Random Thoughts.....What Are You Thinking?

What's all that chihuahua hate about?

Because those Chihuahua act like 50% of FFXIAH users

Lemme rephrase, any dog can be a yappy dog. They're intolerable at any size.

If they don't yap they're best boys. A chill chihuahua is acceptable. Just most are yappers.

Incorrect

Correct


Yappy humans are also intolerable....

Bite his butt, Chilly-huahua

I saw a pic of obama and joe biden from 2009 and than i was like oh no… iv been playing xi since bush administration. I even hated talking to americans because of the war in iraq was too young to understand it was not the american people but the government ? anyway wow it just ticked its been that long since than

This is precisely why my first point focused on the duty of the society to solve this problem, not just with education but with legislation and how they enable people to pursue fields and careers

When it comes to the hiring stage and the duty of the company, all we can ask for (and legislate towards) is moving their efforts towards the standard society has created, we can't expect them to change the world themselves as private entities whose main obligation is to shareholders

Bringing Cultural differences into this won't change the base claim of giving the opportunities to everyone, that just adds more nuance we can focus on once we take steps towards that direction.


The bolded is exactly the goal. If a group of people think others having the same opportunities as them as "being treated unfairly" then it's just entitlement talking.

If all companies magically had moved to this place tomorrow, and every field they hired for had a pool of candidates exactly as diverse as the population has for that field, then the only obligation left is to show evidence that you hire on merit and maintain transparency. That way if you only hire white people one month or all black people, at least you have evidence that all the necessary steps were taken to remove bias from the hiring process.

I don't know how you can simultaneously hold the views that you should hire a demographic ratio proportional to the number of candidates in field, while still hiring on merit.

This is using a faulty and unbacked assumption that candidates of each demographic work out to have equal merit. Maybe you can believe your own argument because you feel this assumption is fact. But, for anyone who does not believe this assumption, your argument is wholly unsupported. A proper argument would either use supporting facts to back up the assumption it is relying on, or provide additional support that can be backed up with facts.

Hiring random joes to do programming might work for 1 generation.

I took on a role of a person who retired after 40+ years at the company. His code is completely incomprehensibly I found more critical bugs in reading 1 file than I have ever seen. We have "weird unexplainable" problems in our production process that impact our yield by well over 20% and each bug I have found can be tied to an one of these unexplainable "must be a cosmic ray" events.

Another example from when I started at this company, I improved a test system by reducing the time by 30% because the previous programmer did not understand the cost of his loops and made multiple unnecessary n^2 loops.

Not knowing what you are doing and learning it on the fly can work until someone more "qualified" sees your work and understand without ever meeting you that you were woefully under qualified but hey you clearly "got the job done".

There is no way you could have the same type of person come in again and maintain this system now, the job has been thrusted up in difficulty. All that not even mentioning the hidden cost of the inadequate software product causing irreversible damaging to the in process material resulting in scrap.

Honestly it doesn't even matter I get praise for making these huge improvements but the management never reflects on why these improvements were possible and how much wasted time and effort was expended for years.

This might be a tough one to grasp, but have you ever considered that the hiring process should not be based on the color of their skin or who they are sexually attracted to, or anything else of that ilk?

After all, such discrimination is illegal. Except no one gives a *** when the discrimination is against white males as it follows the typical three step program:
Step 1: "its not happening"
Step 2: ???
Step 3: "Its happening and its a good thing"

I don’t have any peer reviewed evidence to present that all races of human beings have the capacity for merit to thrive in a field of study or practice, and as such should not be excluded or given less opportunities based on their race or gender

This is purely my assumption based on my understanding of basic human rights.

If you have to defend your hiring process because of the races of people you've hired, then you're going to be implicitly pressured to hire an equal spread, whether or not that gets you the best candidates.

If the theoretical white supremacy refuses to hire qualified minorities, then they are weakening their own company. Competitors can snatch up all these qualified minorities and make an amazing company with all of the overlooked talent.

