Google (or any other company I can think of) is not trying to have 50/50 gender balance. They are trying to have the same percentage split as the pool of applicants, which I think is fine. Looks like lot of people do not understand how gender diversity programs work or their purpose and hence all this misunderstanding.
Here's the minority's perspective:
1) Why is it required that there can be no more than 20% women in a tech company?
2) Why is it required to have a minimally diverse company?
If you look at these two questions and just say "hah! that's not the same thing at all!", then that's why.
Well, they're not the same thing, because nobody is claiming 20% women and minimal diversity is a moral imperative. There aren't executive-level staff in major corporations who are paid handsomely to ensure a 20% female staff. If you're arguing there is some kind of secret covenant amongst the shadowy bro-network for a fixed 20% women quota and minimal diversity, you'd need to provide some proof of that. Aside from that you haven't really addressed the questions I asked.
I've noticed a real inability (or perhaps disinclination) to speak about these issues in a straightforward way.
I'm not sure what you mean by "red". But as I've said, people did move around. And really, "all Celts were white" is arguably far less likely than "some Celts were not white".
The point of depicting a "typical" scenario is that you don't represent the 1% dark. In the same way that a representation of a "typical" household doesn't include a homeless man, a billionaire, and someone in between. The billionaire and the homeless man are not included because they are not representative of what is typical.
Sure, I get that. But it's been the rule to never show blacks in contexts where we know they existed, and were even common. So a little balance doesn't seem unreasonable.
Lying is still lying, even if you feel that the lie accomplishes some political agenda that you happen to believe in. In this case, if you say that this is a typical family when it is not, then the fact that you lied for what you think is a nobler purpose doesn't make this OK.
Taleb is correct to call out this cartoon as the politically correct nonsense that it is. A saner society might agree with him and ask itself why, in the current day, history needs to be rewritten to be completely fictitious.
Taleb's persona, however, does not lend itself well to open debate over such issues, as he champions himself as being a lone iconoclast against the "IYIs". All we can do is enjoy the show, I guess.
Is speaking to the Russian ambassador somehow illegal? It seems that the accusations here are whether Sessions had contacts with Russia during his time as a Trump campaign surrogate. He did not. So it's not clear to me what the controversy is here.
Apparently speaking to any Russian in this political climate is illegal.
At this rate they'll introduce a resolution soon enough that if you have eaten pierogi in the past 10 years you can't hold a public office.
There are plenty of reasons why one would not disclose a meeting on a public record, from even forgetting it happened to the fact that having it in the open might jeopardise negotiations/operations/assets etc.
It's much easier to get things done in many cases when they are shrouded by secrecy while people might not like it but if we need something from the Russians or want to send them a message sometimes it's best not to be done as an official state visit and vise versa.
Every negotiation at some point started as a non-official meeting in the kitchen of some restaurant somewhere or a hotel lobby.
So what? America's history is overwhelmingly white and Christian. The vast majority of immigration to the US has been from white, Christian nations, even more so at the time when the Statue of Liberty was erected. Is the US a nation of Yemeni immigrants? It's silly to simply treat all potential immigrants as if they are the same. Also, it's disingenuous to reference the Statue of Liberty as some kind of justification for unlimited immigration from all nations of the world. The USA is not a dumping ground for the world's poor.
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
You can make your immigration policy tighter for residency/naturalization, it's within country's right, but tying that to where people are born is pretty sad.
Lol. Care to comment on the many bannings/suspensions of prominent right-wing commentators/journalists on Twitter (Milo, Ricky Vaughn, Chuck Johnson, James O'Keefe, to name a few), the practice of "shadowbanning", as well of Facebook's well-documented history of deleting/censoring of posts about refugee crime in Europe and outright censorship of anti-refugee comments in Germany (under the guise of calling it "hate speech" of course...)?
2) why is it wrong to have a non-diverse company?