Great news. Might finally be able to delete skype! I really have to wonder why it took them so long though.

Now you are just relabeling stuff like communication skills as culture fit. How you used 'diversity' to mean fitting into a culture is beyond me. 'We have a diverse culture, everyone better fit in, or else'!!!

It can also nicely hide ageism, racism, sexism, conservatism, liberalism etc. Basically any reason to not like a person.

Whatever the people think of these -isms being bad, I am convinced that a person has a sort of right to not having to deal with people he doesn't like.

Not in the us, not as an employee of a corporation. If you don't like someone because they are in a protected class, you just have to deal with it.

'Brown people' hospitals will just raise prices if they know patients have 'white people' funds. So this has the potential to make medical care inaccessible to those not having 'proper connections' to 'white people'.

Watsi is only used in extraordinary cases. (Otherwise they would have plenty of patients for people to fund.) I doubt that the money they're pouring into 'Brown people' hospitals is even a dent in their total volume of revenue.

IIRC, the patients aren't even told Watsi is an option until a doctor on the ground identifies them as a potential candidate.

Feel free to enlighten us. Men everywhere await with bated breaths.

Marissa Mayer is apparently famous for not being a feminist and for wearing Oscar De La Renta outfits in the midst of nerds. The subject of your defense disagrees with you. Pointless effort.

She's famous for not calling herself a feminist. http://www.makers.com/marissa-mayer/moments/distance-feminis...

But she describes herself as blind to gender (what is known as gender neutral) and believes in equality between men and women, which is actually the definition of feminism.

So a woman who is not a feminist is actually a feminist. Have fun with your redefinitions. Time for me to step out of this while I still can with my sanity.

The dollar numbers being talked about in the article are kind of stunning, for a website that dropped off my radar more than a decade ago. Who are all these people with all that much money and where are they getting it from??

You are giving too much credit to your internet usage preference and its relation to a company being relevant and successful.

Yahoo is still the 4th largest internet property. It has more than half a billion unique visitors monthly.

Similar sentiments here.

Those numbers are likely to reflect something, but the fact that Yahoo is so irrelevant to geeks and highly self-aware Internet users is a good sign that their position is very unstable. Somehow reminds of Microsoft gradually sliding into irrelevance (while still generating some dollars) for geeks first, and then for everyone else.

When you tie my compensation to me having provably lousy coworkers, guess what happens.

> guess what happens

Because intrinsic pleasures of the job are more important to you than your compensation package, you initially find dealing with "lousy coworkers" demotivating. But you endeavour to make the best of a bad situation by finding out how to help your coworkers become better at their jobs. You end up developing a far deeper satisfaction in your work than you'd previously thought possible.

Did I guess right?

If you are trying to channel Alfie Kohn, you should especially remember his advice that you cannot change other people.

I think you misread the op's post -- the suggestion was, "would you work with them again." If they're lousy the answer is obviously no.

Conversely, if you are graded on the curve, you want your coworkers to be provably lousier than you are.

But your compensation still depends on having some "provably lousy coworkers", or worse, if they're all gone some people who are good will perforce get labeled as lousy.

The quiet ones, the different ones disabled, gay, female etc who wont push back look for the ones who where bullied at school. If you team is lucky you might have some terminally ill people you can dump at the base of the stack - this sounds worse than it is as there was medical retirement available for these poor devils.

That isn't true all the time. Goldman Sachs uses an even "worse" review process. It's called a 360 review: your employees that report under you, co-workers at the same management level and your managers all rate you. The reviews are bell curved and the worst performers are asked to leave. It just so happens that Goldman Sachs has some of the smartest and people on Wall Street. I think it says a lot because a ton of "failed" Wall Streeters leave and completely destroy the perspective industry they go into afterwards. I don't think this type of system encourages crappy workers, but it does encourage a very ruthless company culture - which might not be the best to encourage collaboration.

I think it depends on the kind of worker you want to create. With engineering and development, it's an inherently creative process, and creativity needs collaboration to prosper. I don't know enough about Wall Street, but it seems to me that a ruthless employee works better there since you're competing with other companies at almost the same thing.

I'm pretty much at the same point of refusing to do any actual coding on an interview and for pretty much the same reasons. Really like the option of an offline code test followed by discussion of the solutions or a small contract. But it's pretty rare for companies to actually do this, since nearly everyone now follows Google's model.