Archio

I'm curious about this as well, but it seems that the disparity is fairly constant and not just extreme for ages >75. The rate for men is over 4x that of women for ages 15-24 and over 3x that of women for ages 25-44.

There seems to be a variety of possible explanations for the difference [0] (which is common across several countries). One of them is that cultural male gender roles make seeking help a shameful thing, so males are less likely to seek assistance for suicidal thoughts [1].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences_in_suicide [1] http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00406-003-0397-6#/...

There are two important points I think the author of this article doesn't really understand.

1. "4chan" is not a person, a club, a worldview, or even a reputation-based comment aggregator. 4chan is website with a constant, ephemeral stream of anonymous comments, and the "culture" between different boards varies quite significantly. This system makes it especially prone to misrepresentation by a media that does not understand it. One could easily write an article entitled "The New Man of Reddit" about disturbing subreddits that exist with deep misogynistic hatred, but people understand that one subreddit does not represent the views of everyone that visits the site as a whole. It is even easier to portray 20-30 4chan users as representative of hundreds of thousands because they all post under the same name, "Anonymous". I know several friends who frequent /g/ (the technology board on 4chan), and the discussion is on technical topics virtually all of the time.

2. There are obviously pockets on certain boards (e.g. /r9k/) with groups of anonymous users that have disturbing thoughts and views. That being said, I think it is a mistake to frame the problem as a website being "like Uber, but for violent misogyny", or making a broad analysis that includes references to decades-long gender dynamics theories. I am NOT defending or endorsing the actions whatsoever of these users.

However, if the author were to engage in conversation with some of the more extreme users, she might realize that what many of these people need is help. If she were to read personal stories threads on /r9k/ she might find that a large portion of those people are there because they are not "doing well" in life, at all, and have not "fit in" to society for a very long time. They are often clinically depressed, or have any number of debilitating mental illnesses. There are people there that are in poverty, have crippling anxiety disorders that prevent them from leaving the house, who are addicted to substances and cannot hold a job, and who have never done so much as held hands with a romantic interest even decades into adulthood. There are a disturbing number of people on /r9k/ that were physically and sexually abused as children, and those stories are excruciatingly sad. I don't exaggerate about the prevalence or severity of these problems, I have seen regular popular threads about child abuse and significant social impairment on boards. Misogyny is often not a calculated tactical hatred on the part of these people, but an unhealthy and abhorrent outlet for their desperation.

Again, I am not defending their actions and I don't think that those 4chan boards are positive places for people to seek refuge. But I think it is important to recognize why many of them are there, and proceed from a point of compassion for another human being, no matter hard that may be. It is easy and tempting to demonize a group of individuals that engage in repulsive misogynistic commentary all day, but that won't solve any of their problems or those of society.

I find this statement highly amusing, as (1) I use cannabis regularly without issue, (2) I've done well in both academic and professional spheres, and (3) both of my parents know and are perfectly fine with my responsible usage.

Perhaps you mean that no parent wants their young child/teenager to use drugs? No one in this thread (or anyone at Meadow) is advocating for that, we are specifically discussing adult use.

If we can take anything away from this extrapolated conversation, it should be that it's important to become educated and informed about topics highly susceptible to misinformation.

>I don't want my kids being turned into stoners [and] the law should be on MY side

Should it? It isn't on your side if they want to (as consenting adults): ride a motorcycle, drink alcohol, go heliskiing, visit a strip club, buy condoms, or go bungie jumping, for example.

Should all potentially harmful activities of any kind be criminalized as well, because you have kids and the law should be on your side?

Do you honestly think that drug prohibition is working WELL in this country?

The current POTUS smoked cannabis regularly in his youth. Can you imagine how his career might have turned out differently if he was stuck in prison for a few months or years, because hey he's a criminal and he's broken the law? Which would have done more harm there, the drug or the criminal charges?

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but it is very likely that your teenage kids already have access through someone to marijuana [0], regardless of its legal status in your state.

The question you need to ask yourself isn't whether or not your teenage kids - soon to become independent adults - will try weed. The question is, do you want them to be educated about potential harms and get ID'd until they turn 21, or risk them getting an illegal product that isn't tested from a violence-ridden cartel (that doesn't check IDs, by the way)?

I highly recommend that you educate yourself about this drug, as I'm not sure of what scale of harmfulness cannabis can be classified as a "hard drug" [1]. The New York Times' 2014 editorial board's writeup on this issue is thoroughly documented and excellent [2].

[0] https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/high-school...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_harmfulness#/media/File:2...

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/27/opinion/sunday...

I don't know the legal specifics of this, but is that actually true? It is schedule 1 right now, which means it federally has no medical use, yet there are states that successfully empowered themselves to (1) legalize for recreational use, e.g. CO and (2) legalize for medical use from dispensaries, e.g. CA.

How would a reduced federal scheduling level for cannabis also reduce the state's power?

For those who would prefer a graphical interface for their multithreaded downloading, I highly recommend webui-aria2, which (of course) uses aria2c in it's backend: https://github.com/ziahamza/webui-aria2

It's super easy to install locally since it's basically a JS app in a couple of HTML files. For ease of use, I have a shortcut to the index.html in my browser and launch aria2 on startup from my .zshrc.

Is it really?

I absolutely would, if it included a line like "...the continued and constant emphasis in taking pride in failure is EXACTLY what men need to be exposed to in order to let down their walls..."

Of course. Unfortunately the main issue there is that people disagree on exactly how much gun ownership should be regulated.

For what it's worth, I got nailed for a single guy in his twenties over $52k/year.

