Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Uh...yes it is....When something is on average, that means half or a little more. Average looking guy, average base salary for a job etc. Something cannot be average if its only 1 thing.

An average base salary for an entry level developer does not mean just one job in existence has that salary. It means ON AVERAGE which is around the 50% mark.

Your own math examples show these statements to be incorrect.
 
Typical you did not address the counter argument instead you want to play semantics.

Uh...yes it is....When something is on average, that means half or a little more. Average looking guy, average base salary for a job etc. Something cannot be average if its only 1 thing.

An average base salary for an entry level developer does not mean just one job in existence has that salary. It means ON AVERAGE which is around the 50% mark.

To calculate the average base salary on 6 companies, lets assume these numbers are in thousands.

(50+51+60+48+45+62)/6 = 52

That means 4 out of the 6 here are at or below the average salary. You cannot have an average where the majority is WAY above it. That is not how it will get distributed. I have a doctorate in math....

And this is a binary situation instead of something as wide ranging as a salary. Either you do or don't perform these illegal activities. So an average of the sum of Yes vs no responses to "They are performing discrimination to where you need this additional DEI program" means that more ~50 of them are on the Yes responses.

(1+0+0+0+0+0+0+1+0)/9 = 0.22

Guess what, the average here is not "Yes" if the majority of them are the "No" responses. The average calculation will need to be closer to 1 for the statement to be true. In this case, the companies on average are NOT doing this activity you speak of.

This is getting way into semantics and not the point of the conversation.....when you say something is happening on average, then it more than just one or two occurrences. So again, where are the massive amounts of news articles that on average businesses are performing illegal activities?
Sigh. A doctorate in math and you make statements like "You cannot have an average where the majority is WAY above it." That's nonsense. (For example, [100,100,100, -1000000])

And it has nothing to do with the data I was referring to.

As I've posted multiple times, on average, minorities make significantly less than white males with the same qualifications. For many different reasons, some legal (lack of opportunities) and some illegal (discrimination), that's what the data shows. That's what good DEI programs seek to address.

That certainly doesn't mean that the the majority of companies are doing something illegal, because the illegal discrimination can be concentrated in a minority of companies.
 
Last edited:
Can we get back on topic folks? This thread is entitled "Trump Responds to Apple Keeping Diversity Policies"

I'm as guilty as anyone because I have strong opinions. I'm also well aware of foreign interference in US- and our allies' politics using the internet.

Maybe everyone posting here should state where they actually live? I live in upstate NY USA, how about you? Thank you.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jaymc
Sigh. A doctorate in math and you make statements like "You cannot have an average where the majority is WAY above it." That's nonsense. (For example, [100,100,100, -1000000])

And it has nothing to do with the data I was referring to.

As I've posted multiple times, on average, minorities make significantly less than white males with the same qualifications. For many different reasons, some legal (lack of opportunities) and some illegal (discrimination), that's what the data shows. That's what good DEI programs seek to address.

That certainly doesn't mean that the the majority of companies are doing something illegal, because the illegal discrimination can be concentrated in a minority of companies.
This is a binary situation, not something that has a value between int min max for goodness sake. They are either doing illegal activity or not. So yes, in a series of 1s and 0s, yes it has to be roughly 50% of them having 1s. Which I even explained in my post.

(1+0+0+0+0+0+0+1+0)/9 = 0.22

Only two here show Yes they perform illegal activity. But you would not call that "On average those companies are performing illegal activities". Its a connection from math to english, and it is about roughly ~50% that allows you to make that connection in proper discussions. Believe me, I was SEVERELY called out in a presentation for stating something that was occurring on average when it clearly was not because it was happening only 20% of the time. Almost lost my job which is why I am so passionate about this.

I acknowledge your example, again this isn't math class. Of course there will be examples that do not fit. But come on, in the context of this argument and closer to a binary issue that should not even come into play in this topic at all. When you are discussing in terms of something happening X on average, that is mostly targeted to occurring 50% or more. Especially when you are discussing businesses actions or issues. As I said, I almost lost my job for stating and advocating something that was not true. "BUT MUH MATH!!!!" You need to learn how to translate it. Not have several 100 values and a negative 1 million....that is just ridiculous. If you have such an example you must perform more analysis and math to determine which numbers are doing more of the "heavy lifting".....known as contributions and influence scores.

