’re unfairly grouping things of different types to tear them down together.
Many women mathematicians in computer science worked in the field because they were denied a university career path because of their gender.
As an example of how late gender equality arrived, Olga Taussky-Todd (Caltech) held only a “research associate” title from 1957 until Caltech made her its first female full professor in 1971.
https://mathematics.caltech.edu/about/prizes-awards/olga-tau...
It is not wrong to celebrate a more enlightened world by highlighting its trailblazers and encouraging others to follow their footsteps in breaking barriers.
Both are quite famous. Their work, and summaries of their work, are easily found if you are legitimately curious. Olga Taussky-Todd was a pioneer in matrices theory - certainly relevant and impactful in today's AI, LLM world. I see someone gave a separate synopsis of Admiral Grace Hopper's accomplishments.
This is simply not accurate. It is profoundly inaccurate
It was also getting very expensive. When a conference has a long list of sponsors and tickets also start at $600 minimum, it’s hard to keep that going in a year like this when everyone is dealing with large token spend budgets.
They likely could have survived with a right-sized event but they aimed higher than their budget allowed and hoped the money would appear at the last minute. It did not.
im in the conference business but just fyi thats actually cheap - venue, av and f&b alone cost many millions for a conference this size. a good rule of thumb on cost is $1-2000 per head depending on quality of event.
It's the other way around -- they want to do away with anything to do with women, and they used this DEI boogeyman to get everyone scared enough to go along with it.
Oh but they were about this. This is the common trend of people thinking that "the good ones" are implicitly exempted from their general and sweeping attacks on $THING. C.f. the hardline anti-immigration voter who thinks that the guy who mows their lawn obviously won't be included in the crackdowns. If you attack the whole concept of DEI (as many did – not necessarily you), then you are in fact attacking events celebrating the achievements of women in fields where they're poorly represented.
huh, that's pretty bizarre, at least here in Australia (where in recent years immigration has exploded to 2x ~ 3x that of the USA), all the anti-immigration voters are sincerely hoping the guy who mows their lawn grew up across town where his wife's sister now lives.
the crackdowns are for the economic migrants just taking a lifestyle arbitrage
ultimately, immigration into large developed nations is an act of altruism, which, like most things in life, cannot scale indefinitely (much to the chagrin of business owners, women, arts students, etc.) - which is not nice, but is true.
Similarly, someone who has actually attended the Grace Hopper conference is more likely to be pro-DEI than someone who has never attended and doesn't care about it happening.
My basic point was that when people attack DEI in general, they create an environment that's more hostile to a conference like this one. They may say "oh, but obviously I wasn't talking about things like that". However, words have meaning. If you attack DEI as such then you attack all instances of it – not just the ones that happen to irk you.
This point has nothing to do with the likely views of the people attending the Grace Hopper Celebration.
That's one possible response; another possible response is "I've never heard of the Grace Hopper conference, but now that I have heard of it, I was definitely talking about things like that when I attacked DEI in general, I'm glad the people running it aren't getting funding anymore".
My own position as someone who was previously aware of the Grace Hopper conference (I know women who have attended in the past) is that I don't have a problem in principle with celebrating Grace Hopper or even with people of arbitrary demographic groups, such as women, self-organizing to do a thing for themselves; but I did view it as a women-in-tech-specific conference that I would not have attended or sought to attend because I am not a woman. I wouldn't have donated my own money to it, and I'm not particularly upset if the reason they're canceling it now is because they can't find corporate sponsors. Certainly I'm not gonna change my mind about opposing DEI programs on the grounds that it affects corporate willingness to sponsor a particular women-in-tech conference.
> The controversies and scandals surrounding DEI were not about this, and thus it would appear this may be collateral damage.
You don’t see this as collateral damage, but the person I was responding to does.
It has everything to do with something we're not allowed to criticize.
This is not the case at all. There have been ample people complaining about this stuff for years. While there are some people who are upset at various policies for other reasons there really is a battery of people who just genuinely don't want to see minority representation in the workplace. Oftentimes these people dress up their true complaints in softer ones but you really can see people like Chris Rufo pushing for a world where minorities are not in positions of power or authority.