This isn't a problem that requires social pressure or legislation. If merit is there, someone will be willing to capitalize on it. Nobody should have a right to work at a company that doesn't want to hire them, and companies shouldn't ever feel they need to take the less qualified candidate to avoid potential litigation down the road.

I am not talking about capacity to thrive. I am stating that any existing candidate pool has real people, with real capabilities. Given how wide the variances are between people (whether of the same race, gender, whatever.. or not).. there is insane variance in this pool far beyond the paper credentials.

Someone choosing to hire primarily white people might be a racist. But, it might also occur because other diversity-forward companies already snatched up the best minority candidates and despite there still being hirable minorities, they are not the best candidates in the pool. Nobody seems concerned about companies that have greater than demographic representation of minorities, though those make it difficult for other companies to reach that representation without hiring lesser candidates.

Whether or not you believe there is any cognitive or behavioral difference between races, there is a difference between individuals. To assume that difference plays out in every locale such that each race has equally viable candidates is completely against all probability. If you roll 6 fair dice, you're not going to frequently see an outcome of 1 2 3 4 5 6.

It is not giving someone less opportunities based on race or gender to hire a more qualified person despite it misbalancing your internal racial demographics. It is giving someone(the person who didn't land the job) less opportunities based on race or gender if you hire a less qualified person to fix those demographics.

Presuming there are these racist companies who hate minorities and only hire white males because they're racist:
1-why would a minority want to work there?
2-in a capitalist market, wouldnt the racist company go down under as no one uses their product or service?

This kind of thing is often hard to estimate because too many factors needs to be considered.

Say for example, if maintaining a system in a bad way cost $10 per month, rebuilding a system cost $50 and 6 months, but it will lower the maintenance fee to $5 after 6 months. Which option is better?

You may argue that the second option is better because you can make the money back after 16 months.

Except if your company only make $12 a month with $10 left in bank then it becomes impossible to invest $50 without a loan because it will put the company on significant risk.

Another thing is that if someone is in a company for a long time, it's often less risky to keep them than firing them then replace them with different people and take risks.

Basically this kind of thing all affects management decisions. It's not always about the best practices only.

This is why many companies don't do theorically "best practices" including their hiring process. It's pointless to find that perfect top talent if the company can't afford them. It's often more efficient to hire top talent as seniors or even consultant then delegate easy tasks to low salary junior/inexperienced people to save money.

You may be surprised, a lot of employees believed aiming for the best practice and improve/expand the company is the top priority, but a large number of company owners prioritize survival and aim to lower risks instead. It's one key reason why employees often have disagreement with company owners because they can't see from different perspectives.

I think you need a new job.

That number is just simplified number, to make math easier to understand.

You can change that $12 per month revenue to a bigger number like 12 million, it doesn't increase a company's risk tolerance if they spend 11.9 million per month.

The whole point is that when a company owner prioritize survival over best practices, many "bad decisions" becomes understandable.

That being said, you bought 3 litters of chihuahuas right?
I mean, hates Acolyte, watched it religiously
Hates FFXI, won't stop being around it
So logic dictates.... ;)

Done.

I once* met a pair of chihuahuas who were properly trained. They behaved like real dogs. It was a revelation.

*As in one time only. In the 80 years I have been alive.

But knowledge evolved overtime, so poor guy, probably had to write the v0 in a time where best practices werent so widespread, there is always the question between refactoring an application or Considering the application has reached the end of line, and need to invest in another.

Most likely the deterioration of the code is consecultive needs of repair without any management order to refactor it.

All that said, i personally see the job of developing as a task of engineering, designing and effectively writing

So we cant blame all.on the programmer. Hes writing whats asked for them. Maybe he doesnt have the full picture, and maybe ot isnt even his job to have it

I suppose my general PoV is being more restrict with management and bosses instead the guy/gurl whos doing the hard work.

If your numbers are simplified, then it stands to reason that ALL the numbers you posted are simplified to the same formula.

So if "$12 per month" was actually "12 million per month", then you're suggesting that "maintaining a system in a bad way is 10 million per month", the same million dollar multiplier.


