It really depends. In some companies/countries, women in IT are being coddled, with way easier criteria for interviews and more leeway for mistakes/poor performance. I suppose that is being done to increase the number of women in the workplace and balance things out.
Some are well aware of this and fully take advantage of the situation, playing damsel in distress, some even manipulate their more socially/sexually frustrated male colleagues into doing their work for them and covering for them.
Police force? FireFighter? Do they have to lift the same?
If you're hiring to fill out a 4 person tech team and you've got 3 men, and a quota 50% male/female split, would you say men have an equal chance at the job. Or less of a chance?
Being intellectually honest, you will admit the criteria for the men in that case are harder, or perhaps impossible to achieve.
If the criteria for one sex are significantly harder (impossible without gender affirming care) then the criteria for the other sex are easier.
I've never ever heard of a quota where I do interviewing, which is tech. As the article is about Apple I thought tech was assumed, and not the roles you are talking about, which are obviously different and I have no experience in.
People will omit applying any amount of critical thinking if they agree with the basic premise/contents of something they read.
That's how we have Schrödinger's Russia, one that keeps fumbling every day and loses 1000+ soldiers a day, whose soldiers have run out of basic equipment and are fighting with shovels (no, I'm not joking https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64855760), all the while being absolutely crippled by sanctions. Truly a laughing stock, right?
Yet they are also somehow about to launch a full-scale invasion of entire Europe, while currently _undermining democracy_ (my favorite phrase) in the entire Western sphere.
> Her company, and it's legacy, ultimately destroyed by men
> A portrait of the insidious nature of sexism.
A tad ironic to make these two statements in succession don't you think?
I'm not saying that sexism doesn't or didn't exist (especially in that time period), but trying to dismiss the discrepancy on Wikipedia as sexism, when Jobs helped build a literal worldwide business empire that is Apple of today, doesn't help your case at all. In fact it's the opposite, it sounds like you're fighting windmills.
>A tad ironic to make these two statements in succession don't you think?
Where's the irony? You'll have to point it out to me.
> As a result, Harp McGovern had the opportunity to see, sooner than most other companies, what Microsoft was adding to its own operating system in an effort to capture the market.
> It was a switch that Harp McGovern herself was inclined to make, so she contacted Gates and negotiated a provisional contract for Vector to pivot to using DOS instead of CP/M on far sweeter terms—and at a much faster pace—than were being offered to other manufacturers. “We had an amazing relationship with Microsoft. I’d signed a contract where every update and every new system in perpetuity we would get at no increased royalty,“ she explained.
> The deal was taken to the board, but the collective decision was made that it was better to stick with the known quantity that was CP/M for the in-development Vector 4.
She negotiated a sweetheart deal with Microsoft before their big break. She had a personal relationship with Bill Gates. This decision killed the company.
> but trying to dismiss the discrepancy on Wikipedia as sexism, when Jobs helped build a literal worldwide business empire that is Apple of today, doesn't help your case at all. In fact it's the opposite,
The final line was a summary of the article as a whole, not specifically the difference between Jobs' legacy and hers. I recognize the difference.
> Where's the irony? You'll have to point it out to me.
> The deal was taken to the board, but the collective decision was made that it was better to stick with the known quantity that was CP/M for the in-development Vector 4.
Because, if you find it relevant what the sex of the board members that made that mistake was, how is that any better than the alleged sexism that McGovern had endured? If you think that, you must also think that a board consisting mainly (or fully) of women that makes some mistake has to do with them being women, right?
> Because, if you find it relevant what the sex of the board members that made that mistake was, how is that any better than the alleged sexism that McGovern had endured?
You've done some subtle editorializing here to try and make your point stronger, allow me to correct it:
> ultimately destroyed by men
is not what I wrote, what I wrote is
> ultimately destroyed by the men who overrode her decisions and opted to take the 'safer' route.
They convey two very different ideas. The strawman that you wrote implies that I believe men, by virtue of their sex, are responsible for the companies failure. This is not the case.
What I wrote implies that the board rejected her proposal because they thought they know better. Is it conceivable to you that this belief might have had something to do with the fact that she was a female CEO, formerly a housewife, in an exclusively male industry?
Surely you can concede that identifying sexist behavior and committing sexist behavior are not equivalent.
I don't think the article portrays the decision as disrespectful or disregarding of Lore's opinion, just that they took the wrong bet on the future.
While she says later on that she made a mistake not "forcing" that route following her instinct, I read that as a classic leadership dilemma where your gut says go one way but plenty of data disagrees. She is the visionary in this story, and visionaries often struggle with the hard routes their visions suggest and don't always follow them.
IBM made the opposite bet, against CP/M. This was a bold and risky decision at the time because CP/M was massively dominant in business. It was anything but assured that DOS would win.
That's really not true for the type of game the OP is talking about. Think Second Life et al, where most of the content is dynamically streamed and rendered in real time
We're seeing more real metaverse-type systems. With the NFT clown car out of the way, and Meta's Horizon becoming a niche, the development efforts that were quietly underway to build real, working metaverses are starting to show results. There's M2, from Improbable, which now has a shared developer metaverse in test, for which one can sign up. There are others who have reached the demo video level, such as Readyverse, which is probably going to be an MMO rather than a real user-created metaverse. Disney and Epic are jointly making metaverse noises.
The big-world high-detail user-created metaverse problem is being worked on.
It is absolutely a tax. The "cost" you pay upfront, the hundred dollar annual membership cost. Though even that could be considered a tax and not a "cost", because without it you can't even write software and deploy it on your own devices.
reply