Why does it all have to be equal? Why can't we acknowledge that men and women have different strengths and weaknesses in different areas? The whole point of diversity is not to make everyone the same, it is to appreciate the differences everyone brings.
Like I keep saying in this thread--you've misunderstood the point of diversity and have gone down the wrong rabbit hole. You can acknowledge and celebrate everyone's differences. You just need to realise that those differences don't make a solitary bit of difference in their capacity to perform a job.
So differences exist, but those differences don't make any difference?
Do any differences ever make a difference in performance? Like a particular tribe of Kenyans utterly dominate distance running events, west Africans utterly dominate sprinting events what accounts for those differences?
What's lost in all this and that I have seen zero evidence presented for is that I am in no way convinced that the population groups that are "under-represented" as software professionals have much interest in being software professionals.
Whatever differences in capacity that may exist among groups the differences in interests are surely just as big or bigger.
I think it's a pretty bad false equivalence to liken physical sports to ability in the workplace, purely because one is specifically _the peak of human ability_ and the other is outcome driven.
Taking your example of say, sprinting - the outcome is to cross the line 100m down the track. I would say pretty much everyone is capable of doing that one way or another. When you apply a performance lense that says you need to do it in X seconds, then you're saying "we only want our definition of the best to do this task".
Bringing it back to the workplace, a lot of jobs in tech (and other sectors too), suffer from trying to apply a one size fits all performance lense over the actual outcomes. "Sure this person did their job, but did they do these metrics that we've decided we value". A large part of diversity is acknowledging that the lense that you view people through is not going to apply to everyone, and accepting that you need to focus on the outcomes.
So on several readings of this, it sounds like you're saying that corporations should function as some sort of jobs program and that should take precedence over their function as a profit making enterprise and that some groups should have lower expectations placed on them.
I'm confused on how an employer is not a "jobs program" - they literally employee people, and are responsible for that employees growth and career opportunities (if they value having low staff turnover and achieving better outcomes for their business).
I agree with yawaramin as well, happy employees are better performing employees, and can speak from experience with working at places that value individuality versus strict top down directing of behaviour, that the companies with that flexibility perform much better, at less cost, with much happier employees.
It's not about lowering expectations, it's about changing how you look at them - look at the outcomes and measure those, not the journey to achieve them. When you start focusing on outcomes as teams, you open the door to diversity, which leads to diversifying your ideas and solutions to problems - ultimately leading to better outcomes.
Women don't go into tech because they don't like it. Boys like legos, girls like dolls. Sure there are occasional tomboys but the fact is most girls just don't like engineering.
Another way to think about it is this. How many American soldiers would be killed in the invasion? The American soldiers who would invade are every bit as innocent as the women and children killed in the A-bomb attacks. Estimates are that Around 500,000 American soldiers would be killed or seriously wounded in an invasion. Every American soldier was an innocent man, defending his country from the Japanese who brutally attacked st Pearl Harbor. Do the lives of these innocent men not matter to you? This perfectly demonstrates what's so screwed up about liberals in America. They would literally rather send many more of their own countrymen to get their arms and legs blown off and killed, rather than kill the enemy. It's sickening, awful and evil how they would gladly sacrifice more of their own innocent fellow Americans to save the wives and children of attackers. Send 500k Americans to get murdered by the japanese, plus their dead, or kill 250k with the a bomb.
The choice is clear once you have the facts. Of course maybe you don't think it matters if American soldiers die. Maybe you think it's better that they die than the enemy. Try telling that to the wife of a soldier lost in battle. Try explaining that to a kid who wonders where his dad is. "The Japanese who attacked us at Pearl Harbor and want to kill us are more important to keep alive than your daddy".
You see think pictures of the a bomb with horror. And rightly so. But you forget the horrors of Okinawa. The terror of Kamikaze pilots literally suicide bombing the Americans.
The a bomb was not only better from a military and casualty standpoint, it was better for Japan in the long run. It completely broke the back of their military empire in a way that not even an invasion could. It was complete and utter defeat that crushed their delusions that they would gain greatness through military strength. That enabled them to move on and rebuild focusing on the right thing, economic power
I definitely don't think terrorism is more justified if it saves your own peers' lives.
The narrative that it saved Japanese lives is based on wrong premises (they'd never surrender, etc.), but tries to build a persuasive argument that it was for their own good.
I can't understand why you think "the american military saved their own lives by killing foreign civlians" is at all a more persuasive justification.
Ok so you literally think that it's better to have 500k Americans killed than 250k Japanese, when the Japanese attacked us. And you consider defending yourself terrori sm???
How are the Japanese civilians any more innocent than the Americans? Can you answer this?? No you can't. You are just confused and have no comprehension of how evil Pearl Harbor and the Japanese rulers were. You have obviously never heard of the Bataan death march.
I literally think you are a horrible human being. You would rather sacrifice more of your own countrymen to save the wives and children of the attakcers. You are a straight up evil human being. There are no other words to describe it.
Thank you for proving to me beyond a doubt that liberals hate this country and would gladly see it burn.
It's gonna be great busting out this comment next time dang or another mod is crying that I'm being too mean and hostile to some duped liberal or conservative.
How can you even say that? They were peacefully living when the insane Japanese killed thousands of Americans, and were preparing to invade the USA? It was fight or be killed. So if you are defending you homeland, defending yourself from murder, your wives from rape, you are somehow no longer innocent?
Your like the witch hunters. If you float your guilty so kill them. If you drown your innocent but dead.
Honestly, I don't think there is a real shortcut for in depth knowledge of how secure authentication should work. I think if your going to be writing a program with authentication, you need to know what is going on, what the framework is doing under the hood. If you don't, you are likely to misconfigure it or trust it to do something it doesn't do.
Writing a secure auth isn't exactly hard, and there is good info on the web about it. It just requires time to implement and not taking shortcuts to do it right.
In node there are not really official solutions - it's just packages. Php has a nice password_hash function which hashes and salts your password for you securely.
I disagree. Do you believe that web application developers should be able to write an efficient JavaScript interpreter, or build a working CPU in Verilog? As technology increases in complexity, roles specialize. Skillsets diverge and junior developers should have frameworks accessible to them they can rely on.
Most of us have made our careers standing upon the shoulders of relative giants until we have grown enough to become taller ourselves. I don't believe that you should have to be able to build a reliable authentication framework to be able to write a decently secure web application.
If you don't understand CPU cycles, your application might get a teeny bit slower. If you don't understand security, your application could get hacked! It's definitely nice to have a good auth framework, but I think security is important enough that it's worth taking 1 hour to learn how to do it right.
You can thank the welfare state for this. Thomas Sowell, a black economist attributes the problems of the black community today to the breakdown of the black family which is a direct result of welfare subsidizing the breakup of families and birth out of wedlock.
60% of people in prison grew up without a father. you want to help the black community get out of prison? Support strong families. But if your a family hating feminist, you are in large part responsible for the imprisonment of blacks today, because you support policies that take away from young black men the thing any boy needs most - a father.
For thousands of years men have run society and women have been homemakers. We are biologically wired with those roles in our DNA. Today we are trying to upset those roles, and It causes a huge amount of psychological problems. Women are not designed to run their own lives. They are designed to follow the significant man in Their life. Today since they are expected to be like men, they are completely overwhelmed and are now doped up on drugs like xanax to cope.
More freedom is not always a good thing. Studies show that with more rights women are actually less happy today than they were 40 years ago.
