Nowhere is it implied that people going through rough patches will be judged for poor performance and “booted out the door.” The point is that people should be setting expectations ahead of time and will be held accountable for the expectations they set.
There is ample room in a high-performing workplace for the rare rough patch, just needs to be done in a way that optimally allows the team to minimize the disruption.
The main condition is that rare rough patches should be rare. Obviously people who constantly go through rough patches can not be expected to perform highly and are not appropriate employees in a high performing work environment.
If you would take a slide that isn’t specifically directed at you and is intended to improve an organization so personally and defensively then it’s unlikely you would make a good manager in the first place.
Being offended by impersonal and well-intended feedback and using crass language are likely not the average qualities of managers in sustainable organizations.
It did give me pause, then it gave me concern, then it fizzled into lack of surprise.
Damore lost the PR battle long ago. PR justice, while disheartening, isn’t anything new. Challengers to popular ideology are never right at first, but he’ll be right eventually. One day it’ll be more faux pas to assume there are zero average personality differences between the sexes.
I do disagree. This is on multiple thorough readings of his memo and a sound mind. He never advocates for Google to discriminate against anyone in his memo, nor does he advocate for Google to not prioritize diversity.
There is no quote in his original memo to prove otherwise, legal opinion notwithstanding.
This is well argued but some of the assumptions are false.
1) Damore never argued men were better suited to software engineering than women.
2) Damore never argued for google to violate EEO laws, and in fact it’s the opposite.
It’s very sad to me that there is such widespread misinterpretation of Damore’s nuance in his memo. In every possible factual way it’s a pro-diversity memo, but because it cites research on the average personality differences amongst men and women (which are 100% true), he gets crucified as a bigot and an anti-diversity zealot.
Furthermore, when it comes to matters such as these, “belief” should not play a substantial role. We’ve already proven that men and women don’t differ much on intelligence. No need to believe one way or another.
You can downvote me all you want but it doesn’t justify your actions nor does it make your actions any more transparent. Why did you shadow ban my submission? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16366248
I whole-heartedly agree with you. I’ve been restricted on HN for much less. My posts are always respectful and encourage productive dialogue, yet I believe I’m perceived as a troll because I’m direct or maybe aggressive. Again, I’m never disrespectful but I’m willing to directly challenge incorrect thinking, you can check my history for yourself.
The regulation on style instead of substance on this site really make me question their commitment to intellectual / productive conversation.
Sometimes I wonder how long someone like Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman, or Theo de Raadt would last on this site. I don’t think very long. A site that would ban the most influential hackers of our day simply for bad etiquette doesn’t really seem like a site for hackers.
I’ve always used it for sincere intellectual curiosity and thoughtful conversation. My posts across all my accounts are more representative of that more than bad faith trolling. You can trace through it yourself.
Saying Bryan Cantrell has a massive ego isn’t such a massive or unfounded personal attack if I back it up with well-known evidence. He has a known and decorated reputation in the hacker community for having a massive ego. I mean, really?
Having a contradictory or aggressive opinion doesn’t make you a troll if you’re willing to continuously engage in the discussion in good faith. Trolls minimally engage and don’t add. I put effort in my engagement and I try to add to the discussion.
My treatment on hacker news has been unfair and I think your handling has been heavy-handed to the point of censorship. That being said, thank you for de-shadowbanning me. It shows you care.
Facebook isn’t the problem. Phones are. I don’t use Facebook or any social media, yet I’m addicted to hacker news and checking my email.
But even phones are not the problem. People are responsible for their own “addiction.” It’s like blaming food companies for fat people.
Widespread informed Democracy is not something we’ve ever had, and likely will never have. Democracy has always been led by the intelligentsia and the rich.
This should be taken down