I think your company is in shambles. Maybe you should have gone with merit based hiring instead of DEI checkbox based hiring, you wouldnt have this problem.

If you're gonna use "simple numbers for simplicity", you have to use the same ratio throughout the post.

This got me thinking, there is a pretty simple answer to how one can do this.

1) conclude that no one currently is qualified to do their jobs, they all suck at it!
2) note a lack of diversity in the unqualified employees.
3) conclude that the qualified employees must be the under represented groups and are being excluded due to bias.

So hiring on merit would hire the under represented group

Worth a laugh, at least.

Here's an example of why you can't expect equal hiring.. I threw together a basic script to fill a pool of candidates using the input demographic ratios then assign a random value from 1-10,000 for each to represent merit. Finally, it 'hires' the candidates with the greatest merit, and prints the results. In a truly random situation with no bias, you will almost never see the most common races/genders as underrepresented because there is enough variety to ensure high quality candidates. You can evaluate the code and see that there's no bias put into it, but most runs will still result in a higher ratio of white males(or the race/gender combination that is most common) than expected, because of the nature of variance.

Anyone is welcome to play with it in browser, by default it uses a pool of 10,000 candidates and 'hires' 200 but you can edit those numbers at the bottom or add more genders/races at the top.
http://tpcg.io/_3RI5G4 (edited link to clean up formatting of output)

Isn't this just a lesson in actual proper "sampling bias"? the bias coming from the fact that the groups are not all equally likely. if you sample a group comprised of 80% X and 20% Y it is likely your sample contains more than 80% X. because there are more possible combinations of individuals comprising the samples containing that lopsided result.

Sampling bias implies you are expecting equal representation of each group, but not actually getting it. This isn't a bias, but a representation of an actual situation. If you assume merit is randomly scattered among all candidates, and you only select for the highest merit, the demographics with higher numbers are most likely to be overrepresented because each outliar is more valuable. In a situation where half of all candidates are hired, instead of 2%, you would see different results because the value of outliars has been reduced substantially. Similarly, if you expanded the hiring numbers and pool numbers well into the millions the deviations would be smaller. If the applicant pool was equally split between races, this also wouldn't be as likely to happen, but you still wouldn't see outcomes that exactly match the input demographics.

If you run it a bunch of times, you'll see that it comes close to averaging out on the other races, but most simulated hiring situations do not get the exact number of candidates they'd need to maintain demographics. On the other hand, for white males, it will almost always be skewed up because composing more of the pool gives more opportunity for variance and competitive hiring rewards variance.

Edit: To be clear, I aimed to simulate real candidate pool sizes. The numbers needed to ensure candidates of merit show up in proper proportion are far in excess of the hiring pool sizes any company can expect to actually pull from. Many will be pulling from far less, which will create even more variance. This is meant to illustrate why the ideal of completely proportional hiring encourages choosing subpar candidates, not to imply that any race or gender is inherently worse or anyone should avoid evaluating candidates of any race or gender.

This is making me think of when we had first moved back to Canada in '93. Dad is ex air force, we were just stationed in Germany. So he retired that summer after 26 years in, and was starting to apply for jobs in the civvy world. But he noticed on applications there would sometimes be a box to check "Are you a visible minority?" After a couple months of not hearing from various places, he decided to check said box the next time it came up. Got a call right away for an interview. Now, they aren't legally allowed to ask you about it, but the guy doing the interview apparently did. My Dad sarcastically responded "I'm a white guy in Canada, we seem to be the minority now."


Hired.

Probably just luck. Because out of all polls and studies that I've seen, being a visible minority reduces your chances in Canada.


https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/april-2024/minorities-canadian-labour/



https://triec.ca/non-anglo-names-barrier-f




I also personally know one asian female irl who married a white guy so she can change her family name to English sounding name.

I think you missed the message of his story. The person in question was a white dude, not a visible minority, so...not luck...

Or maybe you could call it luck if you are considering the fact that he was born in Canada as a white man

Maybe they dont have employment because they're getting more money via govt handouts then they would make slaving at a minimum wage job?

You're going off the presumption that they are actively looking for a job.