Let's get back on topic....provide proof that on average companies are performing these illegal activities to where they need DEI programs.....You have yet to post this but keep attacking my math knowledge. Typical....
 
Last edited:
Can we get back on topic folks? This thread is entitled "Trump Responds to Apple Keeping Diversity Policies"

I'm as guilty as anyone because I have strong opinions. I'm also well aware of foreign interference in US- and our allies' politics using the internet.

Maybe everyone posting here should state where they actually live? I live in upstate NY USA, how about you? Thank you.
Yes, don't know why people feel the need to attack someones Math knowledge instead of providing the proof I have asked for in about 4 posts now....

I am in Wisconsin USA.
 
This is a binary situation, not something that has a value between int min max for goodness sake. They are either doing illegal activity or not. So yes, in a series of 1s and 0s, yes it has to be roughly 50% of them having 1s. Which I even explained in my post.

(1+0+0+0+0+0+0+1+0)/9 = 0.22

Only two here show Yes they perform illegal activity. But you would not call that "On average those companies are performing illegal activities". Its a connection from math to english, and it is about roughly ~50% that allows you to make that connection in proper discussions. Believe me, I was SEVERELY called out in a presentation for stating something that was occurring on average when it clearly was not because it was happening only 20% of the time. Almost lost my job which is why I am so passionate about this.

Let's get back on topic....provide proof that on average companies are performing these illegal activities to where they need DEI programs.....You have yet to post this but keep attacking my math knowledge. Typical....
Again, you’re just making stuff up, while ignoring the clear explanation of the data I was referring to.
 
Again, you’re just making stuff up, while ignoring the clear explanation of the data I was referring to.
How about we just move on because I am not. I will ask a 5th damn time:

Let's get back on topic....provide proof that on average companies are performing these illegal activities to where they need DEI programs.....You have yet to post this but keep attacking my math knowledge. We could be done with this damn conversation if you have the proof I am asking for.....
 
Last edited:
How about we just move on because I am not. I will ask a 5th damn time:

Let's get back on topic....provide proof that on average companies are performing these illegal activities to where they need DEI programs.....You have yet to post this but keep attacking my math knowledge.
You are. You’re pretending that I am referring to data on the number of companies with illegal hiring practices. However, I clearly explained that the average I was referring to was the average compensation for minorities vs white men with similar qualifications.

I’ve already posted evidence multiple times in this thread. Here is an example.
 
You are. You’re pretending that I am referring to data on the number of companies with illegal hiring practices. However, I clearly explained that the average I was referring to was the average compensation for minorities vs white men with similar qualifications.

I’ve already posted evidence multiple times in this thread. Here is an example.
Okay, now where in that study did it list that this is happening on average? I did not see any indication of "We polled 1000 or 10,000 or .... companies and they ALL are doing this" type of data set. They could have just found two companies that did this.

Furthermore back on topic, where is the evidence that Apple WAS doing this where they need their DEI program to remain?

Again it is strictly illegal since Civil Rights Act of 1964 to do this type of action. Such a DEI program is not necessary. Just fire the individuals, back-pay the person's raises so they are compensated fairly and when you hire a replacement properly train them (AS I WAS 20+ years ago....) on how to properly do this.
 
Okay, now where in that study did it list that this is happening on average? I did not see any indication of "We polled 1000 or 10,000 or .... companies and they ALL are doing this" type of data set. They could have just found two companies that did this.
I never claimed any of that. Again I clearly stated the average I was referring to.

Again it is strictly illegal since Civil Rights Act of 1964 to do this type of action. Such a DEI program is not necessary. Just fire the individuals, back-pay the person's raises so they are compensated fairly and when you hire a replacement properly train them (AS I WAS 20+ years ago....) on how to properly do this.
You’re so close to getting it here. Identifying discrimination and properly training hiring managers is DEI. You seem confused by the fact that it has a different name than 20 years ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rehkram
I never claimed any of that. Again I clearly stated the average I was referring to.


You’re so close to getting it here. Identifying discrimination and properly training hiring managers is DEI. You seem confused by the fact that it has a different name than 20 years ago.
Not it isn't, DEI is something different. We don't need DEI as this type of action is already illegal. 20+ years ago it wasn't labeled DEI or come with any of the extra fluff that DEI carries today.

