7 ms·

> At the risk of repeating myself, the memo's author did in fact say that "Google has created several discriminatory practices", which include "hiring practices

> At the risk of repeating myself, the memo's author did in fact say that "Google has created several discriminatory practices", which include "hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for 'diversity' candidates". Please take care not to deceptively quote the author in question. This is the full sentence: > Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate. The author deliberately crafted this statement to make it clear that he is referring to qualified, non-diverse, candidates being rejected at greater rates than qualified and diverse candidates - not that unqualified diverse candidates are accepted at a higher rate.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
notyourday 9y ago
The author is either a total idiot or he just retired with a cool 10-30MM he would be paid by Google to be fired. I'm going to guess it is the later: Lawsuit from him would cause discovery. Unlike other government lawsuit, he would actually be able to say who at Google has access to the needed paperwork/email/etc to demonstrate that he is correct in his assertion. The government would love to piggy back on him. So I'm guessing Google is cutting a very large check now.
- jjirsa 9y ago
  Cutting a check for 3-6 months severance as a sign of good faith, wrapped up in an NDA. There's no cause for anything more than that.
  - notyourday 9y ago
    Leverage. Government lawsuit against Google right now means that he has the leverage. The odds are the same people who are tasked with the programs to promote whatever the author carefully worded in his post are the people who received/sent emails/edited internal presentations that mentioned something that a good lawyer would be able to twist into a Google's managers admitting that Google does in fact systematically pays women less than men to do the same job. Google has a lot more to lose from that lawsuit than from the author of the memo. [Edit: typos/clarity]
    - fellellor 9y ago
      Do you mean the US government would sue google on this guy's behalf? I would think, with all they have on their plate right now, they can't be bothered about some idiot who couldn't keep his mouth shut in public and just do the job he was hired for.
      - notyourday 9y ago
        Not at all. There's a lawsuit against Google: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/google-pay-disparities-women-labor-department-lawsuit https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/google-pa... Government's problem in this case is the same kind of problem that government had in the US v. IBM: IBM buried government in the paperwork and government did not know where to look at to dig itself out. Here comes the author who seems to have a very good idea of the remediation programs that Google has. The odds are extremely high the people in charge of the remediation programs/diversity programs/etc are the ones who are familiar with the issues that Google has: it is fairly logical. The author probably knows who these people are. He probably talked to them. Probably those people told him whatever he used as the basis for his manifesto. If he drags those people out into the spotlight, the government would suddenly have a beacon for their case. That's why I, personally, think Google made a gigantic mistake firing the guy.
        fellellor 9y ago
        This is pretty interesting. Though I think Google is right to fire this guy, the collateral damage to themselves is an interesting thing to follow. Whether he was right or wrong, he has hurt the company. I think he is wrong to be sure. But it doesn't matter. It is also interesting because, a loss in a major legal case may throw up interesting possibilities in the stock market. Of course, one needs to be much more legally aware, than I am, to take full advantage of these possibilities.
        mirimir 9y ago
        OK, but the Department of Labor suit claims that Google "discriminated against its female employees". And Damore almost claims reverse discrimination. So I don't get how they'd work together. However, Damore did file a NLRB claim before he was fired. So he seems prepped to sue, or perhaps to negotiate a private settlement.
  - mc32 9y ago
    Those checks Apple had to pay for Jobs mouthing off "you're fired" at semi-random employees did not come with only a six month severance despite "at will" work contract. I imagine this ex-employee will get a generous severance or expect good lawyers knocking soon.
    - fellellor 9y ago
      I thought Jobs was a founder, not just some grunt. Maybe being an owner put him in a much better position than this guy currently finds himself in.
      - mc32 9y ago
        Of course. My point is those tantrum firings cost him a million or two at a time --despite at will work.
        fellellor 9y ago
