* Threatening to dig up on dirt on journalists who aren't nice to them.

* Having a "god mode" available to all of their staff to see who drives where, which was only restricted after it became public.

* Creating a blog post about how they can figure out who is having one night stands (or, as they called it, "rides of glory").

* Blatant and repeated sexism. Anyone who lives in the bay area knows people who have worked at Uber and have heard the stories.

* Encouraging drivers to sign up for subprime auto loans.

* Tracking users locations even after they get finish their ride (even more ominous when combined with their "rides of glory" privacy invasions)

* Hiring a firm comprised of ex CIA agents to pry into the lives of people who screwed with them.

All of that can be confirmed with multiple news sources by a quick google search. It's not just their lack of diversity that makes them a cringeworthy company, it's the fact that they repeatedly and regularly go out of their way to disrespect privacy and generally act super sketchy. They're practically comic book villain level at this point.

* Threatening to dig up dirt: You try working hard on a product and listening to reporters bash you every day of the week, sometimes blatantly making things up. I don't condone the exec's actions, but Sarah Lacy doesn't exactly have the greatest reputation.

* God mode - it's arguably what made Uber. There was initially a lack of restraint on its use, but I've heard of people getting fired for its misuse well before it was public.

* The blog post was very stupid.

* The sexism is quite rampant across all of SV.

* The subprime loans were pure incompetence: it got fixed. Nowadays it's easier to walk away from the loan than at any other dealership.

* The user tracking I heard was to prevent fraud - there's close to $1 million being taken by fraudsters per week. Fraudsters have also physically assaulted employees.

* They investigated a lawsuit being filed because it was targeted specifically at Kalanick, and their security team deemed it a possible threat. The guy happened to be ex-CIA in his previous career.

Out of all, below happened after i joined for which i have some info. * Tracking users locations even after they get finish their ride (even more ominous when combined with their "rides of glory" privacy invasions) This is done for 5 minutes after the ride ends. This is required to fight fraud & ensure safety of riders. This can't be opt out because fraudsters will opt out & we still have fraud.

First of all: We only have Uber's word about that. A company not known as the most forthcoming when it comes to telling the truth.

"This is required to fight fraud & ensure safety of riders. This can't be opt out because fraudsters will opt out & we still have fraud."

This is about the most ludicrous reasoning I have heard in a long time. Fraud prevention doesn't really require that you spy on your customers. You're not dealing with Random Q Shmoe spontanously jumping into an Uber. All of those users need to create an account and provide a valid credit card in the process. User accounts can be locked immediately if fraud is suspected and even if fraud occurs the amount could be a couple 100 bucks, max.

Look, I understand that Uber needs to come up with some excuse to justify spying on their customers. But please tell your communications department they shall try to come up with something more plausible and to stop insulting the intelligence of the general public.

2. Fraud at Uber's scale is not few 100 bucks.

I have decent critical reasoning skills not to agree blindly if the message came from communication department (it did not).

How is a company going to manage toward improving a metric if they're not even measuring it?

What makes you think they want to improve it? If they're after the best it's probably counter productive.

So if one wants to actually hire the best, they should measure these things, otherwise you can't correct for things like 'our Cal alum hiring manager keeps passing up a bunch of good Stanford grads' or more serious versions of that.

It's not like it's the NBA, where you have to be a tall strong man to make the team. Anyone can program, market, manage, etc.

Would you further like to consider that historical evidence indicates that when an industry claims it has meritocratic processes which naturally produced lopsided hiring with respect to gender and race, that claim has been debunked, often spectacularly, by simple tactics such as blind interviews in which the interviewer cannot discover the gender/race of the candidate?

Perhaps after considering this, you should find some other use for that reflex arc which produces "hire the best" statements whenever you're exposed to the word "diversity".

Any situation where you have two candidates and hire one because of irrelevant characteristics you won't be hiring the best.

You want sexist and racist hiring policies, but only when it suits the genders and race's you want. Do you here outrage from white people about being under represented compared to Asians?

Did I say I did?

I want meritocratic hiring processes. I just happen to suggest -- and I believe evidence is strongly on my side -- that a process which produces lopsided gender/race ratios is extremely unlikely to be meritocratic. I also do not believe many of the other sound bytes people inevitably throw out in this argument (example: "that group just isn't interested in our field" / "they just prefer other things", another classic which will, I'm sure, rear its head in this thread sooner or later).

What is the strong evidence for this statement that you claim exists?

It is very unintuitive to me, as I have always thought the problem existed earlier in the pipeline than the actual interview/hiring process. I am always open to my view being changed, so I would like to see this evidence that is strongly on your side.

