Charles has the most thoughtful and appropriate response to a tweet from one of his employees in the link below. I will be posting this to reddit as well.
Charles already responded on the reddit forum under the topic Maelstrom.
That is the best blogpost i have read in a long time. I really enjoyed reading Axiom’s philosophy on society.
What a well thought out response. I really appreciate Charles’s view. It’s good to build on a strong foundation.
I have mixed feelings about this response.
Of course, as we’re not same. But, it does not mean that you, I or the others are right. The biggest mistake is to believe in that we the humans are collectively smart. We’re still those killer animals with the basic instinct that we were 10K yrs ago.
Either someone is wrong, partly right, or right, there is no in between - by definitions humans are not collectively smart, there are smart individuals, the collective is just a aggregate of average.
Perhaps you are just projecting here… but I think I know what you mean… I think… I mean homosapiens are quite civil. Higher intelligence and lower testosterone increases this (negatively correlated to a certain extent), which is why we are becoming increasingly more civil over time in a capitalistic society - where intelligence is a primary succeeding factor and eventually plays a determinating factor in reproduction and evolution.
Looking at your profile photo and your facial features (if that is you) it is also clear that you have been exposed to an above-average amount of testosterone during your youth which is likely to continue into later years both due to genetics and lifestyle. Looking at your posts in this forum you self-describe impulsive behavior and tend to look at things through a kill and survive lens. It also explains why you come from this viewpoint of humans being “killers, and run by basic instincts” since testosterone one of several primary inflators of these “features” and therefore likely you project from your own subjective experience of the world. Something to keep in mind, if you haven’t contemplated on this yourself.
And I do agree with you to a certain extent, that we are driven by primary instincts, though I would say that there are other drivers that you might not be taking into account, labeling the human race as basic killer animals as a whole is a far stretch.
You can easily find it out.
I would argue a bit on this, but in general yes, in these days the tendency is to prefer some other drivers than the caveman’s club and yes, some part of it is the intelligence. But, keep in mind the evolution is very-very slow.
Interesting, my wife had to study “Lombroso” and some others, but she has never come up w/ this.
I haven’t labelled the human race as anything, they labelled themselves hugely by the historical facts. Interestingly, I had some real-life experience (very interesting story form a 7-yr old boy’s point of view which has changed his whole life.) that confirms it (I know, I know).
Is good response.
The second I read “do not approve of quotas” – perfect – backing the right horse here.
Agreed, Charles’ response is very inspirational. However I think the more interesting aspect of this is how things like this will be handled once ADA is run by a DAO. While I personally don’t see any problem with the tweet, I can absolutely see how it could be on the edge of running afoul of some regulation somewhere.
Lets fast forward 10 years and a developer that gets paid by the treasury is looking to hire someone and says something like “only females with brown hair will be considered”. obviously this is not consistent with the vision Charles has for the organization, but how will issues like this, likely with much more nuanced edge cases, be resolved?
Are Charles’ blog posts going to be referenced as case law much like Satoshi’s white paper is referenced around disagreements how to manage Bitcoin? If there is discrimination and a subsequent lawsuit, what laws and jurisdiction apply? Or will the treasury punt on personnel issues and push all employment issues into businesses that are entities with jurisdictions?
I’m a bit new to this, but the deeper I get into Cardano and the vision, the more interesting and revolutionary this all becomes. Its a revolution in technology, money and governance all at the same time.
Can someone point me to where all this type of thing is getting hashed out in parallel with the technology development?
Charles is not relevant once we have the Governance system - Charles and IOHK are just a intermediary - Charles is the CEO of IOHK, not Cardano. Even though in reality, he is kinda the “Leader” as of now.
Charles mentioned someone else contracted them and managed to find the funds… I am not sure exactly who this group are… But the technical of it is kinda that IOHK have contracted themselves, which is a weird and new situation we have never seen in markets before.
