By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Many Google employees disagree with the firing of the memo writer

Men dominate many fields of work, but largely on an outdated premise IMO. In the past the man generally had to hunt for food and the woman would stay home to take care of children.

That basically has meant men were the majority workforce. However today:

1.) We don't have to hunt for food. We don't even farm for our own food any more.

2.) Most households need two incomes to be able to live a comfortable life, as such women don't grow up anymore just assuming they can get pregnant and it's mission accomplished. Women are more career oriented and it's no just a feminist type thing, it's a reality of living in the world today. A woman can't assume she can be a housewife, what happens if he husband is not making enough money? What happens in a divorce?

So an influx of women into fields that previously would've been fairly male-only or male-centric is natural. The world doesn't need that many women working at a salon or whatever "people friendly" job some men would deem "women centric". Also does a female librarian not work with "things", how does she ever cope with such extreme "stress", lol. There are differences between men and women, but mainly that applies to extremely physical fields. Perhaps fields like construction will generally be dominated by men ... but office jobs where you sit in front of a computer? The men at Google (this guy in particular) looks like he couldn't bench press a bag of salt. 

Even the gender specific slants we put on "things" ... are some of them even true today? I.E.: "Computers are for boys" ... uh ... yeah maybe if you're living in 1989. In 2017, women are the central driver of the biggest computer platform (smart phones), a platform that has overtaken Windows as the no.1 global operating system (something unthinkable 10-15 years ago). This generation of kids who are just growing up aren't really going to have that same outlook on things. 



Around the Network
Soundwave said:

Men dominate many fields of work, but largely on an outdated premise IMO. In the past the man generally had to hunt for food and the woman would stay home to take care of children.

This basically has meant that men work, women stay home, but it's an outdated concept in a world wherein:

1.) We don't have to hunt for food. We don't even farm for our own food any more.

2.) Most households need two incomes to be able to live a comfortable life, as such women don't grow up anymore just assuming they can get pregnant and it's mission accomplished. Women are more career oriented and it's no just a feminist type thing, it's a reality of living in the world today. A woman can't assume she can be a housewife, what happens if he husband is not making enough money? What happens in a divorce?

So an influx of women into fields that previously would've been fairly male-only or male-centric is natural. The world doesn't need that many women working at a salon or whatever "people friendly" job some men would deem "women centric". Also does a female librarian not work with "things", how does she ever cope with such extreme "stress", lol. There are differences between men and women, but mainly that applies to extremely physical fields. Perhaps fields like construction will generally be dominated by men ... but office jobs where you sit in front of a computer? The men at Google (this guy in particular) looks like he couldn't bench press a bag of salt. 

It doesn't matter where the world needs women in the way you put it. No one decides that. Women choose for themselves what fields they want their career in or if they want to be some housewife or go off on some adventure.

What happens if women just don't like certain types of careers or prefer certain types over others? Wouldn't there be some kind of skew in employment rates of women with those types of jobs if that was the case? 

Isn't whether they can do the career they want to or not, the more important part about this? If there's a barrier or not?

If there's no barriers to get into a career, does it really matter how many women or men work in it? Fuck no. The goal isn't to create an artificial diversity but to make sure there's no barriers for anyone to gain entry in a career they want. 

Why isn't there more female roofers? Because they don't like it or want it as a job. Why isn't there more female scientists? Because they don't like it or want it as a job. 



Aeolus451 said:
Soundwave said:

Men dominate many fields of work, but largely on an outdated premise IMO. In the past the man generally had to hunt for food and the woman would stay home to take care of children.

This basically has meant that men work, women stay home, but it's an outdated concept in a world wherein:

1.) We don't have to hunt for food. We don't even farm for our own food any more.

2.) Most households need two incomes to be able to live a comfortable life, as such women don't grow up anymore just assuming they can get pregnant and it's mission accomplished. Women are more career oriented and it's no just a feminist type thing, it's a reality of living in the world today. A woman can't assume she can be a housewife, what happens if he husband is not making enough money? What happens in a divorce?