I have personally observed people at my workplace (Google) complaining about any funded attendance at Grace Hopper as discrimination against men.
That GHC has had a lot of problems in the past several years. The ticket prices were getting excessive and the conference itself was wandering off course.
Even the current website looks like something that would be hard to justify under most conference travel budget requests: It’s hard to find the actually technical content among the speakers, even though they’re claiming 700+ speakers.
Some of the top selling points are finding employers who are hiring and growing your network. Most companies have tightened up their conference budgets to focus on educational material, not events focus on recruiting people to other companies. Everyone knows conferences will have companies recruiting, but when recruiting is one of the primary selling points it’s more job fair than conference.
The conference has also been problematic on many levels in the past few years. It made news headlines in 2023 for conflict about too many men showing up and arguments about whether or not they were really transgender. The police have been called. They’ve been flirting with political ideologies like Thiel-associated key speakers trying to make the theme of the event encouraging young women to drop out of college. The operations have been a mess from a lot of the reports.
Everyone in these comments is assuming anti-DEI, but everything I heard about the conference was a growing dumpster fire and cash grab for years. I think they finally collapsed when they tried to grow too big after years of bad experiences for their sponsors combined with companies facing increasing AI spend who weren’t interested in spending thousands of dollars to send employees to a conference where recruiting to other jobs was one of the main selling points.
When Jim Whitehurst left Red Hat, he was replaced by Paul Cormier, a complete wokee. Cormier got DEI fever and put in place a big corporate framework, led by a newly crowned VP, complete with staff.
DEI affinity groups were established, by ancestry, sexual orientation, veteran status, physical ability, neurodivergence, etc. The groups got t shirts and air time on company calls. Chatter on internal mailing lists shot upwards, often becoming political firestorms.
CEO Cormier got even crazier and started saying things about maybe not belonging at Red Hat if you didn’t buy into the complete DEI koolaid. The entire corporate leadership was using pronouns in email by then.
I was a member of the military veterans DEI group. I appreciated the t shirts and once got a backpack from a contest. It wasn’t all bad.
Some of it was overreach, and it grated on some people. But there was a glorious counter move in the works.
There was a Jewish guy that didn’t like having DEI thrust upon the company. Assessing his pool of allies, he started some quiet conversations and soon applied for a new DEI subgroup, “Jews and Judeo-Christian values”. The corporate DEI sponsors were caught off guard and approved of the group. I got to go to a DEI conference in Alabama on the company dime, a week long kumbaya fest with nice eats at a snazzy resort. Company funding was good!
A checkpoint on where Red Hat was at the time: the lead spokesperson for the Red Hat Women’s group was a muscular transgender person. That didn’t seem crazy in the context.
As the J&JCV group, we got air time and were able to give voice to our preferred messaging. Our ranks included a gay guy that was drummed out of the LGBT group for his airing of occasional conservative viewpoints. He was as welcome in our community as anyone.
Finally, the DEI leadership took a closer look and decommissioned our J&JCV subgroup. We tried to argue and appeal, and I believe we won the battle of logical arguments, but that was of no consequence. We lost our seat at the table.
It may have seemed bleak, but the winds of change were blowing. CEO Cormier was removed by IBM, after very little time in office.
Organic actions were wearing away at DEI, also. A prominent subgroup leader was taking lengthy ‘mental health breaks’ of week long duration— then boasting about it on mailing lists and encouraging others to do the same! Such things are not sustainable.
As I retired a few years later, DEI was operating at a reasonable level. Minority communities ( notably the excellent and long running Black Red Hatters group ) were bringing appropriate, positive messaging and were demonstrating the true power of diversity. Women’s groups were doing a good job of showcasing women in Tech, etc. I don’t remember anything truly crazy in my last year.
I believe things are going to be fine.
It sounds like this conference had been going downhill for a few years.
I've rejected both due toy sentiment right now.
> What happens to my in-person or virtual registration fee?
