To put that number in perspective, I live on the border of Cobb County, Georgia, whose population as of 2012 is 707,442. This is one county outside the city limits of Atlanta (but not by much). While Cobb County is a metro Atlanta suburban county, it also has a large portion of semi-rural area. It blows my mind that more than an entire state's populace fits in a tiny (geographically speaking) county in a largely rural state.
As someone who downvoted you, and then saw the request for explanation, here's mine:
I downvoted you because rhetoric, however commonly held, isn't worth the discussion space, in my opinion.
Further, I disagree with the implication that all capitalist endeavors would just be highway robbers, if not for those pesky laws. Even those who suggest that Wal-Mart is definitively evil for paying minimum wage doesn't tend to hold the belief that all economic exchange is similarly evil, nor are all companies nefariously motivated.
Yes, successful business owners like to maximize value, but for every person trying to sneak in a hidden surcharge, or lobby Congress for favors, there's another person who runs the minimum amount of ads on his website because he doesn't want it to feel dirty, or who is contributing to open source, because he likes giving back.
> I don't think that companies are inherently bad, it's just that companies will do what they can to maximize profit.
SOME companies will. What percentage, I honestly don't know, but I honestly suspect that it's a much smaller percentage than people tend to believe.
Aside from that, I'm not arguing with you _per se_, but you asked for an explanation, so I gave one. FWIW, I tend to downvote most pithy rhetoric that doesn't contribute to the conversation, even from pg himself.
I hate to think that _anyone_ thinks this is 'pithy' (or overly concise to be clear) rhetoric though. It's a simple observation, but I feel it's one that people seem to miss quite often when dissecting events of moral ambiguity concerning companies.
The point is this; we _have_ to get stronger at holding companies accountable for things we feel are suspect. That's all. Otherwise the playing field is more open to nonsense like BFL pulled.
What deficiencies does Wordpress have? How is it not capable enough? Knowing whether it won't perform well under the kind of load your audience generates leads to an entirely different answer than knowing that it is limited in some other way.
If Wordpress is lacking in extensibility, then my guess is you'd be better off with something like Django, which isn't a blog at all, but could easily be converted into one -- or you could start with an existing, minimalist Django blog package and extend it.
If Wordpress is simply lacking features you need though, that's a different conversation, as it's the most likely to get those feature in the future, and/or possibly the cheapest to have those extensions developed.
Where remote work is a viable option, then it's obviously easy to tackle.
Where it isn't, set up shop in a smaller market that isn't the valley and have a separate office. Execs can split-time between the locations if necessary, but standing up an office in Houston, Austin, Atlanta, or wherever, and hiring another manager for that location can pay for itself quickly, considering wage-market discrepancy.
My office is in Mountain View, but I live in Annapolis, MD. We have an office in Georgetown, DC, that's about an hour away from me. I work from home, but have the convenience of the DC office in the event that I need to physically sign papers, get stationery, or whatever, and I fly out to MV for a week every couple of months, or every quarter.
Our company has a services division as well, that is mostly remote (though, remote in that scenario is generally on customer premises), and while sure, we have a need for office in some spots, we most of the time don't, so we oversubscribe desks and such. I think we have 6 desks in the Georgetown office for 20-something employees, and it's extremely rare that they're ever full.
You're not wrong, but I detail in another comment on here why it is indeed beneficial to hire women.
My wife started the Baltimore and DC chapters of "Girl Develop It", which aims to solve your first and second bullet points.
The irony, of course, being that whether or not you believe in the gender pay gap, the gap definitely seems to be smaller in tech. Perhaps that's due to the relatively small amount women in tech currently (meaning the gap would grow as diversity increased), or perhaps that's because tech companies tend to be run more analytically (at least at early states) and less on negotiated value, but either way, it's surprising to me that more women aren't flocking to tech, as it likely holds higher relative wages for them, both because of the field, and because of the lessened gender gap.
Yes. Well, where I live men and women are paid the same.
Though what intrigues me is the fact people turn a blind eye and go "Oh, why on Earth there are so few women in Tech". Well, I'm an Engineer and every Engineering year, the ratio dudes/girls is as high as Burj Al Arab.
It's not for nothing there are clichés like "Girls don't do tech and if they do, they do Biology". Stereotypes, maybe. But "60% of the time, it works every time". You ask a girl in a Sci&Tech University what she does, most of the time it's Biology.
There aren't that many girls programmers. And then there are fewer female programmers who are good (that's natural, being good is rarer than being average. Valid for men, too) who have to compete with a more important number of men programmers.
Just probabilities, yet people want to make an exclusively political/segregation/unfair matter.
I have a hard time imagining that there are many companies who benefit from a monoculture. Diversity equals truth, or more accurately, increases the likelihood of finding truth.
If your business makes any decisions, like "how do we capture this market," or "what sort of features should we add," or "how should this thing work," then you are embarking on a truth-seeking endeavor.
Unless your product aims to solve a problem that only affects white guys in the city (which, to be fair, is certainly a non-negligible number of products), then you're going to have a hard time expanding your base beyond white guys in the city if your team consists of only white guys in the city.
I don't think that is necessarily true; it implies that we cannot empathize with people that do not share at least racial and location characteristics with us.
I think a white man can make a product for black women, and I think a black woman can make products for white men. For me, it's more about acknowledging that the world exists outside of white men in the city and less about making sure your team is made up of every racial and socio-economic variable you aim to market to.
I do not disagree with that at all, and clearly, we've seen monocultures succeed at doing exactly that. I wasn't attempting to decry the methodology of every company with a monoculture, as much as to point out that it's just easier with actual diversity.
As Vezzy-Fnord points out, a single individual is able to empathize with other types of people, but that empathy is finite, and also, empathy does not equal understanding.
My main problem with the way many people handle the diversity issue has been exactly this: their major insistence on phenotypes as the pinnacle of diversity.
It turns out that "white guys" are not a homogenous group. In fact, chances are that white guys from (e.g.) Finland, Serbia and Nebraska will have little in common besides their skin color and sex. Their opinions and worldviews will differ greatly.
Diversity of opinion is just as important, if not more so. Sure, on the outside everyone looks like a pasty-faced white dude, but jumping to conclusions based solely on that, is... misguided, to put it euphemistically.
I'm not saying we can't benefit from having a wide variety of phenotypes as well, after all different phenotypes equal different experiences. But not every white guy is a Bay Area caricature.
Considering that the NSA has known about this bug for up to two years, I think it's optimistic to consider that they'd be willing to help in this regard, as they've very possibly been exploiting it for some time now.
The smartest among us don't ascribe to partisan policy choices. I attempt to evaluate every position in which I have an interest based on its merits. This means that I disagree with the left on approximately half the issues, and disagree with the right on approximately the other half (that's a rough estimate, in reality, I think I disagree with either party far more than half).
That said, it's hard to be informed and not develop some loyalty to any particular politician. In all likelihood, you'll develop an affinity towards whichever politician you find agrees with you the most, and it's hard to say that "In general, I like so and so, but for his opinions on x and y."
Jonathan Haidt has done some fantastic research on the subject, specifically in the area of political psychology, and I would encourage you to read "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion".
In practice though, most people are happy to swallow whatever their party tells them is true, even when it provably isn't.