Do you not understand that these are not comparable things? Your position is that no one in tech is generally ill-served by the system, which is backed up by your own personal experience. I've shared with you the fact that I've seen many examples of people ill-served by the system. That is a direct counter-example against your position, and as such invalidates your claim.
The only way it doesn't is if I'm lying. Are you calling me a liar? Or are you just too narrow-minded to imagine that there are experiences outside of the bubble you live in?
Are you claiming that my experiences and observations are too narrow and un-representative of the industry whereas yours are more general and representative? By what basis do you make that claim?
Edit: Evaluate it from a logical perspective. There are two hypotheses: that iniquity in hiring in tech don't exist, and that they do exist and are somewhat common. Then evaluate the "evidence". On the one hand we have your experience, where you've seen a lack of iniquity, on the other we have mine, where I've seen plenty of examples of iniquity. And we have the example I gave of other observations of iniquity, and the evidence from the article for this whole discussion, which also highlights examples of iniquity. If iniquity was common, we would still expect some situations where it was locally uncommon, especially among people of similar cultural/socio-economic backgrounds, so you would not expect a complete absence of perspectives like yours, you'd expect a mix of perspectives. If iniquity was uncommon, you'd expect that there would be very few perspectives with examples of iniquity. The only way the evidence in front of us makes sense under that hypothesis is if I'm a unicorn with utterly unusual and unique experiences, as are the examples from the article and from the sources I've brought up. That is a much less intellectually tenable position, to claim that all of the evidence against your favored hypothesis doesn't matter because it's all outliers or otherwise unreprestantive. Meanwhile, how do you explain the statistics which show that there are systematic iniquities in the system? How do you explain the countless stories with examples of people who have been ill-served by the system as it exists? Your claim seems to be incredibly weak and based on nothing more than a refusal to accept that anything outside of your own personal experience is real or important.
Read it again, they are not the same. You are claiming that my observations don't exist. I'm not claiming that your observations aren't true, I'm saying that my observations are still true. If we combine our observations together they are consistent much more with my hypothesis (that iniquity in the industry is common) than with yours (that it almost doesn't exist at all).
By what basis do you claim that my observations are so extremely unrepresentative of the industry that they should be dismissed? I'm not dismissing your observations, you're dismissing mine. Why?
My basis is that it's extremely difficult to hire good developers. They can pick and choose where they work. I've literally never seen a good developer struggle to succeed in 15+ years in the industry. Successful devs come from all backgrounds as well.
The only way it doesn't is if I'm lying. Are you calling me a liar? Or are you just too narrow-minded to imagine that there are experiences outside of the bubble you live in?
Are you claiming that my experiences and observations are too narrow and un-representative of the industry whereas yours are more general and representative? By what basis do you make that claim?
Edit: Evaluate it from a logical perspective. There are two hypotheses: that iniquity in hiring in tech don't exist, and that they do exist and are somewhat common. Then evaluate the "evidence". On the one hand we have your experience, where you've seen a lack of iniquity, on the other we have mine, where I've seen plenty of examples of iniquity. And we have the example I gave of other observations of iniquity, and the evidence from the article for this whole discussion, which also highlights examples of iniquity. If iniquity was common, we would still expect some situations where it was locally uncommon, especially among people of similar cultural/socio-economic backgrounds, so you would not expect a complete absence of perspectives like yours, you'd expect a mix of perspectives. If iniquity was uncommon, you'd expect that there would be very few perspectives with examples of iniquity. The only way the evidence in front of us makes sense under that hypothesis is if I'm a unicorn with utterly unusual and unique experiences, as are the examples from the article and from the sources I've brought up. That is a much less intellectually tenable position, to claim that all of the evidence against your favored hypothesis doesn't matter because it's all outliers or otherwise unreprestantive. Meanwhile, how do you explain the statistics which show that there are systematic iniquities in the system? How do you explain the countless stories with examples of people who have been ill-served by the system as it exists? Your claim seems to be incredibly weak and based on nothing more than a refusal to accept that anything outside of your own personal experience is real or important.