Even if that were true, so is Trump's "Merit System" approach....if you are a minority and are doing an excellent job, guess what you get properly compensated since your work speaks to it. Merit based doesn't discriminate either.
 
Not it isn't, DEI is something different. We don't need DEI as this type of action is already illegal. 20+ years ago it wasn't labeled DEI or come with any of the extra fluff that DEI carries today.
There is the root of the problem. What is your definition of DEI?

Even if that were true, so is Trump's "Merit System" approach....if you are a minority and are doing an excellent job, guess what you get properly compensated since your work speaks to it. Merit based doesn't discriminate either.
I already posted a source showing that this isn’t happening on average.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rehkram
There is the root of the problem. What is your definition of DEI?


I already posted a source showing that this isn’t happening on average.
I will play the average game too.....my clients on average ever since adopting the DEI programs within the last four years required me as part of that program to put pronouns in my signature, some of them even updated my name in Active Directory to include them and updated my outbound name from Outlook to include them in my name.

Again, ever since DEI came up in the last 4 years some of my friends and colleagues that are hiring managers told me their quotas. They would still interview white males to give the impression they don't have quotas but they would never hire them or advance them to second+ interviews.

As I said in my original post on this, I have seen a lot of the bad of DEI and not much of the good. And it doesn't make any sense as since 1964 this should be a requirement anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: steve333
I will play the average game too.....my clients on average ever since adopting the DEI programs within the last four years required me as part of that program to put pronouns in my signature, some of them even updated my name in Active Directory to include them and updated my outbound name from Outlook to include them in my name.

Again, ever since DEI came up in the last 4 years some of my friends and colleagues that are hiring managers told me their quotas. They would still interview white males to give the impression they don't have quotas but they would never hire them or advance them to second+ interviews.

As I said in my original post on this, I have seen a lot of the bad of DEI and not much of the good. And it doesn't make any sense as since 1964 this should be a requirement anyway.
There you go. Anecdotes over data. And choosing to ignore whatever doesn’t fit your argument. The MAGA playbook.
 
There you go. Anecdotes over data. And choosing to ignore whatever doesn’t fit your argument. The MAGA playbook.
I hate Trump. I didn't want to vote for him....but this stuff just pushed me over the edge. You want evidence? Look at all the big company's employees on Twitter (well most of them deleted it now since Trump). Suddenly over the last four years have been pronouns this pronouns that.

Heck even Bernie Sanders said the Democrats did it to themselves and I would have voted Democrat.


Obviously there is no hard evidence because even my friends/colleagues are TERRIFIED that what they told me gets back to them.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: jaymc
I hate Trump. I didn't want to vote for him....but this stuff just pushed me over the edge. You want evidence? Look at all the big company's employees on Twitter (well most of them deleted it now since Trump). Suddenly over the last four years have been pronouns this pronouns that.


Obviously there is no hard evidence because even my friends/colleagues are TERRIFIED that what they told me gets back to them.
Again. Anecdotes over data.

As I told you at the start of our conversation, I’m against quota-based affirmative action. But, again, you’re doing the thing you complained about in your original post where you are putting two extremes as the only options.
 
Again. Anecdotes over data.

As I told you at the start of our conversation, I’m against quota-based affirmative action. But, again, you’re doing the thing you complained about in your original post where you are putting two extremes as the only options.

My whole point is there does not need to exist a DEI program. It is already illegal to do such acts since the 1960s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: steve333
My whole point is there does not need to exist a DEI program. It is already illegal to do such acts since the 1960s.
I’m well aware. But that’s based on a faulty understanding of what DEI programs do and a lack of understanding of the data that shows why they are needed.

Again, you yourself acknowledged the need to identify discrimination and properly train hiring managers. Which is part of DEI.
 
Apple calendar just removed women’s day. I told you guys they will bend to trump day by day…… slowly. Sanity is back. Even democrats are getting back to their roots. 😎
 

Attachments

  • IMG_6174.jpeg
    IMG_6174.jpeg
    234.7 KB · Views: 42
  • Disagree
Reactions: rehkram and Dutch60
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.