SpEd3Y

All machines require networking or refuse to boot? That's quite a solution...

It is for sure a very tricky problem.

I also tend to think that if we hire the most competent and qualified people the numbers would naturally tend to 50% or whatever the men/women preference ratio for that job is. What we should strive to do, IMHO, is make sure that everyone has the same opportunities and there is no discrimination preventing different people to get a job.

I agree that mandating many blue collar jobs would not work because of the low number of qualified women, but why would that not be the case mandating company board jobs? If we're saying we have very very few women in company boards, doesn't that mean we have very very few women that have experience for positions like those and consequently way more men that have experience and are more qualified? Since board members are such high end positions and paid very well you can't just double the number of such positions which means you'll end up picking women with less experience over men with more experience cause it's mandated. Hence you're picking the less qualified person for the job which will create friction.

I think a way better solution would be creating incentives for companies to hire women in the boards or funding companies created by women. That way women can get the same degree of experience as men and then can compete for these positions with similar qualifications which I think will increase their numbers.

But in my opinion mandating something like this creates a lot of friction. Government mandated people to wear masks and we all know how that went. So many people did everything in their power to resist that. I think it's human nature to try to resist when something is forced on you.

Interesting insight. I see your point and I agree that more points of view can definitely be an asset to a company. But my concern in about mandating these jobs.

I tend to disagree with you that company boards have no qualifications. I think you need a pretty impressive resume to even be considered in a company board. So programs for less prestigious jobs that can help women gain the experience and build an resume where they get the job in a non mandated way could be more viable (IMHO).

I think if you start mandating these kind of jobs in the name of equality and diversity you: 1. Should mandate blue collar jobs in the name of equality and diversity as well 2. Should really make sure you have qualified and competent people to fill the jobs. Otherwise you risk filling those positions with unqualified people who, despite their best intentions, will not help the cause by under performing.

Can someone help me understand why a law that mandates women on company boards (arguably the best position in the market) would be more beneficial than women being mandated into all jobs, including lower level men dominated jobs (like brick laying, plumbing, construction, metal working, etc)?

You did not misunderstand, that was indeed the core of my argument. The parent argument seems to say being proud of being black is good because you went through slavery (well, your ancestors did, not you). But white people should not be proud cause they were responsible for slavery.

I'm not from Germany, I'm for a poor east European country that never was part of any empire and never conquered another country. Why can't I be proud of my heritage? Why do I have to hide the fact that I'm proud of my heritage because English and Americans enslaved African people? Also wasn't it white people that then fought to abolish slavery? Wasn't Wilberforce white? Wasn't Lincoln white? Didn't British ships then police the international waters to stop the slave trade? Why do you decide that being white means "the ones that started the slave trade" and not "the ones that stopped the slave trade" and assign a negative connotation to it?

But I fail to understand your argument in this last phrase. Your argument is because someone in Europe was a white supremacist, then nobody in Europe can be proud of being white (aka proud of their heritage)? Because the mustache man took advantage of the German people living in really poor conditions and being miserable after the first WW and brain washed them into committing hideous acts, being born a German now is forever a curse? You can never be proud of your heritable before and after mustache man? What exactly is the algorithm based on which you decide if someone can be proud of their heritage or not?

I don't think I ever said anything about Europe not having problems with white supremacists. Can you point to the part of my comment that made you think that I said that?

I'm from east Europe. In my country there have never been black slaves. There have been white slaves. The rich would sell the poor as salves to other rich people.

However if I wanna be proud of being middle class white person today, that would raise a lot of eyebrows and not a few people would assume I'm a "white supremacist". You cannot be proud of being white. Doesn't matter what your country history is, or what your personal context is.

My hypothesis is that American history has been conflated with "white" history so now all white people are privileged and oppressed black people and have no reason to be proud.

When you get hired somewhere you sign a contract. In the contract you agree to do work and the company agrees to pay you.

You start doing 50% of your work (under-performing) for a bunch of months and the company asks you to fulfill your side of the contract because they are fulfilling theirs. Is that weird?

Let's put it another way: You do your job well, the company starts paying 50% of your salary because they have problems. Do you keep working there till their problems are gone? Or after a couple of month you tell them: either you fulfill the contract or we part ways?

How is it helpful for you to present your opinion (about their opinions as facts not being helpful) as a fact? :)

I have a question :)

Can it be that Linus is so angry with people and their incompetence because he actually gives a shit about Linux and the code?

I'm not interested if his rants are ethic or not, if they are effective or not. I'm just trying to understand why he's ranting? Because he's an ill adjusted person? Or is there something else?

Linus is 'infamous' for being very angry with people who write shitty code. Why is that? If you read the chapters written by him in 'The Hacker Ethic', you find out that he codes because he's enjoying it, it's what makes him happy, so to speak. Therefore, he is invested in the code he writes. It's not just a job for him. It's his life's project, his 'baby' if you will.

Can it be that because he's so emotionally invested into the code, when he sees that other people push shitty code and don't care about it, the intensity of the emotions he feels are way higher than the emotions of a manager who's just 'doing his job'? Can it be that because he cares so much, he's having a hard time not reacting so 'emotionally'?

I think this is more than just the economic system. If you look at people in general, we live in the age of instant gratification.

We want everything fast! Nobody is willing to put in the work and get the reward after a longer period of time... No! We want results now! We don't want to wait for the food to be properly cooked, we want it now, so we go for fast food. We don't want to put in 1 year of work to learn something new so we can feel that we achieved something, we want it now, so we play a game where we can 'win' in 30 minutes. We don't want to build a relationship and eventually end up being intimate, we want it now, so we go for 'one night stands'.

Then you ask yourself... is it weird that the economic system works the same? That the software industry works the same? :/

How about shy people who have a hard time talking to new people? Who only feel comfortable after a couple of days and then they become very chatty? Aren't most developers like that?