Very much this. As a long-time Namecheap customer, this thread caught my attention, but my layman's conclusion is that it doesn't really sound like they did anything worse than any other host would have done.
As someone who forgets his passwords on a regular basis, I'm kind of glad that there's no such thing as perfect security...
Pretty much League of Legends all the way, all of the adrenaline of an FPS, with the progression of an MMORPG but none of the grind. I'm not surprised it's the most played game in the world. Recently Hearthstone has been fun...
Perhaps it was dumb. Perhaps not. I made a judgement call that I'd be able to make more of a difference to the company culture by sending a blunt email to the senior management team than I would by joining the company's middle management where I'd have very little influence anyway.
My hope is that they will implement some changes based on a. concern about their public image, and b. evidence that they are losing qualified candidates as a result of their imbalance. It is often the case with companies like this that many people on the inside would like to see a change but lack the evidence and support necessary to gain widespread support for it.
If it doesn't work it doesn't work, and yes I am involved in other activities to promote gender equality (both men and women's equality), both inside and outside work.
Not wanting to challenge your intuition, but my notion was that company success is strongly correlated to women on the board and gender equality.
Hopefully the research linked in my email at the bottom of the original post might prompt you to reconsider your intuitive position (one that is unfortunately shared by many people).
Tzunamitom, none of the text in the links at the bottom of your email prove that women are necessary for success. Even if having women on the board increases chances for success, or increases the magnitude of success, how can you say with a straight face that a company cannot be successful without women on the board? (Or without men on the board?) There are countless companies that have grown successful with only men on the board, and I am sure there are also companies that have grown to success with only women on the board. So, clearly, whether or not gender balance improves your chances for success, it is not a prerequisite to success.
Pat, I have better things to do than debate semantics with a bored undergrad who aggressively downvotes any opinion that dissents with his. Take what you can from the discussion on gender equality...or don't, you're the one missing out.
By being casually dismissive and rude like this, you only hurt your own platform.
If you were true and committed to your cause, you'd engage in a discussion with full intellectual honesty regardless of whether the person you're involved with happens to be a "bored undergrad" or not.
Ignoring your unfair generalisations about Accenture employees, I made no assertion that Accenture as a whole was a good way to run a business.
In the 3 years I worked there, there was a lot that I disagreed with, but one thing they did well was their effort to drive towards greater gender equality.
That's not too surprising, as that's the kind of thing that impresses politicians and MBA's. In the real world, where delivering results is more important than checking off political boxes, tech companies have to work extremely hard just to hire the best people, so that's not a luxury they have.
> Why try to force equality? Am I missing something?
OP here. Good question. A long time ago I thought in a very similar way because I was strongly opposed to discrimination in all forms and because I think that there is often a backlash effect against affirmative action.
Between then and writing the linked article, what changed? Well 2 things:
1. Increasingly studies have shown that diversity or equality in itself contributes to the performance of a team more than just having lots of GOOD homogeneous employees - as per Natch's excellent comment (by GOOD here I'm using the study's metric of IQ.
Link: http://hbr.org/2011/06/defend-your-research-what-makes-a-tea...
2. I have come to the realisation that some of these societal norms have a far more insidious effect of us than we often realise or accept. That is to say we will often judge "GOOD" through our own very polarised perception. Thus women are often told that if they want to succeed in business they are told that they need to act "more like men", just like how black people were (are?) told that they need to act "more like white people". The dominant culture creates the societal norms, but this has a negative impact on my first point because we lose the balance and discourse that comes from having a diverse organisation, so we miss an opportunity to improve the performance of our teams. To combat this there needs to be an artificial effort to challenge dominant norms and see greater diversity.
Finally notice how my article refers to gender equality, not Women's Rights. I believe the case for gender equality is as equally valid in Tech as it is in Consulting and HR.
I can't help but think that this would be a vastly better deal for the US than Canada. Canada already enjoys much of the benefits touted for a merger (protection of its neighbour, Free trade access to a massive market) while the US has much to gain (massive resources, land, water, better healthcare).
Assuming there was as much in common politically and socially as suggested (there most certainly isn't) the US's stock is very much in decline while Canada's is very much in ascendancy.
The only way a merger could happen would be as a merger of equals necessitated by bigger global threats alongside dramatic social reform/normalisation in the US (I.e. The US starts to catch up with the rest of the Western world in terms of social maturity).