So an influx of women into fields that previously would've been fairly male-only or male-centric is natural. The world doesn't need that many women working at a salon or whatever "people friendly" job some men would deem "women centric". Also does a female librarian not work with "things", how does she ever cope with such extreme "stress", lol. There are differences between men and women, but mainly that applies to extremely physical fields. Perhaps fields like construction will generally be dominated by men ... but office jobs where you sit in front of a computer? The men at Google (this guy in particular) looks like he couldn't bench press a bag of salt. 

It doesn't matter where the world needs women in the way you put it. No one decides that. Women choose for themselves what fields they want their career in or if they want to be some housewife or go off on some adventure.

What happens if women just don't like certain types of careers or prefer certain types over others? Wouldn't there be some kind of skew in employment rates of women with those types of jobs if that was the case? 

Isn't whether they can do the career they want to or not, the more important part about this? If there's a barrier or not?

If there's no barriers to get into a career, does it really matter how many women or men work in it? Fuck no. The goal isn't to create an artificial diversity but to make sure there's no barriers for anyone to gain entry in a career they want. 

Why isn't there more female roofers? Because they don't like it or want it as a job. Why isn't there more female scientists? Because they don't like it or want it as a job. 

First of all, women are not some singular monolithic group, just as men aren't. Some women may like working in one field, others may be fine working somewhere else. 

There aren't many women in many fields yet for reasons I stated above ... traditionally men have dominated most working classes because they were the only working class period. That doesn't work anymore for most households.

Women are just now being integrated into a lot more work enivronments and that will continue to accelerate over the next 20-30 years. There are only so many jobs for "daycare workers" and "salon workers" ... women are going to move into fields that typically would be associated with men. Some guys can have a Ron Burgandy esque hissy fit over that, but I don't think it's changes that from happening.  

And the computer industry is likely one of them. It isn't a physically demanding field like construction work might be. In general manual labor jobs are going the way of the dodo to begin with. Computers themselves have changed as well, no longer is the computer domain of men, women are a driving force in the adoption of computer technology, as such it only makes sense that companies would seek to hire more women as it is a lead demographic for their products/services. 

Here's a study that shows 63% of women prefer their smartphones (a computer) over their partner:

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016/10/13/study-women-prefer-their-smartphone-to-their-partner/

The days of the computer being domain of the nerdy guy who sits infront of a giant tower PC are coming to a close but that stigma has existed in the past ("computers are for boys"). Today the definition of what a computer is has shifted. As a computer company I would be looking to hire more women, sure, not on the basis on a quota perhaps, but because a huge portion (perhaps even a majority) of my revenue base is women, if they are a leading consumer group, then sure I want them involved in the design process. 



Soundwave said:
Aeolus451 said:

It doesn't matter where the world needs women in the way you put it. No one decides that. Women choose for themselves what fields they want their career in or if they want to be some housewife or go off on some adventure.

What happens if women just don't like certain types of careers or prefer certain types over others? Wouldn't there be some kind of skew in employment rates of women with those types of jobs if that was the case? 

Isn't whether they can do the career they want to or not, the more important part about this? If there's a barrier or not?

If there's no barriers to get into a career, does it really matter how many women or men work in it? Fuck no. The goal isn't to create an artificial diversity but to make sure there's no barriers for anyone to gain entry in a career they want. 

Why isn't there more female roofers? Because they don't like it or want it as a job. Why isn't there more female scientists? Because they don't like it or want it as a job. 

First of all, women are not some singular monolithic group, just as men aren't. Some women may like working in one field, others may be fine working somewhere else. 

There aren't many women in many fields yet for reasons I stated above ... traditionally men have dominated most working classes because they were the only working class period. That doesn't work anymore for most households.

Women are just now being integrated into a lot more work enivronments and that will continue to accelerate over the next 20-30 years. There are only so many jobs for "daycare workers" and "salon workers" ... women are going to move into fields that typically would be associated with men. Some guys can have a Ron Burgandy esque hissy fit over that, but I don't think it's changes that from happening.  

And the computer industry is likely one of them. It isn't a physically demanding field like construction work might be. In general manual labor jobs are going the way of the dodo to begin with. Computers themselves have changed as well, no longer is the computer domain of men, women are a driving force in the adoption of computer technology, as such it only makes sense that companies would seek to hire more women as it is a lead demographic for their products/services. 

