Not as much as you might think and it is not as "reliable" as it once was.
He can do what he wants with his money. I was making an assumption that his goal was to improve education. It is a suggestion that I think would help him get closer to that goal.
As to throwing money at inner city schools? That depends on the school. If they are lacking funds for music and the arts then yes it could help.
It is an interesting idea but I fear it will work with a group of students that would do well anyway.
I really would rather see him dump money into an inner city school or even offering scholarships or loan forgiveness for teachers.
Most of the problems with education seem to be cultural and economic. Areas with successful parents tend to have successful students. The parents are involved and push the kids to do well. I just do not think that a "new way" of teaching will solve the root problem in the educational system in the US.
If the parents don't care only the small number of self motivated students will do well.
My opinion is that Google needs to move out of the SF area if you want more diversity. One of the reasons that you get mostly males that are mostly white and asian is that SF is not all that diverse when it comes to race.
If you want more African American people to apply then I suggest Atlanta and the Washington DC area.
If you want more Hispanic people to apply Texas"Dallas and Houston", Southern California, and South Florida are prime areas.
I work in South Florida and we have a very diverse work force. You will not find a lot of people of color in the SF area since it has very little in the way African American or Hispanic history and culture. The Spanish influence has long ago been pushed back.
BTW it will take time no matter what. Trying to fix the issue of women not going into the STEM fields will take a long time and if Google really wants this to happen they have got to work harder on quality of life for people with kids. Places to work with good schools, short commutes, and reasonable home prices will also help a lot with diversity and quality of life.
Trying to get everyone to love SF is not going to work. While it is a nice place to visit I see it as a hellish place to live and I bet a lot of other people feel the same.
"That's BS. The prevalence of girls/women in theater disproves it."
Umm you do know that acting is all about relating right?
As a software engineer that also took drama I have to say that is one of the oddest things I have seen on Slashdot in a while.
Aka perform has more than one meaning.
That's my 2 cents, it merely takes $20M to implement.
Plus a lot more to operate the data centers needed to store and sync all that data around. For Mozilla to build that they'd have to find some way to pay for it. Given that people are generally not willing to pay monthly fees for that sort of service, advertising is the obvious option. But to make the advertising effective, it needs to be targeted, so...
I have a better idea: Just use Android, only write a drop in replacement for Play Services. Pull an Amazon, only invite other OEMs to the party so that they sell your devices, and no walled garden.
How would this be attractive to OEMs? Google already offers an extremely well-developed open ecosystem. Amazon wanted to have their own walled garden, but you're assuming there are OEMs that don't want to do that, but want to have a different ecosystem, and want it enough to be willing to accept smaller sales numbers. What would make them want to do that?
It's HIPAA, not HIPPA.
What could possibly go wrong?
Normally, the implication of that question is that there are a bunch of blindingly obvious problems which are being blithely overlooked.
So, what are they?
I think unrealistic portrayals of sex create bigger problems than those other examples you cite -- though they are problems. The reason I think that is that the other unrealistic portrayals don't affect core human relationships to the same degree. I hope I'm wrong, actually. We'll know in a generation or so.
One more point: I find your choice of example to be odd, because the US charges against Hamsa have nothing to do with speech; they're about kidnapping and conspiracy to commit murder. The UK's charges against Hamsa are largely speech-related.
Manning or Snowden would have been better examples.
Coding jobs can be easily outsourced to wherever the going rate for labor is cheapest. Google's "coder shortage" seems completely imaginary. They're an advertising company whose greatest trick was convincing the world they are a software company.
I'm a Google engineer, and both of these statements are incorrect.
Taking the second one first, Google is not an advertising company. It's a software engineering company whose primary products are most effectively monetized via advertising. Or, sometimes I think it might be more accurate to say that Google is a data center company, since building, operating and utilizing enormous data centers at extreme efficiency is Google's true core competency. If and when Google gets serious about competing with Amazon in that space Amazon will have a tough time keeping up.
Google is moving fairly quickly away from advertising, diversifying into products which are sold directly. Note that nearly all of the speculative new projects that have come out of "Google X" are built around goods and services, more than the sort of low-value (on a per transaction basis) information services that are Google's current big products. No big winners have emerged from that effort, yet, but if one or more of them do "hit", you can expect to see it quickly replace advertising as the primary revenue driver. About 10% of Google's revenues these days come from non-advertising products. 10% seems small, but keep in mind that represents $5B annually, and is up from basically 0% just a few years ago. Non-ad revenues are growing faster than the ad revenues, so the percentage of Google revenue derived from advertising will continue falling even without a massive new business.
Further, culturally, Google never has been an advertising company. It's a thoroughly engineering-focused company, top to bottom.
The shortage of engineers is not imaginary. Google legitimately has a hard time finding enough software engineers of the caliber it seeks. Money isn't the issue; few people who receive an offer from Google reject it. In the context of this article, though, the big problem is that the engineers Google can find are overwhelmingly male, and either white or Asian. Mostly white. Studies done by many organizations, including studies done internally by Google, show that diverse teams are more creative and more productive. In addition, Google's culture is surprisingly idealistic, and people in the company consider it a legitimate problem that the company -- especially eng -- is not representative of the population as a whole.
I think part of that latter point derives from the fact that Google engineers are, if anything, too well-paid. Estimates I've seen put the "1%" line at about $400K annual income, and most senior Googlers -- including engineers, not just execs and managers -- are above that line. Getting paid that much tends to make decent people wonder if they should feel guilty at their luck and their privilege. At the same time, it's not like anyone is going to agitate to get paid less. So a better option is to say "Well, the real problem here isn't that I make too much, it's that not enough people have the opportunity to do the same". In particular, women and minorities.
That last paragraph is purely personal speculation, mind you. Laszlo Bock may not agree at all.
Friend of mine, his wife is a dentist, she's pulling in nearly 300k a year.
I make better than 300K per year as a software developer, when you include base, bonus and stock grants (which I view as variable cash bonuses, since I have them sold automatically the instant they vest). And I don't have to stick my fingers in peoples' mouths.
Whatever you think of the various sides of this argument, it's interesting to me to look at how different the sides are.
The US is, on average, far more concerned about pornography and other sexual issues than the UK, but there is not and never will be any significant discussion of government-mandated filters, outside of specific situations like government-run schools. The reason is our belief in the importance of free speech. Although there are plenty of Americans who would like to ban porn, no one at a national level says it out loud. No one seriously talks about it even at local, highly homogeneous levels, because everyone knows it won't fly.
The UK is somewhat less prudish than the US, but is perfectly willing to carve out large exceptions to free speech wherever it's convenient. Therefore, British pols do talk seriously about trying to ban porn, except for adults who opt out.
Europe (as a whole; there are exceptions) is even less concerned about free speech than the UK, but apparently considers porn to be something worth fighting for, to the degree that they're willing to invest at least a little effort in fighting to keep porn available to kids in the UK.
FWIW, I think porn is bad. Conceptually, there's nothing wrong with human sexuality, but porn presents an extremely distorted view of human sexuality. I think regular consumption of hardcore pornography, particularly by adolescents, skews expectations and perceptions in ways that have negative consequences. That said, I have no interest in trying to ban it. I do filter it on my home network, but that's a half measure which mostly serves as an early warning system (I get notified of attempts to get to porn sites) which offers a chance to talk the issues over if I find my kids looking for it.
All of which mostly says that I'm a fairly typical American parent: concerned about porn but unwilling to take the strong anti-freedom steps needed to effectively ban it