Here's an example: look up the historical gender breakdown of computer programmers. Hint: once upon a time there wasn't a "pipeline problem" to use as an excuse, and for-profit free-market competitors were doing just fine with a very different gender ratio than they have now.

It is unlikely that, in the (short -- less than a generation to transform the industry) period in question, women magically became unqualified to work as programmers. Especially since many of them already had worked as programmers and nobody had found reason to complain about their work.

Or, more bluntly: the sudden disappearance from a field of an entire category of people, whose only distinguishing characteristic is being of a gender historically denied economic opportunities, is unlikely to be explained by a similarly sudden catastrophic decline in their qualifications. The continuing absence of people of that category is equally unlikely to be explained by their lack of qualifications.

Here's another example: take a look at what happens to other fields when they introduce effective blind interviewing (in which interviewers cannot discover the gender/race of the candidate prior to making a hire/no-hire decision). It once again does not suggest that previous processes were anything approaching meritocratic.

Specifically, it's the Julie Landsman story, where a fantastic French Horn performance of great power and force turned out to be produced by a small woman, and the people hiring lost their shit when they found out.

A funny side note is that, to be a CEO, typically you have to be a TALL white man. Now, in tech, I could see there being a bias for large HEADED people of whatever gender or color, on the (unjustified) assumption that raw brain material volume would help. But surely, the distance from the ground said head is, can't have much to do with it! And yet, it's another 'meritocracy' fail.

AI will be a lot better at this sort of thing (while perhaps inventing its own meritocracy fails). But we're not there yet.

As for your example, it is not "strong evidence". Historical breakdown doesn't mean much since very few people were computer programmers at all back then. You can't extrapolate from that to the distribution of people who would become programmers decades later once it would be a super mainstream profession that a huge fraction of the population would enter.

Programming was a different affair too. You have to be much more detail-oriented to deal with punch cards and spaghetti goto code; this means fewer people get to be big-picture focused.

Going back a couple decades further, computers were huge halls where women did small calculations by hand; someone (Oppenheimer, Feynman or some such) did the big picture work and divvyed it up much like physicists now give Matlab or Fortran work to do.

Also, your second paragraph amusingly makes a different form of my argument for me (if you can't assume that the ratio at one point in time is indicative of general facts about qualification as a function of gender, you also can't assume that it is at a different point in time -- it may be that a decade or two from now there will be an order of magnitude more programmers!).

Sure, for example, boys being encouraged to become computer programmers. There's an article on NPR that discusses this[0]. Also, when you say "the process", I'm not sure you're adequately describing the evolution of programming and its related skillset demands. A strong increase in competition would naturally lower the ratio of women to men:

- time invested in programming correlates strongly with skill

- historically men have been able to put more time into careers than women(who often need a better work-life balance to manage a household).

- the historic SMAM[1](mean age at marriage) gives men an extra ~2-2.5 years over women even if you assume equal parenting responsibility, before men must also make parenting concessions.

[0] - http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-...

[1] - http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/worldmarriage/...

The only possible third alternative is "the women who were programmers at that time constituted most or all of all living women who were interested in programming", which reduces to "women aren't as interested in programming as men" which in turn reduces to being able to prove all sorts of known-false things by asserting that a forced lack of options (through social and legal discrimination) was in reality an innate "preference" of women in general for or against certain things.

You can have effects working both ways at once.

A lot of world-class woman scientists seem to wind up working in either brand-new or highly interdisciplinary areas; certainly statistically more than you would expect. I hypothesize that, based off my own (anecdotal) experience, this is (in part) because many of the major departments are eye-wateringly bigoted, sexist environments.

Male-dominated environments playing power games are, largely, pretty awful places and one of the power games which gets played a lot is sex discrimination up to sexual harassment. You see the kind of egregious shit you see in Silicon Valley just as frequently in academe. It's pretty awful.

I suspect – again, based off what I've seen and what I've heard from people who were there – something similar may have been going on in the early days of programming. When it was a wide-open new field, there was less in the way of straight-up power games because there wasn't wider societal prestige to be won. So it was more hospitable to out-groups than the other professions fishing in the same hiring pool, e.g. wider engineering and science. But then, over timer, perceived prestige came in, and with it came the status games you find everywhere perceived prestige is, and... vicious cycle.

Incidentally, for anyone who hasn't observed this kind of phenomenon before, this is pretty much how patriarchy works. Interlocking systems of power create perverse incentives which, in turn, reinforce those same systems.

As far as I'm concerned, speaking bluntly, these days there are people who get intersectional feminism and there are people who are just not paying attention to how things work. There's not much middle-ground.

I don't expect that to be a hugely popular viewpoint on HN, but, y'know, I'll live.

