> I come here for technical discussions, but at this rate soon reddit will have subs with more substance and less political fights than HN
I've been reading HN since 2016. It started decreasing in quality around the COVID pandemic's start, and quickly tanked after most of the YC community moved onto Bookface.
In DEI discussions, equity is typically shorthand for "representation" or "equality of outcome" where if x% of the population is from one group, they should be x% of executives, employees, etc.
Contrast that with equality (now verboten), where everyone gets an equal opportunity at success, but the results are up to individual performance.
> equality (now verboten), where everyone gets an equal opportunity at success
I wound strongly contest that this is because, on the one side of the implementation spectrum, this turned out to impossible in a practical sense, and on the other side, it's far too easy to have the appearance of equality but not the actuality.
On the other side of things - (IMO) equity is also just a better concept - give people what they need to do reach their excellence, and you have far more people being excellent. (Although it sounds like we might have different ideas as to what "equity" even is)
> I wound strongly contest that this is because, on the one side of the implementation spectrum, this turned out to impossible in a practical sense, and on the other side, it's far too easy to have the appearance of equality but not the actuality.
Perfect equal opportunity is the goal, not necessarily the reality. It's not like we can go around handing out genes to make people NBA basketball players or genius mathematicians. Sometimes we might undershoot, other times overshoot, but it's a great ideal to aim for.
> equity is also just a better concept - give people what they need to do reach their excellence
What does that actually mean, and how does your definition differ from the one that I described?
AFAIK+IMO, perfect equal opportunity turns out is a terrible goal, and is unreasonably impossible - you can't even get close, and getting close wouldn't end up being a good thing anyway - for pretty much the reasons you point out. Birth circumstances (genes, parents, etc) mean that the opportunities would never be equal, and (IMO) you wouldn't want them to be - people deserve to be able to be different.
AFAIK, "equity" is what you actually want. [Here's](https://interactioninstitute.org/illustrating-equality-vs-eq...) the usual explanation I see. Interestingly - I think "fairness" here is going to use the same definition as used in AI/ML, which (AFAIK) is "these inputs should not affect the outputs". Or, as it usually get encoded into English inside my head - find out what each person needs to succeed, and then give it to them. Now you have a lot more people succeeding than you did when their circumstances had to be a good match for the opportunity.
I do think there's a bit of legitimacy in the reactions against all this, in one very specific way - I think a lot of times it's assumed that this or that member of "privileged" life circumstances has had some specific need met - aka "the white guys don't need any help" - when a specific individual might not have. Personally, I really would have benefited from any mentor at certain crucial times of my life - college in particular comes to mind - and I think people assume I had them, or had access. I didn't, even if people "like me" did.
(side note - that's also why rule #1 is: don't make statements about other people's lives, only ever ask questions)
> differ
Near as I can tell, your definition limits "equity" to only concerning itself with outcome - and specifically equality of outcome - instead of (overly simplifying) methods plus outcome of maximized and/or sufficient success. That is - "equity" as I understand it doesn't need everyone to reach the same degree of success, it's more about making sure everyone reaches enough success ("to see over the fence") and beyond that to reach as much success as they each person can.
> That is - "equity" as I understand it doesn't need everyone to reach the same degree of success, it's more about making sure everyone reaches enough success ("to see over the fence") and beyond that to reach as much success as they each person can.
Okay, but what is sufficient success and who gets to define it? A CEO who says "25% of our employees are women, mission accomplished" would be tarred and feathered by the media and DEI activists. Even if that is the natural outcome of the choices individuals make in a society with excellent gender equality.
For example, Scandinavian women are less likely to go into STEM than women in less equal countries. If that is in fact a matter of preference rather than coercion, shouldn't the "equitable" level of employment in STEM be based on the level of demonstrated interest?
But in virtually every DEI training I have experienced, anything other than perfect representation is viewed as failure, and the agency of minority groups is ironically dismissed. It's quite depressing really. Maybe you prefer the equity model in theory, but from what I have seen in practice, it is often implemented in a toxic and divisive way.
> Okay, but what is sufficient success and who gets to define it?
As best as I "get it" - that's like asking "okay but there's the object?" in functional programming. This stuff is "means"-oriented rather than "ends"-oriented. You find the people most in need of help, then you help them; rinse, repeat. Trying to base it off of ends is a code smell, indicative of other problems and ills that'll either prevent or undermine your progress, even if measuring those ends is useful to calibrating your means.
> But in virtually every DEI training I have experienced, anything other than perfect representation is viewed as failure, and the agency of minority groups is ironically dismissed. It's quite depressing really. Maybe you prefer the equity model in theory, but from what I have seen in practice, it is often implemented in a toxic and divisive way.
Well shit, that sucks. Sorry you're having to go through that. It's pretty alien to my experience; at worst, the DEI stuff I've experienced has felt vapid - The best has been amazing tho, and felt like it gave agency to many minority groups, and greater connection (less division) between people of different demographics. Equality stuff on the other hand, generally feels like finding ways to avoid the issue, and absolve someone of doing more - at least, now that I've seen "under the hood" more. Maybe you prefer the equality model in theory, but what I have seen in practice, it is often implemented in a shallow and avoidant way.
Equity wasn't a typo. It refer to the policy of quotas, whether it be official or unofficial. And isn't it a valid social phenomenon to be studied, proved, or disproved? Surely, if equity or pay policies are being gamed, then perhaps it might be useful to look into it.
And obviously, if you are here for the technical discussions, why did you click on a thread about salaries of men vs. women?
Finally...this place is ruled by emotion just like every other place. It's only when everyone agrees that there is rational discussion.
> if you are here for the technical discussions, why did you click on a thread about salaries of men vs. women?
Because maybe I would learn that certain positions or areas are better/worse paid than others? Or that managers at Google are really bad at math? Or who knows, maybe the CEO hires really expensive prostitutes and pay them with company money disguised as salaries??
HN is starting to look like a gaming forum or a comment by Marjorie Taylor Greene. Then again, have you seen Paul Graham's tweets lately?
I come here for technical discussions, but at this rate soon reddit will have subs with more substance and less political fights than HN