        This doesn't look like a tantrum firing. He created too much drama for his own good. As an owner, anyone would find that distracting and unnecessary. This certainly doesn't advance the company's interest in any way. Now whether he is able to successfully sue google and make big bucks is difficult to predict at this point. But it's certain that his career is finished for the foreseeable future. It is a profoundly stupid thing to do for anyone who likes their job as an engineer. Maybe this guy doesn't and wants to start a new career in blogging or some similar shit. In that case, this may be a great new start for him.
        mc32 9y ago
        It's not a tantrum firing but it's also not a firing with cause and it steers close to free speech. If Pao could sue KPC&B, I think he stands a chance, unrelated as they are, it suggests suits can go forward on slim allegations and here he has evidence clear as day they fired him for having a difference in opinion on their hiring practices. He personally didn't discriminate nor personally conduct himself untowards anyone. He offered some (unconvincing evidence about how women don't have the same aptitude as men --but you are likely to find evidence Google does have internal hiring goals and allows a culture which virtue signals against the majority culture) and they didn't like it. Thing is, if this had been a woman or minority citing some dubious data about how more women and minorities should be hired (which I agree with but on other principles), we would not even blink at it, if it even would have surfaced)
  - gaius 9y ago
    How does an NDA apply when his name is already public knowledge?
- hackcasual 9y ago
  What cause would he have for suing Google? It's at will employment, and writing anything is not a protected activity.
  - notyourday 9y ago
    Retaliation for <pick whatever argument his lawyers can make>. Remember, unless it this is dismissed with a summary judgement Google is going to have to deal with a discovery. Discovery with the other side knowing about internals of the company is a risk no company wants to take.
    - hackcasual 9y ago
      Summary judgement is for dismissing merit-less cases. If he sues for "Retaliation for X," where that is not an actual cause for a suit it will get dismissed.
    - Naritai 9y ago
      No, Google was clear that he violated the code of conduct. Since it's plainly clear that he did, and since we can safely assume he's not a member of a protected class, any random assertion of retaliation will be thrown out. Any discovery requests will have to be tied to the code of conduct, which isn't particularly interesting even if it did get out.
      - notyourday 9y ago
        That would probably be Google's position. It could easily be defeated as it presumes the author would not be able to demonstrate that he could be a member ( does not have to be ) of a protected class. Remember, should that be the case authors goal is not to score a touch down, it is to get a new set of downs i.e. move forward with a lawsuit. Judges are very reluctant to toss something out that early if there's even an ounce of a possibility there could be a merit in a case.
      - stale2002 9y ago
        This is not as clear cut as it would seem. California law has very strong protections for employees. And it seems that firing him for the memo may actually be illegal. The crux of the argument is that Google may have "punished an employee for communicating with fellow employees about improving working conditions", which is illegal. Also, "California law prohibits employers from threatening to fire employees to get them to adopt or refrain from adopting a particular political course of action." Furthermore, "It is unlawful for an employer to discipline an employee for challenging conduct that the employee reasonably believed to be discriminatory, even when a court later determines the conduct was not actually prohibited by the discrimination laws". Read here for more: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/google-fires-employee-behind-controversial-diversity-memo https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/google-fi...
- sgustard 9y ago
  So can another 100 employees publish the same letter and get fired and line up for their million dollar payouts too? I don't know about the discovery argument. If he was an HR insider and acting as a whistleblower to disclose an illegal practice, sure. But a regular employee can't voice opinions about something that's common knowledge and force the company to disclose a bunch of confidential information.
  - JSONwebtoken 9y ago
