Evolutionary psychology is very much a real science. But like every other science, it is based on a lot of assumptions. So the actual scientists work mostly on boring theoretical questions, while the frauds often come up in the news pushing some pseudoscientific defence for their bigotry.
What a dick move, especially the second one. Really goes to show that management seems to forget they’re dealing with actual humans and not machines being turned off at an assembly line. So dehumanizing.
Cobra might as well not even exist for most people.
The two layoffs I’ve been through, Cobra was offered as an option and in both cases it was wildly unaffordable. Like…I couldn’t have afforded it even if I still had the job I had just lost, let alone while unemployed.
In both cases I just basically only had the option to cross my fingers and hope I didn’t need healthcare while letting it lapse completely until I found a new job. Thankfully in the first case I was only unemployed about 3 weeks, but the other time, it was about 6 months.
What eventually came through for me was my state’s version of Medicaid in that situation. Basically it was only available to people earning less than XYZ, but any funds you received as aid from the state didn’t count toward that, meaning that unemployment was exempt and as such, my income was zero. Of course there was like an 8 week waiting period and then it took several more weeks for all the paperwork to go through, but eventually it did kick in.
It’s a dick move for sure, but the clawback of unvested shares is vicious. Not possible to know the total worth without being privy to the employment contracts of those let go, but for a single senior employee of long tenure it might constitute a 6- or 7-figure rip-off. Depending on the number of staff let go, the amount of options each held and what their strike prices were, this layoff could potentially constitute a clawback of options that would have been worth tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars of Sony shares.
The clawback in general isn't really an issue; that's how restricted stock grants work. You forfeit anything that hasn't vested when you leave the company, no matter whose idea that is.
The problem is that it was Sony stock, and it's going back to Bungie. The stock should revert to Sony. In fact, I don't think it can be any other way, as those boilerplate details would have been included in the contract details of the initial stock grant. This makes me doubt the veracity of the unnamed source.
Doesn’t make “per a source” any less stupid of a phrase. Every thing is per a source. It only matters if the source is reliable. If you think any source of Paul’s is a reliable one, why bother stating “per a source”?
Any journalist with credibility vets their sources. “Per a source” is pretty much shorthand for “Someone who we have verified works at Bungie and we believe is in a reasonable position to know this information” so even if it turns out to be false its very hard to sue because they printed what they beleived to be true at the time and did basic due diligence to check it wasnt made up bullshit. Otherwise they use much more evasive and broad language.
Tassi’s a pretty well-respected and reliable journalist. I would trust his info. And Destiny is one of the games he consistently covers. We know from prior stories he has sources inside Bungie. Using present tense in the hope they weren’t all laid off.
There’s further discussion in the second link where the original authors stand by their claim.
The two use different statistical methods to try to demonstrate the conclusion, and that’s where the difference lies.
I’m not a big stats person, but I’m coming away feeling like the original claim is valid since a) it was shown in two different models the original author used and b) it makes intuitive sense to me.
What I would be really interested in, is how does it play out in reversed scenarios.
How do inexperienced women react to a singular man commenting in a competitive area that is female dominated, do you see the sane sorr of vitriol from lower performing women, vs welcoming behavior from better performing women?
Well if you want a reversal you need to be true to the parameters: get an experienced male operating - not commenting - and you need to do so NOT in an area dominated by women.
Because the gender split in gaming is almost 50/50. A 1% difference is negligible
That’s true for all video games but most competitive games with an esports scene will have many more male players than women. A lot of this is due to the extra toxicity female gamers experience in those scenes. Not only do they have to deal with the usual toxicity that everybody does when playing those kind of games, but also have to deal with the misogynistic and rape comments on top of that.
I wish it wasn’t the case, and it does appear to be changing with time, thankfully. I notice quite a few more women in Counter Strike 2 than I have in past iterations of the game. I hope to see many more women in competitive esports in the future.
Competitive arena shooters have always seemed the worst to me, so if cs2 has more women that’s really good to hear. I think in a combined ~1k hours of csgo and valorant (haven’t played either in years though) i can count the amount of times ive hears women speak in vcs on my hands, and I’m not sure if it was ever not followed by some stupid sexist comments.
Definitely seeing many women in other genres, just waiting for more to reach pro level so we actually see mixed gender or sometimes all women teams in professional esports commonly. As it stands it also still seems like a few too many people would immediately blame any bad performance on being a woman, and no one really wants to deal with that kind of public response.
gaming
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.