Discriminating is a human right, just as you can discriminate who you let into your apartment and who you are friends with. Businesses are a private-property therefore must have the same rights. Employers are individuals. I dont have a problem with any form of Discrimination whatsoever in the free-market - but I do have a problem with people who have double standards. Just as Employees and Customers are free to discriminate against businesses and employers.
Discrimination of any kind other than monetary is bad for business, and simply wont exist to any serious degree (just as it doesn’t today)
The only party who legally should not be able to discriminate is government and public entities.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Your definitions of what types of entities can discriminate is useful for the dialog - although I think my questions are targeted at an abstraction above this related to just about any legal or moral issue.
Using your examples: If what we are making is a worldwide currency that may ultimately replace government issued fiat- then what responsibilities does that currency have to not discriminate? Does an entity that manages the currency (the DAO) have a responsibility to not discriminate just as you mention a government should not be able to discriminate (I think it does)? If so, how does that responsibility pass to entities and/or people that the dao/treasury may employ?
And the second part of this is - if the dao/treasury runs afoul of any laws somehow - who/what/how is that litigated?
I was thinking the same after reading that blog post
Charles’ response was not to the tweet from the employee. The response was to the reaction by investors who saw and shared the tweet. Hence the title.
That was an excellent response. People should be hired on merit without discrimination. Nobody should be hired to fill a PC quota. I am on the liberal side of center but am also dismayed by University students trying to silence conservative speakers. That is despicable. I liked the analogy to silencing revolutionary ideas like a heliocentric solar system and evolution. The far left social warriors are getting out of control. I do not agree with the views of Brendan Eich ( the creator of Java ) but he should not have been hunted down because of them. He left Mozilla, which he co-created, because he was being harassed for his views on gay marriage.
Just FYI in case anyone else follows this thread. This paper provides a framework around questions like the ones I raised. Specifically section 1.7 on norms and ethics and section 2.2 related to structures to manage http://www.longfinance.net/images/Responsibility_Without_Power.pdf
Can someone pass me the link to that employee tweet… couldn’t find.
Reserving/recruiting on biases are stupid. I do not want be part of any org which recruits it’s employees based on gender. Glad to see Charles’s response.
“always hire the most qualified person for the job”
This says everything and didnt bother to read the rest as that was all i needed to hear.
What politicians, woman’s rights organisations and all the gender equality movements in the world simply does not get is this: Be it board quatoas (i.e. Germany wft), senior management or specialist diversity the “feeder roles” or “second layer” does (for the most part) not have the necessary “supply” of woman candidates either. It was (is) like that in my old company and it is the same in my current company. I can only imagine what a cryptography session at MIT looks like.
I can totally understand a woman in department dominated by men expressing her concerns and i would do the same if i was the only guy in a woman dominated department. Diversity (and gender diversity) is great and I endorse it when it’s possible. It can be an attribute for the individual and the team dynamic but never a compromise.
It got removed. The main problem (in my view) is that they wrote “IOHK would be especially glad to hire more members of LGBTQ” when they meant something like “I would be glad if more members of LGBTQ was working in IOHK”. The wish is understandable and fair from a personal point of view, but when you imply it as an official standpoint of a legal entity (IOHK) - that’s where problems come from.
Darryl herself, tho, is an outstanding specialist in her field (Languages, Type theory), her work on Plutus is extremely valuable and appreciated by all of us. And we may be doubly sure that she works in IOHK only because of her immeasurable professionalism, skills, and knowledge, and not as a representative of a certain group. And I certainly may understand and respect her wish to see more different people around her to be hired based on the same principles of professionalism, skill, and knowledge. Imo, tweet just got tangled in awkward wording and present social context. I would imagine it should mean something like:
“IOHK hires best professionals it can find. And if you feel that you’re one them - come and try your luck. And be sure that your professionalism, skill, and knowledge are main and only things that will be considered. So if anyone feels shy or insecure applying to a position because of some previous experience with other companies - be sure that IOHK will not use anything else, but your abilities as a specialist, as a reason to either hire or NOT hire you.”