    The mistake Google made was thinking that they don't have 100 conservative-leaning employees also willing to martyr themselves in the shadow of the original author's exit. What are they going to do when someone else steps up and makes the same assertions with more tact? Fire him too? What about the person after them? They gave extraordinary leverage not to the person that they fired, but to the people that have not been fired yet. It's uncharacteristically nontechnical of Google to think that of the anywhere between 30-50% of the US population that leans conservatively, there is only one of them working for Google in Mountain View and that any dissenting thoughts within the company will end with him, and that the liberal employees threatening to quit will be happy and sated just to see these few drops of blood. It doesn't matter the size of the check Google cuts this guy, nor the next 100 individuals if they choose to also speak out. Google made a mountain out if a molehill, and they just left a very a long way for the snowball they just threw to gather some mass while rolling down.
    - manfredo 9y ago
      Realistically, even 100 conservative leaning employees aren't going to make a dent in the 60,000 person company that is google. I'd probably be blip on their normal attrition rate. While I think that many outlets are misrepresenting and selectively quoting the piece to make it seem more offensive than it is, the reality is that the author used a lot of loaded language and created many opportunities for misinterpretation. If this were at my company and the article didn't blow up online I'd probably have a talk with the author to point out all the ways that this piece could easily be misinterpreted and construed as offensive and that the same ideas can be conveyed in ways that are a lot less likely to blow up in your face. If this were at my company the article did go viral like it did in real life, I'd probably let this employee go. While I would say this is placing the interests of the company over the psychological safety of my employees, the pragmatic reality is that PR and potentially internal dissent caused by retaining the employee does not outweigh the moral win of retaining an employee who wrote a tone-deaf article that went viral and was widely perceived as offensive - even if the underlying ideas aren't ourageous.
- oh_sigh 9y ago
  Unfortunately if a settlement is made it will be confidential. Even if it was illegal, maybe it was the best course for google? Imagine if, say, 10 female engineers publicly quit google because they wouldn't fire James. That is going to be some really bad press, along with losing presumably valuable employees. They can short circuit that process by perhaps firing him illegally, and then settling at a later date out of court. The SJWs get their Hitler fired and Google doesn't take another reputational hit
  - xxs 9y ago
    If they (google) settle with him, what stops hundred(s) of other people to follow suit; I'd suppose there are at least 15-20% of employees who would agree with his views.
- jlebar 9y ago
  > The author is either a total idiot or he just retired with a cool 10-30MM he would be paid by Google to be fired. I'm going to guess it is the later Um, that's one possibility I suppose. But I am reminded of this scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUfv32dmVFw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUfv32dmVFw [I work for Google, but have no insider information about this.]
- xxs 9y ago
  what is 10-30MM, like million million i.e. 1e12?
  - sweettea 9y ago
    M is the roman numeral for a thousand; MM is a common abbreviation for million, i.e. a thousand thousand.
    - xxs 9y ago
      That's just 2000 in Roman notation (current year is MMXVII). I have never seen MM use as million.
tunesmith 9y ago
In a world where qualified diverse candidates still regularly get rejected at greater rates than qualified non-diverse candidates, is this bad? I mean, as soon as the needle even flirts with going past perfectly fair in the other direction, that's when some of these people get up in arms?
- manfredo 9y ago
  This is besides the point. The point is, the author did not say that unqualified diverse candidates are accepted at a higher rate than unqualified non-diverse candidates. Many people are using this statement (often excluding the last couple words specifically referring to the false-negative rate) to claim that the author calling his women and racially underrepresented co-workers under qualified. For what it's worth, I do think that taking steps to decrease the false negative rate for diverse candidates is an okay system and I explain my company's process of doing this in another comment in this page. That said, pointing out that this system is increasing the false-negative rate for non-diverse candidates is 1) factually correct, and 2) not at all the same thing as calling my underrepresented co-workers unqualified. If somebody claimed that our interview process increased the false positive rate for underrepresented groups I would object to such a statement - but that is not what is said in this document.
  - evolve2017 9y ago
