Thanks for the quick reply! I'm really in the same boat as you, as I do not want to create a system where an "identity police" can create eligibility by the length of noses.
> When you make that official policy [...] abusing that system will be easy
Are you not seeing that this exists already? There are people claiming to be unemployed, receiving unemployment money, and work without registering their income. That's where I wish people would differentiate more. These problems you listed already exist and must be solved either way! But should we therefore not make attempts to get more talented people into the right careers?
> Take everyone's children away from their parents [...] exclude the parents' culture and values and the peer group of children from having influence on their future, that's the way
Why? Why eliminate their environment, instead of - as I proposed - enriching it by providing additional access to opportunities?
> But they are the same for all
They are not, that's the point! Only because you can measure income does not make this barrier objective. It was set by humans, who were biased in their decision (hence why the committee which negotiates the Mindestlohn is composed of multiple interest groups). Again, I am not advocating that using lengths of noses is comparable, but stating that "gender and ethnicity don't play a role" is plain wrong. They do not play a role at the time you ask for it, yes, absolutely. But they do play a role in the negotiation phase and in the overall structure of social programs.
> No, the point is that you turn everyone into a black sheep
What do you mean? I wrote "there are black sheep everywhere" as in "yes, it happens that there will be people who will try to exploit the system". That does not justify not striving to support those who would benefit from it, which most probably are the bigger group.
> If you make taxes factually optional by simplifying the form [...] people will lie.
As the people who understand how to game the system already do?
> how much money to pay that person.
Money is not the only thing people can be provided with. Supporting children from underprivileged groups can also mean supporting single mothers with child care, providing more accessible health care or providing mentors and tutoring.
> Means tested social security programs are individual. You make less than X, you're eligible for rent support
> It's not individual, it's based on some arbitrary group identity
You contradict yourself here. Your first example based on income is also grouping of individuals, exactly what you criticize in the second part. To add to your point: one could even say that the income base lines for eligibility in social programs can be seen as arbitrary as well. Do you think the Mindestlohn is based on an objective, most fair judgement of what people need? It's already an absurd system when you just look at the regional differences of cost of living throughout Germany.
Ignore the trigger words ("gender x, ethnicity y or subculture z") and you'll see that we don't diverge much. The point I'm trying to make is not to find out, how $skincolor_x can be pushed to represent a greater share of graduates. It is to find out how we can lift everyone to have the same chances at the beginning, taking structural and unconscious factors into account.
Thank you for sharing your experience! I see "race" as a problematic variable as well. That's why I like to talk about origin, as in "what did the parents do?", "do the kids have access to careers outside of what their family showed them?".
When you say "taken a huge step backwards", do you mean the discussion actively harms progress? Or that you do not support the way it is discussed?
---
adding to your edit:
> A million white kids idolise black sportsmen and musicians. It's completely normal, or it was.
If I see correctly, the choice of "identification variables" is what you primarily criticize (here: race). We don't differ here.
---
adding to your second edit..:
> Yes, I believe that teaching people in general..
> you're really just incentivizing everyone to loudly claim that they have it the absolute worst and need the most help
I understand where you are coming from. What this argument highlights is that there are black sheep everywhere. Should this be the reason to toss support for the rest out of the window? In fact your argument can be applied to every social program, and it is. And to the surprise of every one, it is mostly brought up by privileged people (politicians, lobbyists, employers) who e.g. like to cut social spending.
> And then you'll need somebody to decide whose complaints are true and whose are fake, aka you'll need somebody to feel truth and rule accordingly.
Does this not already exist in other parts of social security programs? Or taking loans? What is the difference, what is new?
> By your definition, isn't the main characteristic of a role model, that they didn't need a role model of matching genitalia and skin pigmentation and dietary preference themselves?
No, for me a role model is someone that I can relate to, leading me to imagine myself being in their position in some time in the future.
Do you mean that "role model" stands for a person who "has made it"? Then we differ here.
> Otherwise how could anyone be the first?
