Threads for pk

  1. 3

    Worth keeping in mind that the paper’s from 2007, and Dynamo has been changing. Here’s Werner Vogels saying exactly that:

    1. 2

      It’s significant that PG is going to stop running HN soon.

      It’s the end of an era. It’s also hard to imagine it won’t lead to a change in personality for the service over time.

      1. 2

        I took a look at the AAUW study. It’s not really fair to say it makes “literally the opposite claim.”

        What it does is present some evidence showing a gender gap in earnings, broken out by college major. This is the chart that the post reproduces.

        Later, it presents a chart showing annual earnings 1 year after graduation, broken out by occupation, not major, and applying a bunch of corrective factors (which definitely seem debatable). This is Fig 8, which the post omits. In several fields, they find no significant gap for the cohort they studied, and Engineering is one of those fields.

        This post focuses on the first chart, but it’s the second part that the author of the original Qz article is referring to.

        1. 3

          I saw Fig 8, and I think it’s informative, but note that it’s normalizing for known factors, which includes factors that are partially caused by discrimination. If the original article had claimed that 2/3 of the gender pay gap was understood, I would have no problem with that.

          But the title claims that the gap doesn’t exist (that’s the part that’s literally the opposite), and the text is a combination of claiming that it doesn’t exist and that it isn’t a problem because it’s understood. However, as the authors of the AAUW study go through and account for various factors, they explicitly note that some of them are partially due to discrimination. To make a claim that there is no gap is false. To make the claim that the gap is not a problem because we’ve understood that part of the gap is because of discrimination and don’t understand what 1/3 of the gap is from is not technically wrong, but it strikes me as a strange claim to advance. My interpretation is that the original article makes much stronger claims than that.

        1. -10

          Are we seriously posting Shanley content here now?

          We look at evictions and gentrification in the Bay Area and open source projects to combat them. Learn about the politics of how we define “tech workers,” meet a startup focused on community-based sign language interpreting, and explore the contradictions of Lean In ideology in a sexist society.


          1. 4

            This comment is an ad hominem attack, and Shanley isn’t the author of the article. Why dismiss the article without even addressing it?

            1. 3

              The quoted text isn’t even from this particular article. It’s from another article in the Model View Culture issue.