"Qualified" will always mean "can make a computer do things we need done" and that's not negotiable.
We do hire at all experience levels and several of our successful squad leads are original college hires (having only worked with us), so we have some demonstrated track record of mentoring and retention.
Even in college recruiting (where I'd expect the greatest diversity of candidates), I can't recall any recent black applicants, and except for a somewhat higher ratio of women to men than the industry average, the ratios of college grads seem to track the industry ratios reasonably closely.
I concede that there is a bias towards college grads in industry and stated above, and that nothing is legally barring me from crafting some kind of Cinderella program to seek out possibly qualified candidates who avoided college or who failed to graduate. There would no doubt be some successful candidates that emerged from such a program.
The practical bar to that is my belief that any such single-company program would be utterly uncompetitive versus other efforts I could make in staffing. Opening an out of country office, while hard, is probably much less work per successful candidate, has a higher success rate, and often presents much more compelling economics.
If the above is remotely true, the shortest path to better prospects for minorities is to increase their college attendance, STEM majors, and graduation rates. It also has the practical advantage of having a high level of self-determination and influence; rather than waiting for me to fix their problem (where I necessarily have many competing priorities), they can take initiative to address their problem (where they naturally have more focus and vested interest in the specific outcome).
There is unlikely to emerge a single-company Cinderella type program that will markedly change the industry. The overhead costs are too much and the successes too few. A regional (or even national) charitable or educational institution may be able to move the needle (but even there, the shorter path might well be "encourage college and STEM participation rates")
My direct experience here is working with Hackbright Academy to meet more women than I was getting through the standard job application channels.
Hackbright works attracts women from all backgrounds, science but no computer science, college drop outs, and junior CS. It teaches practical programming skills in the 3 months class, then helps connect the women to companies.
The program works. Smart women can learn programming and be successful at any subsequent job in the industry with adequate time, mentorship and training.
This is of course true for people of all genders, race and college background.
There are many similar programs that cater to diverse hiring pipelines. Dev Bootcamp for first time web developers, Jopwell for black, latino, hispanic and native american candidates.
But all these still depend on a hiring manager valuing mentorship over "pre-qualified".
Of all the things in my career, I am most proud of helping engineers be successful at tasks that they weren't "qualified" to do. This has been hiring junior candidates for roles beyond their current experience (with clear discussions on both sides about how it will be challenging), and rotating and promoting engineers into new roles and responsibilities.
We hired some remote engineers from South Africa through stack overflow. Now we have a permanent office in Cape Town. Give that a go maybe. A lot more bang for the buck comparatively than hiring remote engineers from the U.S., and the programmers there (shouldn't even be surprise) are as good as from any country including the U.S.
The reason why you're not getting black applicants may include:
- It's hard to get hired by white companies, so a lot of black people stay within black-owned companies and communities.
- There are a lot of ways to search for and hire applicants; waiting for people to come to you will not necessarily result in the best candidate.
- Transportation is not as easy or available for poor or rural communities. It may be necessary to hire remote, or pay for relocation, or in the extreme cases open remote offices.
- The 'qualifications' may need to be revisited. What are you requiring as a qualification? Is it something a poor black person would have significantly more difficulty in achieving compared to a white person, due to socioeconomic disparities? Is it possible you could find other qualities that work as similar qualifications that black people might be more likely to have?
In order for there to be more black applicants, we need to help there to be more black applicants. This can mean many things, such as contacting local black communities and asking them what your company can do to help adults achieve a job at your company, or helping to improve the roadblocks for young kids to get a good education.
I know, I know; actually trying to help people can be a burden. But it will help people who continue to be oppressed by a society that does not care about them. You could continue to just wait for black people to work around the huge pitfalls society has set up for them, or you could help work to remove those pitfalls. It's up to you. Unfortunately.
I think you are being purposefully obtuse. Of course Jeff the amazing coder who punches people in the face does not meet hiring standards. No one is discounting the value of multiculturalism, but you have to acknowledge the cultural diversity of tech companies mirrors the cultural diversity of tech workers. The cultural diversity of tech workers mirrors the cultural diversity of tech students in college, which mirrors the cultural diversity of high-achieving high school students.
The problem exists in parts of the society that technology can't fix, but law and education might. It doesn't help that the criminal justice system is statistically racist and that lack of cohesive families due to the consequences of povertous conditions causes children from those families to perform less well in school.