> Information regarding GHC registration and other financial matters will be communicated to you promptly once we obtain a clearer understanding of AnitaB.org ’s financial condition.
Incredible.
I forgot to do a search first.
She was a huge influence on me - as a white male tech nerd - and I have long had a huge interest in women in tech, from Grace to Margaret Hamilton to Jeri Ellsworth and Anouk Wipprecht and more. Jeri's demonstration of her self-made transistors and work rebuilding a tunneling electron microscope were fascinating and rank among the most entertaining things I've seen in a hackerspace this century. Anouks' mad fashiontech excursions are positively exciting. There are many other women technologists who deserve our interest.
So its pretty unfortunate that GCH won't happen this year. I hope there are budding young squibs out there who won't see this as de-motivating with regards to their entry into the technology worlds.
An AnitaB.org press release dated April 24, 2025, stated its mission as:
> “to get women in tech skilled, hired, promoted, paid, and funded so that they can thrive, lead, and drive innovation for a more equitable and sustainable future.”
The current mission page instead says:
> “to get our community in tech skilled, hired, promoted, paid, and funded, so they can thrive, lead, and drive innovation for a more impartial and sustainable future.”
It's really hard to tell from their current mission statement who "our community" is.
Let's not focus too much on the past problems that a group of people had, but let's make sure that the situation is improved for that group right now.
Focusing too much on past and try to tip the scale _because_ the past was so bad may lead to bad outcomes today. It may be perceived as a search for grievances and retribution and not the equalization of outcomes that one claims it should seek.
They just don't like it when it's other people
But they think they can do it because they can spin it as "you did it first".
This just makes the point that there is nothing to gain by framing the issue as a grievance.
There are real prejudices and real systemic disadvantages to fix and while it's important to understand the history of them, I believe we put too much focus on that and less on what we can do to put that past behind us instead of dwelling in it. I don't think this approach of grievances has done anybody any favour in practice.
They are happy to do whatever they want, and they don't worry about needing false-equivalence precedent to do it.
Ironicly many of those who use the term are not snowflakes in one of those senses and are in the other, but the opposite of what they believe to be true.
Well you can spot them with a Rorschach test, perhaps.
To put it less ambiguously, I’m looking for a term for a character which is written to be repulsive but a number of people in the real world misinterpret as a role model.
> In the 1970s snowflake was a disparaging term for a white man or for a black man who was seen as acting white.
> In Missouri in the early 1860s, a "Snowflake" was a person who was opposed to the abolition of slavery—the implication of the name being that such people valued white people over black people.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/the-less-lovely-sid...
Horseshoe theory [1]. Both the far left and right are thin skinned, constantly engrossed in nonsensical semantic debates and accusing their betters of lacking a sense of humor.
These days, Varoufakis talks about "radical centrists".
(It's possisble he doesn't actually have a sense of humour and what we're seeing is pure schadenfreude over, eg, the unsurprising stuff that's happening to the centre-left in Sweden right now. Which happened to Starmer, and has yet to happen to Burnham
But this is maybe only "empirical"--- your wiki link mentions the vulnerability of centrism to elite takeover, and subsequent alienation from the masses. Nod to your "betters")
I don't think this word has meaning anymore in modern Western politics. We have institutionalists.They aren't that different from the animating essence of Trump 1.0–they want to go back to some good old days. Even though the world has since changed. And the old days weren't that good, they're the reason we're where we are now.
And we have various folks pitching reform. The idiots on the far left and the right agree on the broad structure of reform, namely, nothing thoughtful except getting rid of the other guys. But they aren't the only ones pitching reform.
Why? Status quo is the default in any state.
Institutional reforms seem to go through better if done proactively. Eg, Sweden, 1990s, preempted China shock. What gave? Had the right people been voted in (at various levels)? Was there a culture of running parallel optimisations (org-Darwinist take) of status quo ante?
