[throw_m239339]

"diversity" and "inclusivity" have always been the tech industry most favorite buzzwords that never ever meant a damn thing concretely, but you put them there to virtue signal to a certain crowd otherwise someone might accuse you of an imaginary thought crime. Of course it's meaningless by definition.

This is a terrible update which adds very little of value for the end user, it only turns Windows non pro into some sort of SAAS that Microsoft is going to milk forcefully.

[userbinator]

In this context, I'm sure it's got a very diverse UI made up of many different pieces of varying awfulness, and is rather inclusive of plenty of bugs and unfinished misfeatures too.

[nvr219]

Diversity is meaningful and when I'm looking at companies I always look at the staff page to make sure there's some diversity at the leadership level and that it's not a bunch of people who look exactly the same.

[hdjjhhvvhga]

I really hope it's sarcasm (so difficult to detect in these times) but in case it's not: why would anyone care about someone else's looks? What matters is what they do, it doesn't matter if they're Indian or African or Asian or all of the above. Sad truth: if you base your decisions on someone else's race, you're a racist.

Honestly, why should anyone care? Look at the old photos from Bell Labs: these guys all looked "the same." So what? Why would anyone even care about their looks? What matters is a combination of skills and passion that gives excellent results, not your current idea of "diversity."

[Jxl180]

The leader of Bell Labs at the time was so incredibly racist that he dedicated tons of resources in eugenics and “scientifically proving” that black people were inferior to white people. You are really going to use William Shockley as an example for why it was ok that everyone at Bell Labs looked the same? https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.2711641

[hdjjhhvvhga]

From time to time a person appears that is both intelligent and has morally questionable views. Sometimes these views stem from mistaken reasoning and the tendency to think "I was right on so many cases, I'm also right on this one." There are many cases in the history of mankind, like Descartes who advocated vivisection. This does not invalidate their contribution to science.

Shockley was a controversial figure who died alone. It is not fair to identify him with Bell Labs. Also, people gradually dissociated from him as it was more clear his views are extreme. We can find these kinds of people in any culture, it means nothing in the context we're discussing.

This might be an American thing, though. A while ago I came across an essay that basically said UNIX is racist [0]. It's hard to have meaningful conversation in such circumstances.

[0] https://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/read/untitled-88c11800-9446-46...

- one of key quotes:

> We must historicize and politicize code studies. And, because digital media were born as much of the civil rights era as of the cold war era (and of course these eras are one and the same), our investigations must incorporate race from the outset

[Jxl180]

Nobody is arguing about contributions to science. You said, "everyone at Bell labs looked the same. So what?"

I told you exactly why people at Bell Labs looked the same and why that is a problem. If someone refuses to hire black people because they think black people are inferior, the answer isn't, "so what?"

[twofornone]

>to make sure there's some diversity at the leadership level and that it's not a bunch of people who look exactly the same.

Let's be honest here. You're looking for a specific demographic, and you're not actually concerned with the composition of the talent pool from which they were hired. It's an increasingly popular de facto anti-meritocratic movement and I don't think trading some amount of competence for diversity at social scales will actually be good for society in the medium to long term.

[userbinator]

I think we are already seeing the effects of that.

[nvr219]

True

[throw_m239339]

People have different values of course, when I'm look at companies I always look at the product they develop and whether it suits my morals and ethics and whether their work/management practices suits mine.

I'm not talented enough to guess people's sexuality or nationality just by looking at their pictures like you and pass judgement on appearances. Or is it because I don't care what color or sex my would-be coworkers are?