    I replied elsewhere but in case you didn't see it: It looks like the author is talking about setting a threshold, as in the context of creating a test. Please have a look at [1]. In this setting, it is not possible to decrease the false-negative rate without increasing the false-positive rate. I think the author is phrasing things this way simply as a matter of rhetoric, but his argument clearly suggests that less qualified 'diversity' candidates are being hired. 1. http://www.prolekare.cz/dbpic/jp_5403_f_21-x1000_1600 http://www.prolekare.cz/dbpic/jp_5403_f_21-x1000_1600
    - manfredo 9y ago
      First off, this isn't a pharmaceutical trial this is a hiring process. Second, even if there is a fundamental principle of probability that assures this is the case it's still possible to have a change that vastly reduces to false-negative rate as compared to the increase false positive rate - so much to the extent that the latter is negligible. On a broader note, the way you're injecting a completely different message into the author's text is exactly the kind of behavior that makes these discussions toxic. I realize that might sound accusatory, but if people can't make a statement without people stuffing contradictory or unrelated words into their mouths there's no possibility of civil discussion.
evolve2017 9y ago
Please correct me if I err - it's been some time since my college statistics class. It looks like the author is talking about setting a threshold, as in the context of creating a test. Please have a look at [1]. In this setting, it is not possible to decrease the false-negative rate without increasing the false-positive rate. I think the author is phrasing things this way simply as a matter of rhetoric, not to express the point you are suggesting. 1. http://www.prolekare.cz/dbpic/jp_5403_f_21-x1000_1600 http://www.prolekare.cz/dbpic/jp_5403_f_21-x1000_1600
- sjwright 9y ago
  It should be fair to say the author phrased things to pinpoint the aspect he is concerned about, even if other aspects are statistically inevitable. Hiring the best and diverse workplaces are both virtues, but sometimes competing virtues. The problem with this entire discussion is that too many people are overly certain that one virtue is more important than the other.
- manfredo 9y ago
  This same reply was posted to several of my comments, this is my response: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14954138 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14954138
oh_sigh 9y ago
You're somewhat correct with your analysis. The bar stays the same, but on average those who get a more detailed analysis done will be closer to the bar than those who are subjected to coarser grained measures. So, it's wrong to say it lowers the bar, but it's right to say that it ends up giving you more people who are very close to the bar. Perhaps a better way to word it would be that Google's diversity hiring method(of looping back around for a closer look on "diverse" candidates) shrinks the error bars on the bar Imagine it this way: You're a fisher. The Law says that you can only catch fish which are >= 12" long. If you're caught with < 12" fish, bad things happen, but otherwise you want to maximize the amount of fish you catch. You have two ways of measuring length: a crude wooden stick with some fat lines on it which mark approximately 12" - this is quick but only approximate. You also have a high precision caliper which can tell you the length down to .001", but it takes 2x as long to make the measurement. You're interested in catching lots of fish, so if any fish you catch are a little close to that line, you just throw them back with one measurement. 90% of the fish you catch are red, but about 10% of the times you catch a green fish, which are really sparkly and fun, so you change your standard: if the green fish on first measurement is really close to 12"(not close enough to keep), instead of throwing it back like a red fish, you bust out the caliper and measure it more precisely, and throw out anything < 12". So, at the end of the day, assuming red and green fish are distributed equally across lengths in the ocean, what would the distribution of kept fish look like? Would the mean and median length of your green fish be higher or lower than the mean and median of your red fish?
Merovius 9y ago
Your interpretation of that statement makes no sense. With that interpretation: a) the bar isn't lowered in any sense of the word, as that would imply less qualified people getting in, b) you'd claim that for unexplained reasons, Google can give more accurate evaluations for diversity candidates, c) and/or that they are rejecting candidates they know unequivocally to be qualified and d) even if all of this was the case, there wouldn't be anything discriminatory about it. At least where I'm from, it is literally a legal requirement, that if multiple candidates compete for the same position, diversity candidates are given preference. Even in its most generous reading (yours), this sentence makes zero sense.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

