Respectfully, I think it's a bit dishonest that you've linked to one very specific subpage for one specific office in Seattle, presumably the one page you found which contained a lot of white people.
I'm not sure if I even need to write any more, because the fact that you needed to do that demonstrates my point probably better than I can.
But, to say the obvious, have a look at their root careers page (I think that's a good "nothing-up-my-sleeve URL", so to speak): https://careers.google.com
> To put what charitably?
Well, the phrase immediately surrounding that one in my comment: "their marketing graphics bely those [i.e. 53%-white] demographics".
(To be clear, I don't say this with any racist intent. I'm just allergic to insincerity. Whatever one's political commitments, it's plain – to anyone who hasn't completely subordinated their critical faculties to some or other ideological dogma – that Google's photos make great play of their few minority ethnic staff, more than would an equally-large set of random samples from their 53%-white staff. It reminds me of my sister (who's mixed-race, as I am) being summoned whenever her china-white private girls' school was taking photos. My own - hers was our sister school - mustn't've deemed me sufficiently dark..)
Hmm, I think we're coming up against the weirdness of racial categories here. I'd say Ukrainians - to much the same extent as Hispanics - aren't quite considered white in American terms (which has virtually zero to do with one's skin color). Or not Caucasian, at least. (Yes, despite the fact that they come literally from the Caucasus, while Americans don't.) But it's impossible to come to an exact agreement on these things.
That interesting diversion notwithstanding, I think his being deaf is probably what accounts for his inclusion, which is consistent with the spirit of what that person was saying.
Google's workforce is 53.1% white, and 36.3% Asian (so, not far). 2.5% is black. Their marketing graphics - to put it charitably - bely those demographics.
Nah, watch the video, he's Hispanic. (Of course racial classifications have no real meaning, but ime Hispanic people are generally - bar some Spaniards - 'typed' as non-white, comparable to Asians or Native Americans. And certainly a minority in US terms.)
ETA: He's also deaf, fwiw, with regard to the minority point.
ETA2: Hmm, I may be wrong about the exact details. It looks like he's a research scientist at Google, and, judging by the name, possibly Russian. But the same non-Caucasian non-''white'' point applies. (The Spanish voiceover and subtitles confused me - it's not his voice at the start, whereas his own 'deaf voice' makes any accent hard to identify.)
> “In our research, we found that a lot of the time people feel they’re lumped into racial categories, but there’s all this heterogeneity with ethnic and racial categories,” Dr. Monk says.
"People think we're lumping them into racial categories. But we're actually lumping them into slightly narrower racial categories!"
If they said "buy once, get upgrades forever" and didn't provide that, then yeah, that's definitely a very plain example of immoral dealing. The future service is exactly what the purchasers were buying - not a nice-to-have add-on.
If the open source implementation is equally good, I'm sure people will use that instead of Tailscale. That Tailscale exists makes me suspect that the open source implementation - as is usually the case with these "just use curlftpfs!" comments – is not equally good.
The reality is that making software, like any other human endeavour, takes time and energy. Paying one another money is a rather well-established mechanism of rewarding and incentivising that time and energy (since not everyone wants to work free of charge to make and maintain software for you, out of the goodness of their hearts, no matter how much you insist that you're owed their unpaid labour).
There are small and local means of getting free food, or free woodworking, etc, but the general reality is that a high-quality high-dependency maintained product, over the long term, is more feasible when it's paid.
It's just bizarre. You end up paying your cut twice: once to convert it into crypto (paying the exact same card fees you'd pay for a direct card payment), and then once again to pay someone like Stripe for this. For either a business owner or a customer, that's a loss - increased infrastructure fees just to do business.
It's the opposite of the crypto dream. But that's not Stripe's fault; it's Bitcoin's, for not creating a product which is actually capable of living up to its goals, and instead requiring all this 'glue business' to make it work. I hope someone else creates a new radically-different cryptocurrency which can be truly new, and not just a novelty stuck on top of Visa/Mastercard.
Hey - I wanted to say that I came across a comment of yours from more than a decade ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2328627), and I was startled at how accurate it is as a prediction of how parsers and IDEs are combined today, about 11 years later. I'm glad you're still commenting on here (and what a criminal understatement it is for that page to characterise their tool's flaws as "timing information is less accurate" - that's bloody execution order that you're talking about!).
Anyway, I wanted to say how much I appreciate your comment of 10 years ago. I'm also a parser nerd, and a performance nerd, and I feel strongly that programmers have a professional responsibility to write code in a way that expresses our intent by a logical minimum of instructions/work. I strongly suspect that this will become important again in the future, not because the ratio of software-efficiency to hardware-power decreases again, but because climate concerns will drive us to measure our code in performance-per-watt rather than performance-per-dollar (depending on what action is taken on carbon pricing, it may be a distinction without a difference).
I look forward to the day when grossly inefficient software is rightly considered to be as unacceptable as grossly inefficient SUVs, and people in our profession are forced to take responsibility for the damage that their obscenely inefficient crap is doing. I hope Python 4 comes with a snorkel.
It doesn't always mean what it looks like it means, FWIW. The dad of one of my close friends defaulted on a £600m loan, essentially 'strategically' in order to play hardball, and it got reported by lots of newspapers as if he'd gone bankrupt. I think a lot of people extrapolate from personal finances to business (or in that case HNW) finances, and it doesn't really work that way.
> Nobody has ever taken the "god's eye view" with the intent to be nice.
I second what the other guy said: this is an interesting point. But I'd also second the point about not knowing their intent (more with Bretton Woods than Visa/Mastercard; the latter is obviously fair enough). Also, I think it's telling that you left out Dodd-Frank when making that point, because it pretty clearly undercuts it.
> none of the participants in the financial system have ever been interested in designing a financial system
I agree to some extent with the view that we should see systems as emergent phenomena arising from countless participants none of whom understands or intends the entire thing, but you can go overboard with that. There are clearly some participants who have taken a 'God's eye view' and tried to re/design an entire system (Bretton Woods, Dodd-Frank, Visa/Mastercard, &c).