Here's a study that shows 63% of women prefer their smartphones (a computer) over their partner:

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016/10/13/study-women-prefer-their-smartphone-to-their-partner/

The days of the computer being domain of the nerdy guy who sits infront of a giant tower PC are coming to a close but that stigma has existed in the past ("computers are for boys"). Today the definition of what a computer is has shifted. As a computer company I would be looking to hire more women, sure, not on the basis on a quota perhaps, but because a huge portion (perhaps even a majority) of my revenue base is women, if they are a leading consumer group, then sure I want them involved in the design process. 

ugh. The floodgates have been open for a while. If alot of women wanted to work as IT or software programmer, they could. There's no barriers. Women work where they want to work in general like anyone else. 

You're really reaching for the bottom of the barrell if you're going for smartphones stats. You forgot something about smartphones. Their main function is it allows you to communicate with other people over distances and with little to no lag. Didn't that memo mention something about women liking things to do with people more than men?

No one is saying that women shouldn't or couldn't do these kinds of jobs. A portion of them just don't care for some types of jobs because some of the cons don't suit them well personally or the demands of it are too much.  It's the same way the other way around.



Aeolus451 said:
Soundwave said:

First of all, women are not some singular monolithic group, just as men aren't. Some women may like working in one field, others may be fine working somewhere else. 

There aren't many women in many fields yet for reasons I stated above ... traditionally men have dominated most working classes because they were the only working class period. That doesn't work anymore for most households.

Women are just now being integrated into a lot more work enivronments and that will continue to accelerate over the next 20-30 years. There are only so many jobs for "daycare workers" and "salon workers" ... women are going to move into fields that typically would be associated with men. Some guys can have a Ron Burgandy esque hissy fit over that, but I don't think it's changes that from happening.  

And the computer industry is likely one of them. It isn't a physically demanding field like construction work might be. In general manual labor jobs are going the way of the dodo to begin with. Computers themselves have changed as well, no longer is the computer domain of men, women are a driving force in the adoption of computer technology, as such it only makes sense that companies would seek to hire more women as it is a lead demographic for their products/services. 

Here's a study that shows 63% of women prefer their smartphones (a computer) over their partner:

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016/10/13/study-women-prefer-their-smartphone-to-their-partner/

The days of the computer being domain of the nerdy guy who sits infront of a giant tower PC are coming to a close but that stigma has existed in the past ("computers are for boys"). Today the definition of what a computer is has shifted. As a computer company I would be looking to hire more women, sure, not on the basis on a quota perhaps, but because a huge portion (perhaps even a majority) of my revenue base is women, if they are a leading consumer group, then sure I want them involved in the design process. 

ugh. The floodgates have been open for a while. If alot of women wanted to work as IT or software programmer, they could. There's no barriers. Women work where they want to work in general like anyone else. 

You're really reaching for the bottom of the barrell if you're going for smartphones stats. You forgot something about smartphones. Their main function is it allows you to communicate with other people over distances and with little to no lag. Didn't that memo mention something about women liking things to do with people more than men?

No one is saying that women shouldn't or couldn't do these kinds of jobs. A portion of them just don't care for some types of jobs because some of the cons don't suit them well personally or the demands of it are too much.  It's the same way the other way around.

And a "another portion" of women may find they quite enjoy working in tech fields once the stigma of those jobs being "only for men" is lifted. That could just as easily happen too. Newspaper and magazine industries used to be dominated by men, so was photography. Today no one bats an eye lash at a woman in those jobs. 

The fact of the matter is if it's women that are a huge consumer for the modern computer and modern computing services, and the modern computer's primary feature today is indeed social, then to me it just stands to reason it probably doesn't hurt to encourage the hiring of more women to help develop and design future devices/services as well. 



Around the Network
Soundwave said:
DonFerrari said:

Someone could arguee that he said they were inferior. But he were talking more about difference in interest and not in capacity, and that the capability distribution of the male and female population are different but there is a very big overlap. So in a way even arguing he said women are inferior he didn't said all women are inferior to men. It would be like a female could be better than any male and vice-versa at something, but on the average population men are better with math and woman are better at team work and things like that. But that hiring anyone based on the steriotype would be dumb, same on policies, each of those would need to look at each individual person traits. But aknowledging the differences between people and groups they could tailor better their diversity driver in a way that would attract more individuals of that group they want without having to make discrimination.