notyourday 9y ago

The author is either a total idiot or he just retired with a cool 10-30MM he would be paid by Google to be fired. I'm going to guess it is the later: Lawsuit from him would cause discovery. Unlike other government lawsuit, he would actually be able to say who at Google has access to the needed paperwork/email/etc to demonstrate that he is correct in his assertion. The government would love to piggy back on him. So I'm guessing Google is cutting a very large check now.

jjirsa 9y ago
Cutting a check for 3-6 months severance as a sign of good faith, wrapped up in an NDA. There's no cause for anything more than that.
- notyourday 9y ago
  Leverage. Government lawsuit against Google right now means that he has the leverage. The odds are the same people who are tasked with the programs to promote whatever the author carefully worded in his post are the people who received/sent emails/edited internal presentations that mentioned something that a good lawyer would be able to twist into a Google's managers admitting that Google does in fact systematically pays women less than men to do the same job. Google has a lot more to lose from that lawsuit than from the author of the memo. [Edit: typos/clarity]
  - fellellor 9y ago
    Do you mean the US government would sue google on this guy's behalf? I would think, with all they have on their plate right now, they can't be bothered about some idiot who couldn't keep his mouth shut in public and just do the job he was hired for.
    - notyourday 9y ago
      Not at all. There's a lawsuit against Google: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/google-pay-disparities-women-labor-department-lawsuit https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/google-pa... Government's problem in this case is the same kind of problem that government had in the US v. IBM: IBM buried government in the paperwork and government did not know where to look at to dig itself out. Here comes the author who seems to have a very good idea of the remediation programs that Google has. The odds are extremely high the people in charge of the remediation programs/diversity programs/etc are the ones who are familiar with the issues that Google has: it is fairly logical. The author probably knows who these people are. He probably talked to them. Probably those people told him whatever he used as the basis for his manifesto. If he drags those people out into the spotlight, the government would suddenly have a beacon for their case. That's why I, personally, think Google made a gigantic mistake firing the guy.
      - fellellor 9y ago
        This is pretty interesting. Though I think Google is right to fire this guy, the collateral damage to themselves is an interesting thing to follow. Whether he was right or wrong, he has hurt the company. I think he is wrong to be sure. But it doesn't matter. It is also interesting because, a loss in a major legal case may throw up interesting possibilities in the stock market. Of course, one needs to be much more legally aware, than I am, to take full advantage of these possibilities.
      - mirimir 9y ago
        OK, but the Department of Labor suit claims that Google "discriminated against its female employees". And Damore almost claims reverse discrimination. So I don't get how they'd work together. However, Damore did file a NLRB claim before he was fired. So he seems prepped to sue, or perhaps to negotiate a private settlement.
- mc32 9y ago
  Those checks Apple had to pay for Jobs mouthing off "you're fired" at semi-random employees did not come with only a six month severance despite "at will" work contract. I imagine this ex-employee will get a generous severance or expect good lawyers knocking soon.
  - fellellor 9y ago
    I thought Jobs was a founder, not just some grunt. Maybe being an owner put him in a much better position than this guy currently finds himself in.
    - mc32 9y ago
      Of course. My point is those tantrum firings cost him a million or two at a time --despite at will work.
      - fellellor 9y ago
        This doesn't look like a tantrum firing. He created too much drama for his own good. As an owner, anyone would find that distracting and unnecessary. This certainly doesn't advance the company's interest in any way. Now whether he is able to successfully sue google and make big bucks is difficult to predict at this point. But it's certain that his career is finished for the foreseeable future. It is a profoundly stupid thing to do for anyone who likes their job as an engineer. Maybe this guy doesn't and wants to start a new career in blogging or some similar shit. In that case, this may be a great new start for him.
        mc32 9y ago
        It's not a tantrum firing but it's also not a firing with cause and it steers close to free speech. If Pao could sue KPC&B, I think he stands a chance, unrelated as they are, it suggests suits can go forward on slim allegations and here he has evidence clear as day they fired him for having a difference in opinion on their hiring practices. He personally didn't discriminate nor personally conduct himself untowards anyone. He offered some (unconvincing evidence about how women don't have the same aptitude as men --but you are likely to find evidence Google does have internal hiring goals and allows a culture which virtue signals against the majority culture) and they didn't like it. Thing is, if this had been a woman or minority citing some dubious data about how more women and minorities should be hired (which I agree with but on other principles), we would not even blink at it, if it even would have surfaced)
- gaius 9y ago
  How does an NDA apply when his name is already public knowledge?
hackcasual 9y ago
What cause would he have for suing Google? It's at will employment, and writing anything is not a protected activity.
- notyourday 9y ago
  Retaliation for <pick whatever argument his lawyers can make>. Remember, unless it this is dismissed with a summary judgement Google is going to have to deal with a discovery. Discovery with the other side knowing about internals of the company is a risk no company wants to take.
  - hackcasual 9y ago