You have hit the nail on the head. That is the exact problem: what needs to be done to empower people to be "the first of their kind"?
> So yeah, choosing a role model without regard to those things is perfectly possible, and not long ago was considered completely normal.
This made me curious: did you have a role model yourself? Where do you take "not long ago was considered completely normal" from?
Thank you for your reply! To my surprise, you say you disagree but are very close to what I wrote before.
> for making people adopt inappropriate solutions to a much earlier problem
I don't see where we are disagreeing here, because..
> Rather than making the harder, longer lasting (and responsible) change to the pipeline and environment that produces kids interested in whatever jobs or careers we're talking about.
is exactly what my post was about. The point of entry, which must be discussed is NOT "how to enter CS and produce more female engineers" but "how can I get kids from underprivileged families to even consider taking their chance in CS".
> It leads to people wanting to take the easiest path and just change the outcome by force at the last step.
Sorry if this argument could be taken from my previous post. This is of course in no way what I'm rooting for. On the contrary: do you know what I don't like in the current system? That only privileged people have a the chance to "inherit" a freedom of experimentation where they can try themselves without the risk to e.g. go into debt. This privilege should be granted to every one at a young age and then we are where you - we both - would like to see children and teenagers. We are on exactly the same page here: the problem that kids face today are unfair chances in finding their talents and getting on board of the respective educational and professional tracks.
What they do with it is their thing to solve. I'm not arguing about anything related to "equality of outcome", whatever that is. Sounds like the attempt to produce a 50/50 graduation ratio, which in no way helps anybody.
> And yet I don't find your quoted stats surprising or offensive
They were not meant to be, it's just a good statistical observation to see that there are inter-generational patterns.
> It's up to [...] to train their kids, encourage them to pursue fields of interest, and the rest of society to make sure that barriers don't exist to their advancement
My point as well! And what my addition to this is that not every parent has the possibilities to do so. And these kids must be supported through programs and given what their parents could not give them: perspective. Example from Germany: there is a group called "Arbeiterkind" which support children from "Arbeiterfamilien" (worker families) to be the first generation of their family to enter university and finish their studies. From what I learned is that most of these kids would never consider trying higher education, because the environment in which they are raised discourages them to delay earning a living (by going to university for 3-5 years). They need someone to teach them about their better chances and possibilities of financial support (BAföG, student loans).
In this context TheOtherHobbes' post is very related.
---
> It's not for you to decide on your own to adjust the percentage of some group until you're satisfied, and perhaps someday decide, because you saw enough inspirational "role model" stories, that we've achieved enough.
That's why I hate discussing this topic on US-heavy tech sites. Where did I say any of this?
---
To add to your edit:
> "When does it end?" All your steps and corrections to the rules and outcomes -- when does it end?
I don't know. As a white male from Germany, I have no idea how much changes underprivileged groups need. That is where I'm advocating listening to them. My experiences lead me to the conclusion that encouraging and empowering children and teens in experimenting with their interests is what might lead to the best "results".
> How about teaching kids to pick role models regardless of their gender or color?
How would you do that? What is a role model in your opinion? Can you teach children to ignore their sex and color? Can you teach children to ignore external influences like media and advertisements?
And what about parents? Can they be taught to shield their children from their own biases?
Good question, and since I am not a sociologist, I can only guess. One thing in advance, and as a reaction to the received downvotes: my usage of the word "identification" has nothing to do with "identity politics" that are raging in the US and elsewhere. In German, saying "to identify with someone" is more meant as "seeing myself becoming the person that I can identify with" or "I could see myself in this persons position". Like a 1:1 connection.
> How did other industries that were once historically male dominated overcome [...] in terms of gender if not race?
Based on what I wrote above, I have shortened the quote. And my guess would be the advancement of female integration into higher education, participation and choice of profession. Keep in mind that women were not allowed to vote until some time in the 20th century. With a lot of steps, women and daughters gained more empowerment. All in all, men and women have more aligned chances in today's workforce (details debatable), but the changes need to be done first. And they were not gently handed over by people (men) who were in advanced positions before.