These things have their place and if you get lucky (unlucky?) you get a Steve Jobs or perhaps a Travis Kalanik or Jeff Bezos, and you get a predator culture where the company is galvanized to beat the other guys up. Or you get a collective culture where this behavior is all you want and the main thing to reward…

However, looking at it on the larger scale, the more open systems (say, the birth of the personal computer industry that produced a Jobs and Wozniak) could be seen as less competitive, more 'feminine' boom times where cooperation and networking weren't eclipsed by raw power. In those 'less male' times more overall progress was made and the foundations were laid for the big dick-swingin' companies that would come to dominate. Perhaps without times like that, you don't even get the Jobs and Bezos and Kalanik.

Pretty strong argument in favor of open development: though even that will inevitably find ways to turn competitive and be directed by the most dominant. But if the principle is one of extending a common body of understanding, that remains more broadly available.

And we can find drastically changes in gender distribution (and gender segregation) in multiple professions. Is those three choices, A, B, or C, the only possible reason for those? Data from Sweden say over 85% of women and 85% of men work in professions which has serious problem of gender segregation, a problem which only got worse in the last 100 years. Which of those tree choices explains why 1917 had less gender segregation in the work place than 2017?

And what happened since 1917 to 80% of the profession in the job market to cause half the population to suddenly get less status from being employed there?

(same account as roghee0I)

Then you have the wrong process in mind. AFAIK the breakdown of employees is very similar to the breakdown of graduates (and hence applicants). So there's no bias in hiring, all the bias is coming before (socio-economic status? personal choices?).

Principle of charity.

There is no charitable interpretation of this reflex.

The only possible way to interpret it is as a naked statement that groups currently disproportionately underrepresented in the industry, or at specific companies, are made up of inherently inferior people. Otherwise, a process which "hires the best" would hire more of them, and hiring more of them would not "lower the bar".

The intuition being expressed is as follows: Say you work at a factory, filling boxes of widgets. Widgets of varying quality stream past you, coming out of the widget stamper, such that you only have time to grab, on average, one widget out of every ten. Your job is to grab the best widgets you can spot, and put them into your bin. that's how the factory sorts widgets into different grades of quality. Further down the line, other failed startup founders toil away at other bins, snagging the ones you miss, from best to worst.

Most of the widgets are sort of a greyish mucky colour, but about one out of twelve will display a splash of original colour from the plastic that was recycled into widgets. You think nothing of it, but one day your pointy-haired manager comes and tells you that the "colourful" widgets are extra-popular and people are trading them. The company can sell boxes with at least 1/3 coloured widgets for ten times the price of regular widget boxes. Your job is now to ensure that at least one out of every three widgets that you grab is "colourful."

As a consequence, the average quality of widget in the boxes that you pack declines.

There are a lot of wrong and simplistic assumptions behind this understanding of "changing hiring processes." The knee-jerk assumption that doing that means implementing a naive quota system is not the least of these, but there are many others.

Furthermore, it is much more likely to be put forth by not-very-tactful people who have nothing to gain (and perhaps something to lose) extraneously, from greater workplace diversity; these are the people who are the most likely to both be sympathetic to, and express, views that seem at best borderline-racist.

This does not, however, mean that there is no charitable interpretation to the 'reflex' you are describing. It is not a cunning excuse to perpetuate *-ism in the workplace. It is what they believe to be a serious and valid objection to "changing hiring processes," as they understand it.

I do not think you are going to convince me that way.

  - 9,2% -- awesome, non-colourful
  - 0,8% -- awesome, colourful
  - 82% -- meh, non-colourful
  - 8% -- meh, colourful

  - 6,7% -- awesome, non-colourful
  - 0,8% -- awesome, colourful
  - 2,5% -- meh, colourful

I think that it's important to note, however, that the analogy functions without relying on any notion that the "colourful" widgets are inherently inferior. It was this point of your own that I was responding to.

Notion of diversity being a better metric than actual performance is makes sense only if you see companies as a vehicle for hiring, not a tool of delivering value.

[edit: sorry, i missed adding details about the low single digit percentage claim, updated that. Thanks zachrose for pointing it out]

"Have to" be represented sounds like it's a chore. There are many ways that people can be diverse, I wouldn't see the need to "stop". But if I had to think of a list I guess it would include:

Age

Race, gender and sexuality*

Nationality and/or experience being the Other

Favorite programming language

Economic background

Religious background

Languages spoken

Regional identity

Personality

Fashion, in a broad non-prescriptive sense

Promises vs. callbacks

I spend way, way, way more time working with my colleagues than I do directly determining the makeup of my firm. But I hold the thesis that diversity and success (particularly creative success) are correlated, and apply that thesis in deciding where to live and work.