Like, if a reason for females to not thrive to CEO positions or engineering is the long hours and stress, allow someone to be part-time engineer without discrimination, take a little of the burden of the CEO so that a mother can have the position without leaving the childs behind, etc.

Women can't handle stress huh? I'd like to see a man take four hours to push a baby out of his asshole and see how cool he is under pressure, lol. How many men can deal with a baby yelling in their face for 20+ hours a day? I'd say working in an office is child's play compared to that. 

To be honest too the math thing is not really my experience, in my experience the girls in my junior high and high school classes often scored higher in math. White males ironically were actually probably the lowest testing group. 

A lot of these studies are not conclusive. IMO most of this stuff is because of cultural issues, girls are pushed very hard to like certain types of things from a young age, as are boys, but if you reversed that I would say in many fields you would probably see a flip. 

I believe you already got your answer on stress so I won't go there.

You take your opinion and your personal experience as statistics so it's useless to point how wrong you are... unless I would decide to say women are dumb because I had better grades than any female in my high school IN EVERY SINGLE SUBJECT.

Stop pushing your opinion as fact. The very single fact point in the memo that on almost ALL countries the same phenomenon is observable through out history shows that it isn't simply a cultural thing. Each country is very different from one another, but most of them will have several similarities that comes from the real standard for people from biological level. Like murder not being condoned, about any place you go they only accept that or honor that in case of war or defense, but there isn't any significant culture that support killing of your own family.

Soundwave said:
nanorazor said:
Google should have gave a proper warning instead.

The damage was done. Other female employees were already complaining that they didn't want to work with him and that's fair on their part IMO. 

If you're a white man, would you want to work alongside someone who believes you to be biologically inferior and easily rattled by stress? Probably not. 

Even if Google has to settle out of court it's easily worth it to prevent more spread of poor PR ... they are a company that makes products after all that are used by a lot of women (go figure) and that kind of toxic PR would've likely led to a boycott of their products/services if Google did not act. And that is the free market. People can vote with their wallets, and when over 50% of the marketplace is women, you better bet your ass that group carries a lot of sway. 

Yep the stress of a memo is so big you have to take the day off.

Well I'm sure there are a lot of women here in the company that think I'm inferior than then just by being a man and all that "potential hapist" as well. I still come to work and don't ask them to be fired.

That only shows people doesn't understand thing, aren't accepting freedom of speech and only reacts without any understanding in knee-jerk.

Soundwave said:
StarDoor said:

Red herring fallacy. Women aren't constantly giving birth throughout their entire lives, so it really has no bearing on anyone's average ability to handle stress. Especially as childbirth is female-exclusive and a necessity for any species' continued existence. Obviously women are biologically equipped to handle that, otherwise the species would die off. Why not compare stressful situations that women and men actually experience?

To be honest too the math thing is not really my experience, in my experience the girls in my junior high and high school classes often scored higher in math. White males ironically were actually probably the lowest testing group. 

A lot of these studies are not conclusive. IMO most of this stuff is because of cultural issues, girls are pushed very hard to like certain types of things from a young age, as are boys, but if you reversed that I would say in many fields you would probably see a flip. 

It seems you have issues in separating individuals from averages, hence your reliance on anecdotes.

In reality, the statement "men, on average, are better at math than women" is supported by statistical evidence:
http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/2013/TotalGroup-2013.pdf

Whether you look at SAT, ACT, PISA, or any other standardized test, males do better in the math section. In the SAT data, we can see that the gap has been a little over 30 points for the past 40 years. This difference is even more pronouced at the higher ends, because females have a slightly smaller standard deviation, meaning that their scores are more concentrated around the average, with less at the very high or very low levels of performance. For example, while there are 90 males for every 100 females in the 500-590 range (slightly above average,) there are 165 males for every 100 females who scored 700 or above.

I'm not even sure why you brought up race at all, as no one was discussing that. Was that supposed to be a "Take that!" against white guys or something? In any case, your anecdotes go against the actual data which show that white males score the third highest of any group, only behind Asian males and Asian females.

The studies are only inconclusive to people who feel threatened by the conclusions.

