3 ms·
You are right, it doesn't assume that. However if they don't assume that, then they are effectively worsening the 18:82 ratio for other organisations who will
by infinity0 9y ago
You are right, it doesn't assume that.
However if they don't assume that, then they are effectively worsening the 18:82 ratio for other organisations who will be logically and mathematically unable to reach a 50:50 ratio without leaving (82-18)/82 of Y unemployed, so they would be virtue signalling.
So either they assume that, or they are virtue signalling, or they are trying to make (82-18)/82 of Y unemployed. Q.E.D.
I was trying to Assume Good Faith in my first comment but sure, call me out for not including the "asshole options".
edit: yeah sure, downvote me for pointing out that badly-thought out ideological policies don't work mathematically
- sethev 9y agoEven your moved goal posts still try to connect one small company's policies to the industry as a whole. Maybe it's worth emphasizing _your_ unstated assumption that the only reason a company would want 50:50 is to satisfy some external ideological motive rather than careful analysis of what makes for a good team.
- infinity0 9y agoI don't give a shit about what the "motivations" of the company are. I said: > This strategy implicitly assumes That is the real objective assumption that any implementation of this strategy makes (or the other "asshole" choices). Good intentions are worthless if they can't work mathematically.
- sethev 9y agoWhy did you feel the need to even comment if you don't care about Duolingo's motivations for hiring people? Of course not every company could have 50:50 with the current pool of software engineers but that's a trivial point. It's true by definition. EDIT: it's clear that you believe ideology is what's motivating this, despite your claim that you don't care about motivation.
- infinity0 9y agoIf it's a "trivial point" why is this article hitting the front page? Why do you feel the need to turn a "trivial point" into a discussion about motivations and my supposed mis-assumptions of those motivations? This article is hitting the front page because some people think it's impressive. I don't think it's impressive nor do I think it's solving any real issues. I pointed out in very neutral terms why it's not solving any real issues, but some people some to feel offended by my pointing out a "trivial point".