    Summary judgement is for dismissing merit-less cases. If he sues for "Retaliation for X," where that is not an actual cause for a suit it will get dismissed.
  - Naritai 9y ago
    No, Google was clear that he violated the code of conduct. Since it's plainly clear that he did, and since we can safely assume he's not a member of a protected class, any random assertion of retaliation will be thrown out. Any discovery requests will have to be tied to the code of conduct, which isn't particularly interesting even if it did get out.
    - notyourday 9y ago
      That would probably be Google's position. It could easily be defeated as it presumes the author would not be able to demonstrate that he could be a member ( does not have to be ) of a protected class. Remember, should that be the case authors goal is not to score a touch down, it is to get a new set of downs i.e. move forward with a lawsuit. Judges are very reluctant to toss something out that early if there's even an ounce of a possibility there could be a merit in a case.
    - stale2002 9y ago
      This is not as clear cut as it would seem. California law has very strong protections for employees. And it seems that firing him for the memo may actually be illegal. The crux of the argument is that Google may have "punished an employee for communicating with fellow employees about improving working conditions", which is illegal. Also, "California law prohibits employers from threatening to fire employees to get them to adopt or refrain from adopting a particular political course of action." Furthermore, "It is unlawful for an employer to discipline an employee for challenging conduct that the employee reasonably believed to be discriminatory, even when a court later determines the conduct was not actually prohibited by the discrimination laws". Read here for more: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/google-fires-employee-behind-controversial-diversity-memo https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/google-fi...
sgustard 9y ago
So can another 100 employees publish the same letter and get fired and line up for their million dollar payouts too? I don't know about the discovery argument. If he was an HR insider and acting as a whistleblower to disclose an illegal practice, sure. But a regular employee can't voice opinions about something that's common knowledge and force the company to disclose a bunch of confidential information.
- JSONwebtoken 9y ago
  The mistake Google made was thinking that they don't have 100 conservative-leaning employees also willing to martyr themselves in the shadow of the original author's exit. What are they going to do when someone else steps up and makes the same assertions with more tact? Fire him too? What about the person after them? They gave extraordinary leverage not to the person that they fired, but to the people that have not been fired yet. It's uncharacteristically nontechnical of Google to think that of the anywhere between 30-50% of the US population that leans conservatively, there is only one of them working for Google in Mountain View and that any dissenting thoughts within the company will end with him, and that the liberal employees threatening to quit will be happy and sated just to see these few drops of blood. It doesn't matter the size of the check Google cuts this guy, nor the next 100 individuals if they choose to also speak out. Google made a mountain out if a molehill, and they just left a very a long way for the snowball they just threw to gather some mass while rolling down.
  - manfredo 9y ago
    Realistically, even 100 conservative leaning employees aren't going to make a dent in the 60,000 person company that is google. I'd probably be blip on their normal attrition rate. While I think that many outlets are misrepresenting and selectively quoting the piece to make it seem more offensive than it is, the reality is that the author used a lot of loaded language and created many opportunities for misinterpretation. If this were at my company and the article didn't blow up online I'd probably have a talk with the author to point out all the ways that this piece could easily be misinterpreted and construed as offensive and that the same ideas can be conveyed in ways that are a lot less likely to blow up in your face. If this were at my company the article did go viral like it did in real life, I'd probably let this employee go. While I would say this is placing the interests of the company over the psychological safety of my employees, the pragmatic reality is that PR and potentially internal dissent caused by retaining the employee does not outweigh the moral win of retaining an employee who wrote a tone-deaf article that went viral and was widely perceived as offensive - even if the underlying ideas aren't ourageous.
oh_sigh 9y ago
Unfortunately if a settlement is made it will be confidential. Even if it was illegal, maybe it was the best course for google? Imagine if, say, 10 female engineers publicly quit google because they wouldn't fire James. That is going to be some really bad press, along with losing presumably valuable employees. They can short circuit that process by perhaps firing him illegally, and then settling at a later date out of court. The SJWs get their Hitler fired and Google doesn't take another reputational hit
- xxs 9y ago
  If they (google) settle with him, what stops hundred(s) of other people to follow suit; I'd suppose there are at least 15-20% of employees who would agree with his views.
jlebar 9y ago
> The author is either a total idiot or he just retired with a cool 10-30MM he would be paid by Google to be fired. I'm going to guess it is the later Um, that's one possibility I suppose. But I am reminded of this scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUfv32dmVFw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUfv32dmVFw [I work for Google, but have no insider information about this.]
xxs 9y ago
what is 10-30MM, like million million i.e. 1e12?
- sweettea 9y ago
  M is the roman numeral for a thousand; MM is a common abbreviation for million, i.e. a thousand thousand.
  - xxs 9y ago
    That's just 2000 in Roman notation (current year is MMXVII). I have never seen MM use as million.

