Re:Google Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men as It Addresses Wa...
by LatteLazy on Sunday May 23, 2021 @10:59AM
(#27255416)
That's fine, but it tells you very little about Google because N and n are both informative and you cancelled them out.
It's entirely possible that only 1 man and 3 (3.1) women are underpaid. That would make Google about the fairest employer in the history of the world despite being 3.1 times more likely to under pay women.
On the other hand every woman could be underpaid AND a third of all the men. That would be terrible (and profitable).
Which is it? 3.1 doesn't tell you. So it's not useful. At best it's noise, at worst it's deceptive.
I'll leave you with your 3.1 and I don't object to the mathematics above so much as the logic underlying them. I don't think it's fair for someone to be down voted without explanation so at least you know the "other side" :)
It's entirely possible that only 1 man and 3 (3.1) women are underpaid. That would make Google about the fairest employer in the history of the world despite being 3.1 times more likely to under pay women.
On the other hand every woman could be underpaid AND a third of all the men. That would be terrible (and profitable).
Which is it? 3.1 doesn't tell you. So it's not useful. At best it's noise, at worst it's deceptive.
I'll leave you with your 3.1 and I don't object to the mathematics above so much as the logic underlying them. I don't think it's fair for someone to be down voted without explanation so at least you know the "other side" :)