You might be able to apply those to how Swiss institutional-reforms (if any) preempted China shock
(or, now, how they are handling vs just avoidinh "migrant shock", orthogonally to the "resilient" demographic, popular framings, etc)
The red-green bloc (left, center and greens) won a majority but the center party is playing kingmaker and refusing to let the left party into government. The left party has said from well before the election that they, reasonably, will not vote to support a government which they are not part of.
This has been due to decades of bourgeois / social democrat rat-fucking on policies, most notably disability / sick insurance reforms, after they got the left party's support votes. [1]
There is speculation that the center party would instead support the prior right wing government instead (voting with the extreme-right) - as long as the extreme right stays out of government, despite the extreme right getting all of their policies pushed through anyway. Even going so far as to withhold key votes in parliament until their immigration reforms (removing permanent residency and restricting citizenship, in this case) got passed. [2]
The short of it is that "centrist" parties are just right wing parties in disguise, in that they NEVER support leftist reforms but will happily support the right when it suits upper class economic interests.
Democracy being what it is, can be messy and nobody goes home happy. But the left of the left bloc saw the largest electoral gains in this election, so a move to the left is arguably what a growing portion of the electorate wanted. It was still a very close election, so you could frame it in many ways, but that the green-reds did see the biggest gains is fact.
1. https://arbetet.se/2026/09/21/sjukforsakringen-forklarar-var...
2. https://www.thelocal.se/20261012/beer-strike-and-contract-br...
I would say the center party is center-right.
However, the left has stated that they rather reasonably won't support a government that they are not part of. The center party on the other hand has said they won't support any government that the left party is in and seem to be open to forming a government (at least not denying when being asked directly) with the right wing parties of the former government, despite that bloc losing the election.
When one party's "red lines" only seem to soften when facing the right, I think that does say something about their true intentions.
https://codewithkate.squarespace.com/blog/the-complete-grace...
Tech Giants & Major Players
Amazon - Booth 751
Google - Booth 1246
Meta - Booth 1010
Nvidia - Booth 1039
Disney - Booth 946
Snap - Booth 447
Roblox - Booth 1209
PlayStation - Booth 433
Nintendo - Booth 429
Finance & Trading Firms
Goldman Sachs - (Location TBD)
Morgan Stanley - Booth 633
Jane Street - Booth 618
Citadel - Booth 62
Two Sigma - Booth 1046
DE Shaw - Booth 410
IMC - Booth 1051
Walleye Capital - Booth 1052
Apollo Global Management - Booth 647
Five Rings - Booth 310
Cboe - Booth 952
Banking & Financial Services Bank of America - Booth 439
Capital One - Booth 831
Bloomberg - Booth 824
Navy Federal - Booth 426
USAA - Booth 614
Vanguard - Booth 819
Insurance & Financial Tech Prudential - Booth 526
CHUBB - Booth 344
Voya Financial - Booth 1226
NEXT Insurance - Booth 1227
Manulife - Booth 1122
Tech & Software Companies Intuit - Booth 422
PayPal - Booth 514
Cloudflare - Booth 533
Wayfair - Booth 342
Xero - Booth 343
Adyen - Booth 605
WEX - Booth 1014
Chewy - Booth 1114
Infoblox - Booth 852
InterSystems - Booth 518
Red Hat - Booth 919
DTCC - Booth 418
Consulting & Professional Services EY - Booth 1228
E-commerce & Entertainment Audible - Booth 1251
Automotive & Manufacturing Rivian - Booth 1022
John Deere - (Location TBD)
Crown Equipment Corporation - Booth 1210
Automotive & Manufacturing Rivian - Booth 1022
John Deere - (Location TBD)
Crown Equipment Corporation - Booth 1210
Real Estate & Corporate Services CBRE - Booth 341
Lumen - Booth 345
Retail & Food Services McDonald's - Booth 339
Healthcare & Medical Technology Tandem Diabetes Care - Booth 313
Northwestern Medicine - Booth 1214
Mortgage & Real Estate Tech Rocket - Booth 1211
And if thay paid the whole thing this year, and pulled out next year, th÷pe PR would be 50x worse. Single company cancelled this event in 2027!
