Reading the so called 'anti-diversity manifesto' by a (ex?)-Googler and some of the commentary on it I can't help but feel that the gender equality debate is 20 years behind the one in Scandinavia. Because while the author of the manifesto took a wrong turn in his attempts at explaining things in the context of genetics etc., many of his proposed solutions are generally adopted by Scandinavian feminists these days. In general the experience from Scandinavia is that creating rules and systems that allows women and men to not have to choose between a successful career and having children is a very effective way to increase female workforce participation and allow women better careers. And the men part here is just as important, because having husbands able to take part in the caring for a couples children is also a major enabler for women in the workplace.

Of course setting up a system with good maternity and paternity leave options, good fullday child care options and a decent work/life balance, is a lot harder and more expensive than hiring someone to be your Chief Diversity Officer to talk flowery about diversity in the workplace while the company perpetuates a culture where the only path to success is a 80 hour workweek. Not specifically aimed at the person in that role at Google, I have no knowledge of what that person specifically does, more the general thing that I sometime feel happens where a company hire someone, put diversity in their title, then use having that person as a way of waving the flag of being a leader in diversity, while in reality the impact on fixing the structural issues in society actually causing these things is negligible.

That said, I don't think that this is a problem very suitable to be solved on a per company basis, because some things like this and health care you don't want someone to try to be more competitive and offer lower pricing by not having for their employees.

A small blog post about some noteworthy items in Fedora Workstation 26 :)

Republican politicians like Ted Cruz like to say the 2nd amendment is there to help protect americans against government tyranny.

Well now that we had this madman James T. Hodgkinson use that logic and decided to fight what he perceived as the tyranny of Trump and started shooting at people like Representative Scalise to me it seems clear how untenable that idea really is. Unless you actually think that having individuals deciding its time to start shooting policemen and politicians is just a healthy way to express dissent and protect us all from government tyranny.

A something little different this time, but I been pondering this for quite a while and thought the time had come to share.

Red Hat Graphics team looking for another engineer!

Want to run Wayland on the NVidia binary driver?

Welcoming Ubuntu to GNOME and Wayland