4 ms·

What makes you say this? I'd be willing to take the opposite side of that bet.

throwaway29303 5y ago
If you follow the news in general there's been a concerted effort to remove white men from positions of power (with very few exceptions). And Google has been - for a while now - one of the poster children for this agenda. Sundar Pichai, for instance, I believe, was chosen not just because of his browser endeavours' success, his background etc, but because he could help break into the indian market (remember that these tech companies have been eager to get into and dominate the Next Billion Users market [India, China, et al]). It was actually a smart move, IMHO. Mark Zuckerberg is going to be a tough one to get rid of because he completely controls Facebook. But the media have been doing everything they can to get at him (privacy issues, etc). I mean, it's not that the media aren't right (about some of the issues I'm aware of), but it's the best play they can do at the moment. But this Facebook, or rather, social media and media fight is a whole 'nother and different story despite sharing some variables with this topic.
- dontreact 5y ago
  I don't see this concerted agenda to remove white men from positions of power. If you stand back and think to yourself "if we had a perfectly meritocratic world, what percentage of business leaders would be white men?", I don't think the answer is 100% (as was the case at the turn of the century). Today the answer is about 70%. So yeah, we are trending away from 100%. And within certain groups of white men, this has created a lot of anxiety about losing their privileged position in society. Some other evidence that the shift away from 100% white men is not some concerted agenda, but rather people who deserve it being put into positions of power. Companies with female leadership tend to outperform the market. https://www.consultancy.com.au/news/2362/companies-with-women-in-the-boardroom-perform-better https://www.consultancy.com.au/news/2362/companies-with-wome... You're claiming that Sundar was chosen for his skin color with no evidence other than speculation. Chrome is one of the most important products for Google. Who else was passed up for his job? How are you so sure?
  - throwaway29303 5y ago
    I don't see this concerted agenda to remove white men from positions of power. Then you haven't been paying attention to the whole picture. I suggest you read more about this issue and these players' business moves. Today the answer is about 70%. So yeah, we are trending away from 100%. You don't see a concerted agenda here yet you proved my point. And I've yet another gut feeling that it was never 100%. 100% sounds way too radical, maybe around 99%; hence _minority_. Companies with female leadership tend to outperform the market. I never claimed otherwise. I can read prejudice in your words. But I'm probably imagining things. You're claiming that Sundar was chosen for his skin color with no evidence other than speculation. No, I'm claiming Sundar was chosen because of his success with Chrome, his background (as in his professional and educational experience) _and_ his ethnicity. In fact, this latter one not only for one reason but for _two_ reasons: because he belongs to a minority group (which from a PR perspective would look like "see? no more white men! Larry and Sergey are gone!") _and_ because, from a business perspective, it makes sense to pick him to help Google break into and establish itself in the indian market. It's actually a genius move. Chrome is one of the most important products for Google. I've never said otherwise. Have you read about Sundar's involvement with it from the start? Yet again, I suggest you read about it. It's just one search engine query away. Who else was passed up for his job? I have no clue. But I'm sure there were other people, but they weren't as fit for Google's business strategy. How are you so sure? All models are wrong but some are less wrong than others. Ah, yes, and, finally, the constant barrage of negative news about this issue will most likely help Jeff leave.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - mycologos 5y ago
      > I suggest you read more ... I've yet another gut feeling ... I can read prejudice in your words ... I suggest you read about it ... I have no clue. But I'm sure there were other people ... The repeated assertion that something is obvious, combined with the repeated choice to not provide any evidence of it, makes it hard for me to take this argument seriously.

If you follow the news in general there's been a concerted effort to remove white men from positions of power (with very few exceptions). And Google has been - for a while now - one of the poster children for this agenda. Sundar Pichai, for instance, I believe, was chosen not just because of his browser endeavours' success, his background etc, but because he could help break into the indian market (remember that these tech companies have been eager to get into and dominate the Next Billion Users market [India, China, et al]). It was actually a smart move, IMHO. Mark Zuckerberg is going to be a tough one to get rid of because he completely controls Facebook. But the media have been doing everything they can to get at him (privacy issues, etc). I mean, it's not that the media aren't right (about some of the issues I'm aware of), but it's the best play they can do at the moment. But this Facebook, or rather, social media and media fight is a whole 'nother and different story despite sharing some variables with this topic.

dontreact 5y ago
I don't see this concerted agenda to remove white men from positions of power. If you stand back and think to yourself "if we had a perfectly meritocratic world, what percentage of business leaders would be white men?", I don't think the answer is 100% (as was the case at the turn of the century). Today the answer is about 70%. So yeah, we are trending away from 100%. And within certain groups of white men, this has created a lot of anxiety about losing their privileged position in society. Some other evidence that the shift away from 100% white men is not some concerted agenda, but rather people who deserve it being put into positions of power. Companies with female leadership tend to outperform the market. https://www.consultancy.com.au/news/2362/companies-with-women-in-the-boardroom-perform-better https://www.consultancy.com.au/news/2362/companies-with-wome... You're claiming that Sundar was chosen for his skin color with no evidence other than speculation. Chrome is one of the most important products for Google. Who else was passed up for his job? How are you so sure?
- throwaway29303 5y ago
  I don't see this concerted agenda to remove white men from positions of power. Then you haven't been paying attention to the whole picture. I suggest you read more about this issue and these players' business moves. Today the answer is about 70%. So yeah, we are trending away from 100%. You don't see a concerted agenda here yet you proved my point. And I've yet another gut feeling that it was never 100%. 100% sounds way too radical, maybe around 99%; hence _minority_. Companies with female leadership tend to outperform the market. I never claimed otherwise. I can read prejudice in your words. But I'm probably imagining things. You're claiming that Sundar was chosen for his skin color with no evidence other than speculation. No, I'm claiming Sundar was chosen because of his success with Chrome, his background (as in his professional and educational experience) _and_ his ethnicity. In fact, this latter one not only for one reason but for _two_ reasons: because he belongs to a minority group (which from a PR perspective would look like "see? no more white men! Larry and Sergey are gone!") _and_ because, from a business perspective, it makes sense to pick him to help Google break into and establish itself in the indian market. It's actually a genius move. Chrome is one of the most important products for Google. I've never said otherwise. Have you read about Sundar's involvement with it from the start? Yet again, I suggest you read about it. It's just one search engine query away. Who else was passed up for his job? I have no clue. But I'm sure there were other people, but they weren't as fit for Google's business strategy. How are you so sure? All models are wrong but some are less wrong than others. Ah, yes, and, finally, the constant barrage of negative news about this issue will most likely help Jeff leave.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - mycologos 5y ago
    > I suggest you read more ... I've yet another gut feeling ... I can read prejudice in your words ... I suggest you read about it ... I have no clue. But I'm sure there were other people ... The repeated assertion that something is obvious, combined with the repeated choice to not provide any evidence of it, makes it hard for me to take this argument seriously.