Seems like smart move to get out fast!
This is absolutely the US Gov to blame for its DEI attacks and threats.
This was true 10 years ago, today not so much. After several years of cultural revolution, recent crimes, discrimination lawsuits, the entire "women in tech" subject is toxic.
Now it is in implosion phase, where activists will start eating their own (just see the hit list OP published).
Another problem is AI. Common coders will become obsolete (together with "women in tech"). There is no push for more "women in plumbing jobs". Pushing young people into tech (presumably with expensive student loans) is just cruel. Women are not stupid!
The push exists, if you bother looking for it at all.
> increasing women’s equal access to union construction jobs
That is not the same as "plumbing jobs". They want nice cushy unionized jobs, not dirty work
"Last year, Women Who Code, a nonprofit that got its start in California, closed because of a lack of funding. AnitaB.org, which brings together women in tech at its annual Grace Hopper Celebration, cut its workforce in 2024 and pointed to a downturn in corporate DEI investments." - "Why Big Tech is pulling back [from DEI efforts]" [2025] (https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2025-02-15/google-and...)
"I've seen companies who have rebranded their diversity, equity, inclusion as colleague engagement, as listening and empowerment, or and whatever else, I've seen many different iterations, and I think a lot of organizations... [want] to get to a place where they can hide their activity..." ... "Those organizations want to continue doing the work, but they no longer want attention for that work. And so to try to, like, hide it in some ways, and we're in a very unprecedented time right now, nothing is normal right now." ... "Well, basically, corporations interpreted the ADA to say, like, I don't have to offer any... And then you have this three executive orders around DEI, and companies are falling over themselves to comply in advance without any legal mandate for compliance." ... "I just saw a New York Times article that was published a list of a hundred and ninety-nine words that the Trump administration is targeting, words like diversity and inclusion, but also things like bias, stereotypes, underrepresented, underserved, and many more words. They're flagging these words, they're removing them from websites, they're investigating, delaying, denying grants and funding." - Bo Young Lee, President of Research & Advisory for AnitaB.org [2025] (https://voices.berkeley.edu/podcast/dei-not-doa-part-1 | locally AI extracted transcript: https://pastebin.ca/5Mmy5Q6deu)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper
Grace Brewster Hopper (née Murray; December 9, 1906 – January 1, 1992) was an American computer scientist, mathematician, and United States Navy rear admiral.[1] She was a pioneer of computer programming. Hopper was the first to devise the theory of machine-independent programming languages, and used this theory to develop the FLOW-MATIC programming language, which was a major influence on COBOL, an early high-level programming language still in use today. She was also one of the first programmers on the Harvard Mark I computer. She is credited with writing the first computer manual, "A Manual of Operation for the Automatic Sequence Controlled Calculator", and is often credited with creating the first compiler.
didn't find anything controversial about her in wikipedia
Here is an earlier programming language (never implemented) that was machine independent:
Their "Our Mission" page refers only to the perfectly vague "our community", never once describing what that is. Nor does their landing page. Their "Our History" page says that the organisation started out to support women in the tech industry, but then describes several name changes, eventually dropping all use of the words "woman" or "women" and switching to the user of "individuals" without explanation or elaboration. It reads like a perfectly choreographed PR "product" designed to maximise deniability of... something. But what?
I never felt that I was actually welcome. And I don't have to be. It's not for me, and it doesn't have to be. I answered women inviting me that no, that wasn't made for me, have fun though.
Then mass layoffs happened, and men who lost their jobs, or looking for their first job, went.
Suddenly everything flipped. Keynote was basically "what the fuck are all you men doing here, taking the space of women?".
Oh, the gaslighting. Glad I never went.
The courtesy smiles, the pretentive presentations, the sale talk, the polite social customs, the diplomacy, the power due to knowledge, weaponry, currency fixations, - all will face the concrete realities. Water recedes exposing the naked, boisterous economies. The zero-carbon evangelists run to Russia for diesel and to China for minerals or they get extinct, unable to adapt and sitting on their presumptive glory.