This gives me fond memories of the famous PSD format rant in source code: http://codepad.org/DidDsbjF

Not sure if you're unaware, but the NYT editorial board formally endorsed Apple on February 18th: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/opinion/why-apple-is-right...

I don't see any reason for them to mix additional opinion into their news coverage.

Caffeine powder is pretty interesting. In college, my roommates and I stored half a kilo of anhydrous white powder in a closet. It's incredibly versatile: you can mix it into drinks or food, put it under your tongue, and even insufflate it (higher bioavailability, shorter duration).

You have to be careful with it though, because like the article says, it doesn't take much to kill a person. Usually when you order caffeine powder it comes with a little 50mg scoop so you can track consumption.

It pains me greatly that the tech industry lacks diversity from minorities like blacks, hispanics, and women. However, I strongly believe that looking at the tech companies and asking why they don't hire more minorities is totally missing the real problem.

This is of course one datapoint, but the university I went to (top engineering school in the Northeast US) hosts a big panel for computer-field majors at the annual admissions event. Any students remotely interested in technical majors are invited to attend - you don't even need to be accepted to the university. The marketing for the event makes it as clear as possible that no prior programming experience is required, they just want to get people excited about computing. When I served on the panel as a CS student, I looked out the audience and saw a fully packed room (300+ people) of almost entirely white/Asian male prospective students and their parents. At that point, how do you recover and get diverse people? How do you get people interested when everyone showing up fits the same description?

In my view, the problem starts way before college/job seeking. I was lucky, as a white male, that my parents noticed and encouraged my technical interests at an early age. By the time I was entering college, I had years of programming experience, not even at any company, but just working on my laptop in my bedroom. It kills me that so many minorities and women never even get that opportunity. Parents of young girls don't seem to see/nurture those interests, and sometimes actively encourage them not to go into technology. It makes perfect sense that later they're not interested in pursuing college/careers in computers.

I have worked at companies where the people doing hiring have literally whispered (since it is illegal to say so) that they are desperate to hire minorities and women. I once heard someone say, "Man, I would love to hire this person, but I have to be fair, and if they were male I would have rejected them immediately".

Yes, tech companies need to be as accepting as possible towards minorities and women. Yes, minorities and women need role models in the industry. But we've got to start at the source at the problem and get parents to allow their children to be interested in computers in the first place!

>Our analysis (not in this paper -- we've cut a lot out to keep it crisp) shows that women are harder on other women than they are on men. Men are harder on other men than they are on women.

Did you read the paper? Where does this indicate misogyny?

Is this satire? If not, would you be amenable to posting a list of all the organizations you've been associated with in the past, so we can all make assumptions about your ethics, behavior, and attitudes towards race, religion, and sex - based on statistically significant percentages of those organizations, of course?

I understand that it is true that some fraternities have systemic issues with racism and misogyny, but isn't that a dangerous road to go down? Would it be OK for me to make judgements about the attitudes towards the treatment of women of my Muslim colleagues and acquaintances, without knowing anything else about them? Or would it be acceptable for me to make assumptions about the criminal history of acquaintances, just because they grew up in a "racially homogeneous" area that statistically has higher rates of crime?

While I accept that some social associations may have disturbing incidences of systemic problems that must be addressed, I strongly disagree that it is OK to make judgements and assumptions about individual people without knowing anything about who they are as a person.

> This is what happens when frat boys get jobs

Why do you think it is OK make a massive generalization about a group of people like that? While I wasn't personally involved in Greek life during college, I have very good friends that were upstanding and principled members of fraternities that would certainly abhor the horrific and abusive behavior described in this article.

If you met a nice person today and later found out they were in a fraternity during college, would you immediately make judgements about their morals and conduct just based on that association?

> I've always felt that by 25 you are who you will be

If that's the case, I (25) think I'd rather get a bottle of whiskey and a handgun and end it now.

Yeah, but wouldn't it be a lot more than $200? We're talking Magic's $100, however much the meal cost, plus the cost chilled overnight mail would be insane.

> such as having food from a restaurant across the country sent to me via chilled overnight air mail for a friend's birthday as a big flashy surprise

Maybe I'm missing something here, but this is making me seriously think about what Magic's target market is. What kind of income would a person need to fathom affording something like that? I know people who I would consider "wealthy" on a first-world scale but this seems like a service suited for millionaires only (not that there is anything wrong with that, of course).

> The real question is, what can we do to make living a transparent and open life possible

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but are you advocating for people to make as many details of their life open and transparent on the internet because we should have nothing to hide?

Reading this gives me a chill down my spine. There's something about a corporation controlling, optimizing, monetizing, and branding dominant components of a childhood that just doesn't seem right.

> it's probably illegal

I certainly, certainly hope not. While of course there is an ethical question involved here, making it illegal to release "code that was obviously not intended to be public" is a MASSIVE slippery slope. I could put your grandmother in jail for clicking a broken link in her email and sharing the confusing things she saw, because of a "bug" in my app.

I am in my early twenties. I exercise regularly, I don't drink to excess, I don't smoke, I eat well, and I don't do any dangerous activities. That means I probably won't break my leg or die of obesity-related conditions.

However, it damn well could be that I could get a disease or condition that no one can prevent. No one has any business pretending otherwise.

> Sure that could bite me in the ass if something were to happen to me, but I'm comfortable with that risk

Has it ever occurred to you don't have much control over that risk, and that you are a human being that like every other can become sick for no reason at all?

> and have family to help me out

Has it ever occurred to you that many people in the United States do not have family to help them out?

I hold governments to higher standards than parents.

Pretty telling that what? The show is racist? I think there might be more nuance involved.