Working at Google/Apple/etc requires a very high level of education. So an alternative explanation would be that (he thinks that) minorities may simply be under-represented among graduates of high-end universities, e.g. for economic reasons.

wat

a plain old bachelors degree from a state school is more than enough.

No idea about Google/Apple hiring tbh, I thought they were fairly selective.

Anyway, do you believe minorities are fairly represented among people who have "a plain old bachelors degree from a state school" or better?

This is a bit misleading. Whites are slightly underrepresented, but whites+asians are massively overrepresented. Blacks and hispanics are massively underrepresented.

Apple got whiter between 2014 and 2015.

http://opendiversitydata.org/

what's "fair"?

"Fair" meaning same racial statistics as in the general population.

How the hell is it misleading? What's misleading (or really just false) is to describe under-representation of blacks and hispanics as over-representation of whites when the disparity is actually due to over-representation of asians.

Just to elaborate a bit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...usehold_income

In an education system that does relatively little to compensate for poorer background, I would expect that people from a wealthy background are over-represented among the higher educated population. In other words, Google/Apple are probably hiring from a pool of applicants that is already racially skewed.

then the answer is obviously no

because

1) "underrepresentation" and "overrepresentation" aren't just discreet conditions. It's not like you either are or are not represented in proportion. Some groups are more or less under/overrepresented than others. Whites are underrepresented, but the degree to which they are underrepresented is small compoared to the degree that blacks and latinos are.

2) you conspicuously failed to mention that asians were overrepresented until someone else mentioned it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cupert...a#Demographics

They're also not hiring out of racially diverse locations.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoco.../#38d5420c16b7

Turns out the Convention protests this year are going to be a massive riot of people playing Pokemon.

Pretty good video that lays out the history of rich white elites pitting poor whites against blacks: https://www.facebook.com/imamazeez/v...3349871477623/

And how does the representation of asians bear on the question of whether or not the employee base of those companies is overwhelmingly white? Are asians honorary whites for this purpose or something?

Some people may be shocked to find out that the other side is not dumb: https://medium.com/@SeanBlanda/the-o...063#.ijxx1hbjw

As someone who is guilty of this a lot, this really hits home. It's really easy to pick the worst examples of the other side and attribute that to everyone.

This article is pretty bad IMO. On a lot of issues, the other side is objectively wrong, if not dumb.

When you hear a fact that purports to show global warming is a hoax, you shouldn't entertain that claim with the mindset of "maybe today I'll be proven wrong and improve myself.... Let's research this fully in good faith". You should be skeptical, because it goes against all of the other research and evidence that led you to believe global warming is real in the first place. Without doing any independent research, you would be perfectly justified in assuming that the "fact" was a lie.

It's pieces like this that result in all of the bull**** false equivalences you get on cable news every day. New study shows that butter helps you lose weight? Could be true! Better hear out all sides.

The simple fact is, that the vast majority of people are either too lazy to research even the basic facts behind major issues, or are terrible at evaluating competing claims and determining which is better supported and more trustworthy. Asking them to start considering every opinion spouted by some guy at the factory in good faith will do nothing to improve that.

Basically, the other side is in fact very dumb. Your side probably is too. You'll save a lot of time and frustration in your life if you curate a list of people whose opinions you give any weight to, and politely ignore the rest.

Both sides are dumb is also a valid argument. But "my side is smart and your side is dumb" might be where we go off the rails.

Although climate change denial really is dumb. I see it more as "my side is smart, and your side has otherwise intelligent people who believe some really dumb **** because it makes them feel better". And actually my side probably does that too. But not as bad as your side.

I think I'm part of the problem again.

That's pretty much the "Southpark" position where all sides get made fun of but a position is never taken. It's best of all positions because you don't actually have to believe in anything yourself while thinking everyone else is dumb.

The situation of finding yourself thinking your side is better is inescapable imo. By taking a position you're in some small way saying that it's a better position to take and the best you can hope for is to be as understanding as you can as to why people take different positions.

Totally agree. I spent 12 years of higher education and thousands of hours reading books and magazines by smart people providing relevant information in an effort to develop informed opinions, not to mention starting off with above average hardware. I'm plenty willing to change my views on things, but when I recognize that someone or some group is drawing conclusions based on various flawed premises (e.g., we need to follow the exact literal meaning of the Koran/the US Constitution), then I've pretty much earned the right to dismiss their ideas out of hand.

I don't spend my time thinking and learning and following events to be in on the hot take of the week but to participate in the continuing 2500 year history of rational understanding of the world. And I'm pretty much only interested in information sources that are, broadly speaking, committed to the same goal, and not wasting my time, aside from the occasional sneer, engaging in debates with the intellectual equivalent of children.

Real or Onion?

To be clear, when I say both sides are dumb I mean the people supporting them and the arguments used to advance them. I'm firmly of the belief that, for most issues, there is an objectively better position.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...unced-Jif.html

It's official, 'gif' is pronounced 'jif'. SUCK IT HARD G FANS

I've always been a big fan of the Jraphics Interchange Format.

It's old news that that's how the creators pronounced it. Who cares? It manifestly isn't pronounced 'jif', where 'is pronounced' means 'how people actually pronounce it'.