Once again, you conflate individuals with collectives. Either you did not read the memo at all, or you did not understand its contents. Human traits occur in a bell curve distribution, so there will be significant overlap even if group averages are different. This is why people should be judged as individuals rather than as groups. Of course, the author barely even mentioned abilities at all, and merely commented on the differences in personality and interests that could lead to differing outcomes, so your nonsense about anyone being "biologically inferior" is just purposeful mischaracterization of the argument.

Pretty sure he citied things like women not being able to cope with stress and other factors. The bottom line is this ... this guy might be able to program but he's not socially the brightest bulb in the pack. 

Unless he wants to work at a gay club or plans to immigrate to Saudi Arabia, maybe it should have dawned on him that he probably would have to work alongside women, and such a memo likely wasn't going to be a big hit with the women he'd have to work with making him a corporate liability plain and simple. 

Nope he didn't said women can't cope. He said they are less willing to cope with stress just to get the status of the top positions, since you know, there are options to those carreers that may please them a lot more.

So should we fire all left-wing people on a company that think people on the right are facists, heartless, egotistics, money hungry people? Because that is on a much personal and direct form. Because you see, saying only left wing are good people and that EVERY right wing is bad is a lot more direct attack than saying women in general are less interested in that work which doesn't mean their females coworkers aren't, but that several women that aren't there just aren't because they don't really want it.

Soundwave said:
Slimebeast said:

You still seem to have problems with understanding differences on the group level versus the individual level.

If Damore claims that the underrepresentation of women at Google is largely explained by the fact that women on average are being less interested in things versus people, and are less competitive and assertive than men are on average, why should women who work there feel attacked as individuals?

And are you truly so dogmatic that you refuse to believe that women could be more prone than men are to neuroticism and to certain forms of stress?

What I found most HILARIOUS about this entire Google "anti-diversity" memo hysteria.....is when all those precious, snowflake types couldn't go to work that day! The memo was "violence", so they had to avoid work. If that isn't NEUROTIC and not being able to handle "stress" (in this case, the ONLY person under stress was the guy who was unjustly fired, HELLO!), I don't know what it.  Absolutely priceless.

Those are pretty vague comments. I'd say the "stress" of working in a fucking office is pretty tame compared to the stress of pushing a baby out of your vagina, or having a screaming todler in your face for 18 hours a day, but that's just a wild guess. I think women can cope with stress just fine, probably moreso than men in many differing ways honestly.

But lets base it all on a study on toddlers who stared about objects for a seconds? 

There is no definitive "study" that shows one way or the other, it's more likely in my opinion that a lot of our gender roles are simply culturally based. If you had an island where you raised 50 kids and you highly incentivized work with computers for women and hair styling for men, I think women would probably domiante the computer field in that scenario. It's not neccessarily anything to do with genetics. If testoreone is the key then why do the highest testoreone men tend to avoid "nerdy" jobs like computer programming like the plague. These are mostly cultural constructs and since the culture is changing (and it always is and always will continue to do so) so too can business culture. 

In any case, this dude basically killed his career since he likely can't be hired by any high profile company in his field now without controversey and no corporation needs that bullshit. 

You keep with you "my opinion contradicts studies".

Why don't you try the case of a boy that suffered mutilation on the penis when he was a toodler and the psycologist oriented the family to raise him as a girl and see how much the forcefull upbring was inneficient on changing the interest and biology of the boy.

And it's funny that we are so fast to accept that male are genetically stronger on phisicall level than women and that black are above white and asian on phisical also on genetic level... but it is totally unaceptable that there may be inteligence and capability differences between groups on genetical level as well.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Soundwave said:
DonFerrari said:

Someone could arguee that he said they were inferior. But he were talking more about difference in interest and not in capacity, and that the capability distribution of the male and female population are different but there is a very big overlap. So in a way even arguing he said women are inferior he didn't said all women are inferior to men. It would be like a female could be better than any male and vice-versa at something, but on the average population men are better with math and woman are better at team work and things like that. But that hiring anyone based on the steriotype would be dumb, same on policies, each of those would need to look at each individual person traits. But aknowledging the differences between people and groups they could tailor better their diversity driver in a way that would attract more individuals of that group they want without having to make discrimination.