If you want better diversity in better-paying fields, the most impactful change would be to end the war on drugs, which contributes the most to poverty and incarceration. I don't see how the tech community can do that by themselves and the full effect won't even be measurable in the tech community until a generation later.
That's up to you. Nobody can force you to love them, and you can always choose to walk away from potential loves.
Most of the replies to your post seem to be telling you that love is worth it. I think that is overly simplistic - we are not all the same. Some people find love, some don't. Some people who do find it, make it last, some don't. Some people who do find it resent it, some people who don't find it resent not having found it.
I don't think one size fits all, and I think people should try to make choices that fulfil them, whether that means prioritising work, or friends or family or exploration or wine tasting.
In particular, to those who suggest that love is an evolutionary advantage, I partially disagree. Or at least I think that is simply one facet of our species - one of our key strengths is diversity of being. We have the people who must go out and explore and discover. We have the people who must stay home and build families and societies. Only by having all of these things have we been able to expand across the planet and achieve everything we have. If everyone chose love over work, there are lots of things we wouldn't have invented/discovered. If everyone chose work over love, we'd be a much smaller species, etc, etc.
Although humans are diverse in regards to lifestyle preferences - deep down we are one and the same (living the human condition) where love and, its opposite, hate (and all the concomitant superficial beliefs/ identities/ feelings) are common experiences.
Also, the feeling of love (be it romantic or filial or whatever) doesn't last, and is not stable; people who profess that are usually the ones who have arrived at some kind of compromise. Right in this very thread you will find someone who redefined love to be an "act."
Above all, no matter what one's lifestyle preference is - love hurts. So why the reluctance to question love itself? Why the continued investment in boasting the superiority of love (all that sad love songs have a tinge of sanctimony to them)?
The good news for Mac people who need 5K monitors is that Skylake is almost-nearly-sortof here, which will bring us Thunderbolt 3, which has enough bandwidth to drive a 5K monitor through a single cable.
This should also mean that Apple is able to release a 5K refresh of the Thunderbolt display, and some/many/most Macs will be able to drive them.
Prepare your wallets for extreme sadness, and your eyes for extreme joy! :D
I know a lot of geeks like to think Convergence is a killer feature as a device feature, but I think this is completely mistaken.
Convergence is about data, right? You want all your data to appear magically on whatever form factor of computing you are using.
The key mistake of the concept of convergence at the device level, is that it runs against Moore's Law.
Modern smartphones are pretty darn powerful, but the SoCs that drive them, are also pretty darn cheap. That means that whatever shell you want to dock your phone with, can just have the same SoC and be a computing device in its own right.
It seems odd to me that you'd want to have lots of shells (be they tablet shells, laptop shells, or docks with monitor/kb/mouse on a desktop) sitting around not able to do any computing, because their CPU is somewhere else in your pocket. For a few extra bucks per shell, you can make it a primary node in your computing life. Or for a few more extra bucks per shell, you can make it a powerful node in your computing life.
Convergence is much more convenient at the cloud level - all of your form factors have their own CPU/RAM/Storage (which can also then be varied, to allow devices with more power delivery to offer more computing power) and the data can flow magically between them. This is already a reality today. My watch, phone, tablet, laptop and desktop all have access to the same data and I can use all of them at once if I want to.
But. I know right where it is, and I can get it in 30 seconds, drill a hole in a couple of minutes, and put the drill back in its cupboard.
It was proportionately cheap enough that I don't remember or care how much it cost, and I'm not incentivised to care that it's a waste of resources for me to own a drill.
The "sharing economy" seems like something that should be a response to adverse market conditions - e.g. huge taxes on mass produced goods, high prices due to supply shortages, low affordability due to macro-economic disasters, etc.
It's not something that seems likely to work in a status quo where such things are cheap and easily available.
Things like cars seem like a much better opportunity, given their proportionately higher cost. Once the roads are stuffed with huge fleets of on-demand vehicles, I can see now owning a car (also by then my kids will be old enough that we won't need to keep a huge array of infrastructure in the car ;)
Lots of people are throwing around the words "false positive" in relation to dumb smoke detectors, and I suspect a lot of you mean "the alarm sounded, but I wasn't about to die". If it detected smoke, it told you there was smoke. That's a true positive :)
Very nice app! Thanks for putting decent HealthKit toggles in the app itself. I'm quite choosy about which apps can read HK data and which can write, and many of them are not good at making it obvious if they can cope with that!