Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 14th Sep 2016 21:29 UTC
Apple

Mic.com has obtained a long list of e-mails from primarily female Apple employees (but also a few male employees), detailing a sexist culture inside the company that nobody seems to want to address. The 50 pages of e-mails were handed to Mic by an Apple employee, and obviously, all people involved have been anonymised.

"With such love for a company that does so much good, it is with a heavy heart that I declare my resignation from Apple," a former employee wrote in an email obtained by Mic. "Despite all attempts to seek justice within this corporation, the cries of several minority employees about the toxic and oppressive environment have gone unanswered. I have witnessed the complete and utter disenfranchising of the voices of men and women of color and the fault lies not only in the direct management staff but in the response of those tasked with protecting employee rights. I write this letter hoping to highlight the areas that these departments have failed to properly support employees and as such have hence left Apple, Inc. culpable for various EEOC and ethical violations."

According to Claire*, "several people" who have quit, citing a "white, male, Christian, misogynist, sexist environment," were not given exit interviews. "Their departure is being written up as a positive attrition," she told Mic.

This obviously - but sadly - doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Silicon Valley is an inherently toxic environment dominated by white males, and despite all the talk from Tim Cook and various company bloggers, Apple is not the special diversity flowerchild farting rainbows and puking unicorn dust it claims to be. I mean, this is a company who considers having a Canadian speaking on stage during an event as "diversity".

From these emails, a picture emerges of a company culture actively trying to get women to leave, actively preventing them from getting into mid-level and top-level leadership positions. From everything I've ever heard about Silicon Valley culture - this is par for the course, no matter the company.

Thread beginning with comment 634524
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[12]: Comment by ddc_
by ddc_ on Sat 17th Sep 2016 12:21 UTC in reply to "RE[11]: Comment by ddc_"
ddc_
Member since:
2006-12-05

Sorry, did you just suggest that a 9% increase is not statistically significant? The Leave campaign only one by a couple of points. 9% is not some sort of statistical slight of hand. It directly supports the statement you're so desperately trying to disprove.

First, yes, I suggest that it is not statistically significant because it is less then inter-month fluctuation, as reported by the same source.
Second, I suggest that 9% increase is not a change that turn non-"toxic" environment into "toxic".
Third, I suggest that the figures are actually declining, so 9% is not even the stable result. Most likely next point will be yet lower, and it may pretty much be possible that lasting effect will be statistically insignificant in context of normal annual growth.

You're twisting in the wind.

Nope. That statement was supposed to prove me wrong on my statement:
Intolerant environment only forms when most part of the group exhibits intollerance towards the same set of factors. [...] Minorities aren't really capable of forcing their culture onto the whole group unless the group is particularly receptive towards the culture in question.

So, what do we have?

1. According to polls, 2 weeks before election 48% of voters were concerned with immigration, and the figure was rising by 10% monthly.¹ So almost majority of British voters voted against immigration. Provided that example "hate crimes" included statements against immigration and thus the very political position of those 48% of voters is taken for "hate crimes," that is 48% of potential "hate criminals."

2. The changes in "hate crimes" within two months timeframe are:

2.1. More "hate crimes" which would be unreported are actually reported,² which indicates that raw figures are statistically biased towards increase.

2.2. The net increase in this rather short timeframe is 14% and rapidly declining,³ which means that even not accounting for annual growth and bias from 2.1. the increase is not a game changer as implied above. And the timeframe is too short to hint the stable value: political saturation does not dissipate after two month, and there are still significant saturation efforts ongoing. Hell, most of media hysteria on "hate crimes" itself saturates the situation.

So what do we have?
1) It passed by a slim majority.

About 48% of populace were concerned with immigration two weeks before the vote, and the figure was rising. So the situation was at most 2% away from the point when, according to my statement, the xenophobic attitude may become dominant in UK.

2) There has been a rise in hate crime since the vote.

Even with that idiotic definition of the "hate crime" and even under assumption that 100% of "hate crimes" were xenopobic in nature, there are 2778 xenophobic incidents per two weeks, which is 75006 incidents per year or 0.1151988941% of "hate crime" per UK citizen per year. That is 0.0345231147% incidents per UK citizen per year more then in 2015, not accounting for normal annual growth. And that in a country where 48% of population would be "hate crime" offenders if they merely express their view. By no means it is not statistically significant change in UK environment.

So how exactly does it prove my statement above wrong?

¹ https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3748...
² http://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/we-will-work-with-others-across...
³ http://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/tackling-hate-crime-remains-a-p...

Edited 2016-09-17 12:35 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[13]: Comment by ddc_
by Vanders on Sat 17th Sep 2016 20:26 in reply to "RE[12]: Comment by ddc_"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

Even with that idiotic definition of the "hate crime"

It's defined by the police. The definition didn't change. The measurement system is the same. The number rose.

there are 2778 xenophobic incidents per two weeks, which is 75006 incidents per year or 0.1151988941% of "hate crime" per UK citizen per year. That is 0.0345231147% incidents per UK citizen per year more then in 201

Or, to put it another way, there was a 9% rise in recorded hate crime in the UK after the referendum. I'm not sure why you felt the need to break it down to 10 significant digits. Oh unless it makes the numbers look really small and insignificant.

Oh.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[14]: Comment by ddc_
by ddc_ on Sat 17th Sep 2016 21:27 in reply to "RE[13]: Comment by ddc_"
ddc_ Member since:
2006-12-05

It's defined by the police. The definition didn't change. The measurement system is the same. The number rose.
[...]
Or, to put it another way, there was a 9% rise in recorded hate crime in the UK after the referendum.

you've missed the point. I never argued that the figures did not grow. I argued that the growth is too small to make the whole issue significant.

P.S.: https://xkcd.com/1102/

I'm not sure why you felt the need to break it down to 10 significant digits. Oh unless it makes the numbers look really small and insignificant.

Oh, so you too know better then me why I do what I do, yes? These numbers are raw output from my calculator, copy-pasted with the amount of significant digits it provided.

Reply Parent Score: 2