Like, if a reason for females to not thrive to CEO positions or engineering is the long hours and stress, allow someone to be part-time engineer without discrimination, take a little of the burden of the CEO so that a mother can have the position without leaving the childs behind, etc.

Women can't handle stress huh? I'd like to see a man take four hours to push a baby out of his asshole and see how cool he is under pressure, lol. How many men can deal with a baby yelling in their face for 20+ hours a day? I'd say working in an office is child's play compared to that. 

To be honest too the math thing is not really my experience, in my experience the girls in my junior high and high school classes often scored higher in math. White males ironically were actually probably the lowest testing group. 

A lot of these studies are not conclusive. IMO most of this stuff is because of cultural issues, girls are pushed very hard to like certain types of things from a young age, as are boys, but if you reversed that I would say in many fields you would probably see a flip. 

What your talking about is more pain than stress. Having a baby is stressful but running a company is a stress that is with you 24/7. I know because I've hard slightly stressful jobs and I decided to leave because I'm not bout that life. You just stay up thinking about it and everything like that. It's not like that for women while pregnant. It is stressful don't get me wrong but it's not a 24/7 stress, then during birth that's more pain than stress. Which it's been shown women have higher pain tolerance apparently.

The math thing has been proven and is done. It's like trying to argue for a flat earth. HS doesn't represent the top levels of math. At the very top men exceed women in general.

They actually did a study on this and it's not cultural at all. Even male monkeys choose to play with trucks and cars over dolls. It's been shown across the board that being a man or women just naturally leads you in one direction. I honestly thought it was weird that people always blamed culture for this sort of stuff. Just seems so obvious it's the difference between men and women. To me people just aren't that "sheepish" that we can be controlled like that IMO. 



Google code jam 2017 - almost 2 decades of this programmimg competition, no woman has made to the finals. The truth is, there are much more nerdy men than nerdy women, this is why the tech sector will always be dominated by men.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/13/google-code-jam-finalists-are-all-men-for-14th-year-in-a-row/



method114 said:
Soundwave said:

Women can't handle stress huh? I'd like to see a man take four hours to push a baby out of his asshole and see how cool he is under pressure, lol. How many men can deal with a baby yelling in their face for 20+ hours a day? I'd say working in an office is child's play compared to that. 

To be honest too the math thing is not really my experience, in my experience the girls in my junior high and high school classes often scored higher in math. White males ironically were actually probably the lowest testing group. 

A lot of these studies are not conclusive. IMO most of this stuff is because of cultural issues, girls are pushed very hard to like certain types of things from a young age, as are boys, but if you reversed that I would say in many fields you would probably see a flip. 

What your talking about is more pain than stress. Having a baby is stressful but running a company is a stress that is with you 24/7. I know because I've hard slightly stressful jobs and I decided to leave because I'm not bout that life. You just stay up thinking about it and everything like that. It's not like that for women while pregnant. It is stressful don't get me wrong but it's not a 24/7 stress, then during birth that's more pain than stress. Which it's been shown women have higher pain tolerance apparently.

The math thing has been proven and is done. It's like trying to argue for a flat earth. HS doesn't represent the top levels of math. At the very top men exceed women in general.

They actually did a study on this and it's not cultural at all. Even male monkeys choose to play with trucks and cars over dolls. It's been shown across the board that being a man or women just naturally leads you in one direction. I honestly thought it was weird that people always blamed culture for this sort of stuff. Just seems so obvious it's the difference between men and women. To me people just aren't that "sheepish" that we can be controlled like that IMO. 

There was a program in Brazil trying to show that imposing play styles to boy and girls were due to culture...

So they mixed all toys and put infants to choose their toys... most boys got the boyish stuff and girls the girlie ones...

It's a well know thing that man will play things involving power, domination and things like that (other baby mammal males do the same) while girls will play colaborative or raising family stuff. People try too much to deny hormones and genetics.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Google logic: "50% of users of apps these days are women, wouldn't it make sense for 50% of the developers to be women?"



As answers said, according to this logic:

* 100% of the people who get pregnant and menstruate are women so all gynecologist and sanitary napkin factory workers should be women too.
* Women produce 50% of the waste so 50% of waste collectors should be women too.

 

It seems Google want to force women to the tech sector even with the majority of the nerds being men (Google Code Jam finalists tell it).