tunesmith 9y ago

In a world where qualified diverse candidates still regularly get rejected at greater rates than qualified non-diverse candidates, is this bad? I mean, as soon as the needle even flirts with going past perfectly fair in the other direction, that's when some of these people get up in arms?

manfredo 9y ago
This is besides the point. The point is, the author did not say that unqualified diverse candidates are accepted at a higher rate than unqualified non-diverse candidates. Many people are using this statement (often excluding the last couple words specifically referring to the false-negative rate) to claim that the author calling his women and racially underrepresented co-workers under qualified. For what it's worth, I do think that taking steps to decrease the false negative rate for diverse candidates is an okay system and I explain my company's process of doing this in another comment in this page. That said, pointing out that this system is increasing the false-negative rate for non-diverse candidates is 1) factually correct, and 2) not at all the same thing as calling my underrepresented co-workers unqualified. If somebody claimed that our interview process increased the false positive rate for underrepresented groups I would object to such a statement - but that is not what is said in this document.
- evolve2017 9y ago
  I replied elsewhere but in case you didn't see it: It looks like the author is talking about setting a threshold, as in the context of creating a test. Please have a look at [1]. In this setting, it is not possible to decrease the false-negative rate without increasing the false-positive rate. I think the author is phrasing things this way simply as a matter of rhetoric, but his argument clearly suggests that less qualified 'diversity' candidates are being hired. 1. http://www.prolekare.cz/dbpic/jp_5403_f_21-x1000_1600 http://www.prolekare.cz/dbpic/jp_5403_f_21-x1000_1600
  - manfredo 9y ago
    First off, this isn't a pharmaceutical trial this is a hiring process. Second, even if there is a fundamental principle of probability that assures this is the case it's still possible to have a change that vastly reduces to false-negative rate as compared to the increase false positive rate - so much to the extent that the latter is negligible. On a broader note, the way you're injecting a completely different message into the author's text is exactly the kind of behavior that makes these discussions toxic. I realize that might sound accusatory, but if people can't make a statement without people stuffing contradictory or unrelated words into their mouths there's no possibility of civil discussion.

evolve2017 9y ago

Please correct me if I err - it's been some time since my college statistics class. It looks like the author is talking about setting a threshold, as in the context of creating a test. Please have a look at [1]. In this setting, it is not possible to decrease the false-negative rate without increasing the false-positive rate. I think the author is phrasing things this way simply as a matter of rhetoric, not to express the point you are suggesting. 1. http://www.prolekare.cz/dbpic/jp_5403_f_21-x1000_1600 http://www.prolekare.cz/dbpic/jp_5403_f_21-x1000_1600

sjwright 9y ago
It should be fair to say the author phrased things to pinpoint the aspect he is concerned about, even if other aspects are statistically inevitable. Hiring the best and diverse workplaces are both virtues, but sometimes competing virtues. The problem with this entire discussion is that too many people are overly certain that one virtue is more important than the other.
manfredo 9y ago
This same reply was posted to several of my comments, this is my response: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14954138 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14954138

oh_sigh 9y ago

You're somewhat correct with your analysis. The bar stays the same, but on average those who get a more detailed analysis done will be closer to the bar than those who are subjected to coarser grained measures. So, it's wrong to say it lowers the bar, but it's right to say that it ends up giving you more people who are very close to the bar. Perhaps a better way to word it would be that Google's diversity hiring method(of looping back around for a closer look on "diverse" candidates) shrinks the error bars on the bar Imagine it this way: You're a fisher. The Law says that you can only catch fish which are >= 12" long. If you're caught with < 12" fish, bad things happen, but otherwise you want to maximize the amount of fish you catch. You have two ways of measuring length: a crude wooden stick with some fat lines on it which mark approximately 12" - this is quick but only approximate. You also have a high precision caliper which can tell you the length down to .001", but it takes 2x as long to make the measurement. You're interested in catching lots of fish, so if any fish you catch are a little close to that line, you just throw them back with one measurement. 90% of the fish you catch are red, but about 10% of the times you catch a green fish, which are really sparkly and fun, so you change your standard: if the green fish on first measurement is really close to 12"(not close enough to keep), instead of throwing it back like a red fish, you bust out the caliper and measure it more precisely, and throw out anything < 12". So, at the end of the day, assuming red and green fish are distributed equally across lengths in the ocean, what would the distribution of kept fish look like? Would the mean and median length of your green fish be higher or lower than the mean and median of your red fish?

Merovius 9y ago

Your interpretation of that statement makes no sense. With that interpretation: a) the bar isn't lowered in any sense of the word, as that would imply less qualified people getting in, b) you'd claim that for unexplained reasons, Google can give more accurate evaluations for diversity candidates, c) and/or that they are rejecting candidates they know unequivocally to be qualified and d) even if all of this was the case, there wouldn't be anything discriminatory about it. At least where I'm from, it is literally a legal requirement, that if multiple candidates compete for the same position, diversity candidates are given preference. Even in its most generous reading (yours), this sentence makes zero sense.