> And why haven't we seen the same pattern in tech?
The tech industry is pretty young compared to the other fields of study you mentioned. I guess social changes will also ingest the tech industry, because they follow a progressive cycle that repeats every x years. Of course there might be more to it, if you take into account how many aspects of human life are affected by technology today (and how fast these changes arrived..).
What would your opinion be on that matter, answering your own questions?
Hot topic, but your comment has some good points I'll try to add my experience to.
> I'm for removing barriers to anyone being able to be interested, educated, and encouraged to do the things they want to do. And we should work to make it easier for people to be identified as having skills and talent in whatever field they choose.
From my POV, as a white male, this relates to a misconception of what many "diversity" programs actually aim for: pushing underprivileged and disadvantaged people into positions from where they have better chances to even come in contact with their true interests and talents. The same goes for role modelling, which is not to be underestimated in the context of "do the things they want to do". If you are black or female, but 90% of an "industry" (whatever that is, just take a group of people representing the part of society which does $thing) is white and male, could you see yourself in this industry? I know this is an extremely controversial question, especially in discussions between white males. But from what I learned from underrepresented people during the years is that role models and identification plays a HUGE part in "making a free choice".
> Every field and industry and job will reflect the demographics of who is interested in doing that job, the pipeline of people who seek to become educated and qualified for it, and the proportions of who succeeds at showing their skills.
I would not follow this as straight as you have. The demographics in tech (and other fields, of course) could also show that once a majority is settled (here: white male), they tend to attract and recruit people who are like-minded and similar to themselves.
I know what you mean, and for a long time I was in the same boat, looking for barriers like money and availability of time that might block minorities from entering higher education and the higher workforce. But the problems are of structural nature and they can only be solved by acknowledging that the main barriers are not forms, interest and intelligence, but identification, perspective and connections.
Regarding "engagement rate": is your banner filtered by ad blockers? In my session, there's no banner displayed. Could also be a hint on why mobile browsers are more likely to enable engagement, since they might lack CSS filtering techniques (used to hide the banner).
Other point: third party hosters. It's good to see you as the website creator put effort into GDPR compliant behaviour! Did you also include Netlify and your GDPR-provider into the evaluation? Do they use additional tracking technologies?
Sorry if my comment came in kinda offensive, it's a general stance I was criticizing, not your project in particular! Your offer is based on an existing demand, so who should feel addressed are those who use solutions like yours.
> Do you want fast pages? Make your server-side rendering fast
Yeah.. imagine being so thirsty for page load efficiency that you ignore all the bloat of JavaScript and poor server-side rendering but instead directly skip to breaking the standardized GUI/UX
In case of prefetching, that's a header <link> functionality: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Link_prefe.... Most implementations use it for static content like images or CSS. There's also DNS prefetching, which depends more on the browser.
What you might mean is "prerendering", i.e. silently downloading another page in the background. This feature is not yet supported in Firefox, but heavily used by Google and in Chrome. IIRC, earlier Firefox versions actually supported this through addons, but these addons did not know the page and pre-loaded every link they could find on the page. This resulted in an enormous amount of background traffic, essentially wasted due to only one link being the "next" link. Therefore, using the preload/prefetch/prerender link attributes should be left to the site owner.
Why? Sadly, there's not much motivation described in the README. You state "Let's move your Medium content to your very own website" and then you push it to Github and Netlify, which are yet another silos. Good work with the export, but migrating the content to the next vendor lock-in should be optional. Not to forget that these platforms also collect data about your visitors.
Wrote the same in another comment.. it's kinda brilliant but sad to watch at the same time. Microsoft's Github guys are geniuses if this is a part of a long-running EEE strategy. And people fall for it, because they have no principles and values, on which they decide what's good or damaging for Open Source.
