0.05% is not insanely low for something as specific as sexual harassment.
If 1 in 2000 is insanely low, how much would 'low' be, and how much would 'average' be? No environment should deal with whatever you think the average amount of sexual harassment is.
Having left his job more than 15 years ago, is there any chance that he's simply not aware of the actual methods they're using?
I know in other fields the ability to do concept searching (via LSI and other techniques), rather than simple text based searching, has been in use for many years. His example/problem of a search for "bomb" bringing up noise (such as an email talking about a QB throwing a 'bomb' pass) should have long ago been solved.
I was commenting on the mindset one would have to take the positions you have, which is why I didn't address individual points. I guess that was lost on you.
edit: fine, apparently people get downvoted if they're not pedantic.
"and saying "if this makes the bad stuff in the big pile smaller, then having more bad stuff in the small pile is acceptable collateral damage" is not a good approach. Applied in the large it would quite likely lead to two much bigger piles."
Show your work. Why is that "likely" to lead to two bigger piles?
I'm not going to nitpick about any individual discussion points you guys have going on, but I'll chime in to say that your approach to thinking about men/women in our society seems...disingenuous.
We can imagine utopia and then imagine how we would treat people in that setting. That seems to be what you're doing. But if we're not actually in utopia, then we really are tipping the scales in some way. And that does suck, and sometimes that means that one group is going to be treated unfairly, but often it's about the lesser of evils.
Isn't the point of that comment precisely to discourage someone who might otherwise think the task to be smaller than it is? It's okay to discourage if it helps people understand scope.
That's a slippery slope; if my neighbors plant tulips and I HATE tulips, I don't get to sue for damages, even if the tulips weren't there when I moved in.
Sure, our current statistics show your statement to be true. But, I think many people are alarmed at the trajectory of hate and intolerance in the US.
Also, being murdered is the worst thing that could happen, and maybe that event is still rare, but a set of stairs isn't going to harass you or discriminate against you. There's a whole spectrum of bad things that could happen to people because of the climate in the US.
What? My point is that I drew the same doodle for different words, and for each word it put forth a different _first_ guess.
The first guess for each doodle was the word that was provided -- if this software was completely legitimate, I would think it should have guessed the same word for each (and then moved on to other guesses).
I agree and believe that it's pre-programmed in some ways. I took the test twice, and in the first set I had 'zigzag' and in the second set I had 'stairs'.
I drew the exact same doodle for each and for each it guessed correctly on its first try.
If 1 in 2000 is insanely low, how much would 'low' be, and how much would 'average' be? No environment should deal with whatever you think the average amount of sexual harassment is.