* Particularly in the way that everybody forms their own person out of their genetics/biology and the surrounding society.

What evidence do you base this thesis on? Do you have examples of say, successful and racially diverse companies?

I'm guessing that you mean that many don't support the company's behaviour?

There were repeated points at which complaints could have been addressed.

A lack of diversity can be due to poor hiring practices or due to industry shortages. Either of these isn't the same as ignoring direct complaints of harassment. Your post reads like minimising the disgusting actions of Uber.

  > How do you feel about tech in general where diversity
  > is big issue. 

Why does some field need to mirror racial/whatever composition of the society? Are you concerned that NBA demobraphics does not represent general demographics?

A field that basically runs society should ideally mirror that society's composition. Diversity is healthy, particularly in an industry that attempts to combine creative and analytical thought inside multiple models of economic and political philosophy.

The fact women and non-white people are under-represented in our industry is a major problem for its long-term health.

"Software is eating the World". Put another way, "Ideas created by white men are eating the World, in a way that is fully automated and potentially oppressive." History suggests we should have a rethink before we go much further.

Fact 1: In the House of Representatives, women hold just 83 (19.1%) of the 435 seats. Fact 2: In the Senate, women hold just 21 (21%) of the 100 seats

Politics as a field disagrees. And it has been running like this for a long time, I guess?

One thing I don't get is that, when people talk about NBA, with very little Asian representation, they will gladly accept the fact that Asian men are, physically not as capable as African Americans, but freak out when it comes to the tech sector.

Isn't this hypocritical? Diversity is a good thing to have, but I don't think it is more essential than, software engineering skills, itself, when hiring a software engineer. Companies are not charity, they hire engineers because they need engineers. If the demographics of engineers reflect the overall demographics, diversity will come to companies naturally.

Maybe one should ask the right question how to educate more african/hispanic engineers, and Asian basketball players than trying to find them only when blame comes.

The problem here is that it is not necessarily talent / genes / physical characteristics that is the barrier here. I agree it is better to ask questions on what the gaps potentially are (and if they are fixable) rather than assign blame or feign outrage. I would caution in any genetic assumption, though, unless it is backed by really good data. One only has to point to the old discredited eugenics philosophy to show the dangers here.

From looking at the international community's CS graduation rate, there is a high degree of variability. 40% of Mexican CS graduates are women, and 10% of Switzerland CS graduates are women (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/th...). Googling, women as a percentage of graduates is even roughly at parity or even with women as a majority in certain countries (Malaysia and some Arab countries). Based on this, I would consider culture to be more of a dominant factor in explaining the current CS gap rather than anything genetic based.

Some of the issues that create a lack of diversity reflect current norms that, if adjusted, would in my opinion improve everyone's lives. For example, from what I've read, at least some of the gap regarding women achievement in the work force (in general) can be ascribed to a combination of work-family balance concerns, tradition (women "traditionally" run the household), and America's high pressure, "more hours" oriented work culture. This honestly doesn't sound like a bad thing to fix for men in the IT workforce, either.

No doubt. However, the same bar should be applied. What I read from the media seems suggest, companies should follow their command to increase diversity whatever it costs, otherwise it is racist/sexist and prepare to be attacked.

I don't agree with this. Because it makes software engineering as a job look easy. Those non-technical journalists seem to believe, company either intentionally choose not to hire minorities, or engineers can be mass produced in short time.

Neither is true, because if they are, we won't even discuss this problem. Look around, who is talking about Uber drivers' demographics? No one. The media adapts the false philosophy to trying to correct things from top-down, not bottom-up, because the former is an easy target. They have an AGENDA, and it is not really about fairness, it is about attacking others to gain power.

I honestly don't think that non-white and/or non-males are proportionally less able to think analytically than white males. I think that on average they have less education, and a culture that does not promote intellectual pursuit. Those are the things that need to change, and if you change that it should then flow through into programming.

What makes you so sure it's ok?

It's really for people who are involved with long-distance running and/or the NBA to figure that issue out, since they have the relevant background knowledge.

Programmers often have misconceptions about the level of concern for diversity in other fields. For example, a common trope is that no-one is worried about the fact that most nurses are women. But in fact people in the nursing profession are worried about this, and there are efforts to recruit more men.

I have a feeling that somewhere over on the NBA forum, someone is saying "but then why are 90% of programmers men, and why is that ok?"

If it doesn't, then it's pretty suggestive that there's a wider problem. Why do people from different backgrounds not enter that profession? Are they being discouraged somehow, and how can that be avoided?

Diversity is an self-evident good, in that multiple backgrounds and experiences result in a more well-rounded team. Trying to make sure you have that benefit is good sense.