> This point is brought many times. Why use GitHub if we can host git repositories anywhere? (A: GitHub providers discovery). Why use GitHub PRs if we have mailing lists? (A: GitHub has better UX).
Using Github as a git repo hoster is okayish in the sense that it does not lock your code in. Using Github as a central management tool is problematic, but still manageable.
But this introduces money into the game, and it's dangerous. Github will be the gatekeeper for money flows. It's the same for Patreon, but Patreon has less incentives to lock the whole Open Source ecosystem into their products (Github: hosting, code, issues, PRs, pages with CNAMEs!, package registry and now financial transactions).
My bet is that due to the current state of the ecosystem, people will jump on it and forget that Microsoft is behind all of this. We need organisations which are forced to be open and collective to handle Open Source, not privately owned corporate.
> If you change the subject line, your email will get lost in my inbox since it will not be organized into conversations (I use gmail)
> Get your email program fixed, but do not change the subject.
That's strange. Threading should be based on the "References", "In-Reply-To" and related header fields, not on the subject. Maybe the emails your reader cannot organise, failed to supply the correct references. Gmail might then put an extra effort in it to match subjects, but this should not be the default case (and does not work in other clients).
> Google doesn’t say so outright, but it’s fair to assume that it wanted others to shoulder some of the burdens of running the Kubernetes infrastructure, too.
Might be a far fetched, but this might play together with the Commons Clause discussion. Nobody wants to do all the work without being compensated, while others make profits with the work.
I hope the transfer of projects to foundations and other open forums continues, and they are backed by industry leaders making the profits.
It should even go as far as finally paying solo-developers through some fairly devided pool of funds. Everybody wins when libraries are free, openly developed, production ready _and_ financially backed for LTS.
> CF Workers is based on the Service Workers API, which is a W3C standard that has existed in browsers for some time.
> Unfortunately, many competing edge compute and "serverless" products have chosen to invent their own, proprietary APIs, rather than use a standard. My sincere hope is that this will change, and in the future, we'll see a convergence on Service Workers. It fits this use case very well, and it's already a standard.
That's really nice to hear. After the fallout the Github acquisition produced the last days one cannot stress enough how important standardized APIs are for migration operations. I know that vendor lock-ins are profitable business models, but I feel like the damage it does to flexible architectures and data-owning produces more costs in the long run.
> While Cloudflare does use V8, we do not use Node.js
Was this ever an option?
Did you consider using other languages besides JavaScript? Like Python or Elixir?
> And in any case, we aim to win by building a better (larger, faster, less-expensive) network, not by trapping people.
Even though I agree with you (as written above) I wonder how Cloudflare aims to do this. To me, it seems like Cloudflare does have way too much websites behind their services. Given that Cloudflare has a history with policing [DS] customers, trust is also an essential feature I'd give top priority. I would therefore argue that decentralization should also be a feature for resilient networks, though it's difficult to implement in your case.
Btw, does Cloudflare have any serious competitors besides CDN providers?
Thanks again for your reply, very interested in your expertise!
> When you make that official policy [...] abusing that system will be easy
Are you not seeing that this exists already? There are people claiming to be unemployed, receiving unemployment money, and work without registering their income. That's where I wish people would differentiate more. These problems you listed already exist and must be solved either way! But should we therefore not make attempts to get more talented people into the right careers?
> Take everyone's children away from their parents [...] exclude the parents' culture and values and the peer group of children from having influence on their future, that's the way
Why? Why eliminate their environment, instead of - as I proposed - enriching it by providing additional access to opportunities?
> But they are the same for all
They are not, that's the point! Only because you can measure income does not make this barrier objective. It was set by humans, who were biased in their decision (hence why the committee which negotiates the Mindestlohn is composed of multiple interest groups). Again, I am not advocating that using lengths of noses is comparable, but stating that "gender and ethnicity don't play a role" is plain wrong. They do not play a role at the time you ask for it, yes, absolutely. But they do play a role in the negotiation phase and in the overall structure of social programs.