You'd be surprised at the amounts household name companies spend on broken software. I've personally seen multiple companies spend tens of thousands paying just for the opportunity to evaluate the broken software. And I don't mean the time taken for their own employees to spend doing the evaluation. I mean that plus forking over large piles of cash.
Women are taught from a young age of how to engage with their role in a patriarchal society. This includes caretaking, nurturing, and having patience for men. It's not uncommon for young girls to be given household chores that they must "suck up" and do while they're brothers get away with not doing chores.
In addition, we associate politeness and pleasantness with femininity. A woman ought to be kind and softspoken, and must not swear or raise her voice. We associate masculinity with abrasiveness, stubbornness, arrogance, and rage.
In most jobs and, in fact most social processes, the former is more useful to take advantage of. This could be why women, on the whole, would do better in interviews.
In addition, it is well-known that women socialize much more, including more conversing. They are probably much better at being social on the whole because of that. Meaning, women are much more likely to be charming and likable than men.
That would be true if those ideals were applied in alignment with liberal values. However, the most common material form of DEI is rooted in postmodernism and its various offshoot theories (queer theory, critical race theory, intersectionality, post-colonial theory, etc) in which colourblindness is inherently racist.
I don't think you do know what it is, and I don't think being queer inherently imbues you with that knowledge.
Queer Theory is a philosophy (or theoretical framework) about language (as with all postmodernist philosophy). It's not a "study", and while queer people can be a subject, it's not its primary object.
Furthermore, a book written by two liberal scholars is not a "far right nonsense book".
---
Why do people insist on taking hard positions on topics despite never having read the material?
Postmodernist movements like DEI were never about objective reality — in fact the idea of an objective reality is outright rejected. It doesn't matter if men are being left out of jobs (statistically) — they're [according to the ideology] the eternal benefactors of invisible, omnipresent systemic privilege. This is of course the complete opposite of the ideals of liberalism and the human rights movement, which is why so many people are fundamentally at odds with common illiberal corporate policy today (although it's often difficult to articulate why without being dismissed as a bigot).
For more on this, I recommend Cynical Theories[0] by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
Paragraphs like this use a lot of words to not actually saying anything. If you don’t mind elaborating:
What about DEI rejects reality?
How have men /not/ been the clear benefactors of gender for effectively all of history, which negatively impacts women in the workplace today?
Human rights is about equality, and DEI achieves that through pulling up the mistreated to reach parity, no? Are you saying “it’s not equality unless everyone is treated equal”? (IE building a wheel chair ramp is not equality, because we’re treating disabled people different)
Oof… It's a big topic. That's why I referenced a book.
You'd have to read some of Lyotard's or Foucault's work to understand the roots of this. The idea is that all knowledge is shaped by language, power structures, and cultural context. This is where we get the idea that there isn't "the truth", but that instead there is "my truth".
> Human rights is about equality, and DEI achieves that through pulling up the mistreated to reach parity, no?
Equality is an overloaded term here, which is also a device prevalent in this ideology. Similarly, the term "normal" is taken to mean either statistically common or morally acceptable or both, depending on the argument and who's making it. That's where we get the idea of the problematics of heteronormativity, for example.
It is of course debatable (and has been hotly debated for decades) what qualifies as "mistreated", and to what quantity. As is what counts as "pulling up" versus paradoxical discrimination.
---
I'm sorry, but I can't boil down decades of philosophy into a neat paragraph for you.
> It doesn't matter if men are being left out of jobs (statistically) — they're [according to the ideology] the eternal benefactors of invisible, omnipresent systemic privilege.
This implies a contradiction that doesn't exist.
Centuries ago, the aristocracy was statistically left out of jobs and also the eternal benefactors of (quite visible!) omnipresent systemic privilege.
There are multiple potential reasons for men to, statistically, be taking fewer of a set of newly created roles. It could certainly be some systemic bias against them, but it could easily also be that they are choosing not to take them for what are surely good reasons for themselves. It could be that fewer men are interested in new jobs right now period, relative to women. I'm sure there are many other potential explanations as well.
I'm not arguing against you, and I think your argument here actually supports mine. My point is epistemological: that the DEI ideological framework is structured in a way that makes it unfalsifiable. I am not saying that men being statistically underrepresented in certain jobs necessarily implies discrimination against them.
> Notice how happy Europe is now that the US is bankrolling the Ukraine war?
The US is not currently bankrolling Ukraine in the way it was in 2022–2024. Under Donald Trump, no new large aid packages have been approved, and support now largely consists of delivering previously authorised funds and equipment.
mopsi provided a link to data. Please at least look at it before making unsubstantiated statements. It clearly shows that the US has not contributed since the beginning of 2025, let alone 'bankrolled' it.
it does through cabal and stack but its not as streamlined, quick, and versatile as tooling for languages like Golang or Rust imo.
I'm a huge fan of Haskell and I'm really exploring it as my primary language now that AI has gotten so huge, not just because it makes it easier but also because I can really lock down what I allow code to do (through pure functions, type checking etc) and so I feel a lot more confident in AI generated code
Sure, I find that with cabal and/or stack you often have to do things like manually add/link files for compilation and also both go mod and cargo support pulling libraries directly from Github say easily (using something like GO_PRIVATE), which I think is possible in cabal but you have to use project files which I never found intuitive. Also, just by virtue of having a smaller user base obviously the package ecosystem is smaller (this isnt the fault of the tooling) but in practice it means that community IDE plugins for things like autochecking for updates just aren't as good for Haskell.
The things above are definitely a skill issue on my part, I'm sure all of this is possible with cabal and stack and I may just not be using them right, but I definitely found cargo and go mod to be a lot simpler to get started with. Also, for cross-compilation and for FFI I found cabal to be a pain when including C sources where as Go was trivial through CGO (and the tooling around it was too).
For me personally (and also for everyone at work), I'm doing all package management with Nix. I'm happy with the setup. There is a learning curve with Nix, but as you can imagine this has shortened now with AI.
I worked for a startup that used clojure and found it so frustrating because, following the idiomatic style, pathways passed maps around, added keys to maps, etc. For any definition which received some such map, you had to read the whole pathway to understand what was expected to be in it (and therefore how you could call it, modify it, etc).
I think the thing is that yes, `[a] -> [a]` tells you relatively little about the particular relationship between lists that the function achieves, but in other languages such a signature tells you _everything_ about:
- what you need to call invoke it
- what the implementation can assume about its argument
i.e. how to use or change the function is much clearer
I think the pipeline paradigm you speak of is powerful, and some of the clarity issues you claim can be improved through clear and consistent use of keyword destructuring in function signatures. Also by using function naming conventions ('add-service-handle' etc.) and grouping functions in threading forms which have additive dependencies, can also address these frustrations.
What makes you think you're in a position to qualify the morality of the deaths of my not-so-distant relatives at the hands of Nazi invaders?
reply