MathCodeLove

It's not judgemental - it just is. Many addicts in recovery themselves use similar language. I spend a lot of time with recovering addicts and alcoholics and accountability is an important component of treatment.

Exactly human health is at stake, so we should let the efficiency of a proper free-market take care of it.

Have you ever received health-care in Europe? I have, Italy. It takes a painfully long time to get an appointment and the quality of care is not close to on par with that received in the US unless you opt for private care anyway.

What was the impact on your credit score? I imagine that had an effect on other parts of your life no?

I love how any time anyone says that maybe porn shouldn't be available for every 9 year old with a tablet people get up in arms about it.

OP didn't say ban all porn, but it should be more tightly regulated and its consumption has proven to be damaging.

IF you do discover that it's purely user-side network issues - that doesn't mean there's nothing to be done. You could work on caching certain request and making your app more functional offline (if possible).

They didn't "overfit" though. They shared their experience - they didn't say that their experience is normative (although I expect it is). People are allowed to share anecdotes.

Extremely true. I lived in Italy for 2 years and driving there was a nightmare, I feel as if I can easily conquer any road in the US now.

As a part-time pedestrian I completely agree.

Fair enough. Just of curiosity, would you have fired him if his performance hadn't suffered?

Was his work performance suffering as a result? If not, what is the actual issue here?

Thanks! Haven't heard that terminology before.

What does "1X" mean in this context?

That's fair. I do believe that in an ideal world, everyone's barrier to entry into any profession would be equal removing all factors except merit. While that's obviously not possible, I do think it's worthwhile to work towards that. I also think that it can be worthwhile to make it known to women that tech and other career paths are viable and not out of reach for them - as I'm sure some women just have never considered it just as I have never seriously considered becoming a nurse. However, I think that's where it should stop. Make it known that it's an option, make it so that if they choose to pursue it that it's no more difficult for them than it would be if they were a man, and then let it be.

Anything more and it becomes the individual(s) behind the movement projecting their desires onto others and is no different that the societal molding that's taken place for the past several decades.

I don't own any Apple products.

As I've said multiple times in this comment section - I'm all for creating an accepting and inclusive environment. Diversity initiatives aren't that. I think that explicit diversity initiatives are indicative of a bad work center that can't attract or keep their desired talent without explicitly targeting specific groups. I don't think that these diversity initiatives do anything to really affect change in an organizations culture and are PR stunts to make people feel good. At worst, they're harmful to everyone - including minorities. At best, they're a waste of time and resources. If your organization has actively promoted a toxic culture from it's inception and just now wishes to change things then it has a lot more work to do than a "diversity initiative".

Regardless, my original stance was more aimed at the societal push of "get x demographic into tech". I'm not going to retype my thoughts on that - go read the other comments of mine in this comments section to get a clearer picture.

If they had instead bought a $700 laptop 8 years ago, they likely would have had to upgrade several times by now.

You're correct about my language choice, I could (and should) have used more neutral language to describe my position. While I do believe that there are some fundamental differences in the interests and abilities of the genders (neither for better nor worse, they just are) I also agree that's its a slippery slope that has been abused in the past. Societal pressures and conditioning certainly play a role, however I think if you look at the lower-end of the job market the difference is clearer. Women tend to dominate retail work as well as waitress/hostess positions while men tend to dominate more labor intensive positions like construction, welding, modern day factory work etc. Is this due to some rampant discrimination in those fields or is it due to inherit biological/psychological differences in men and women? I'd be inclined to say the later. There are no pushes happening in the bottom end of the job market due lessen the gender disparity because those aren't as desirable positions so no one really cares that more men work in construction and more women are servers at restaurants. However when the position becomes more prestigious with higher pay it's suddenly a huge issue that a disparity exists - and obviously it's due to discrimination and has nothing to due with what each gender is naturally inclined to pursue or enjoy.

You're right in that it's important not to automatically ascribe any demographic disparity to fundamental differences between the genders, but it's equally important to not automatically ascribe that difference to discrimination without considering those fundamental differences.

People talk about other people all the time - regardless of gender. I would guarantee they talked about male employees as well but your friend likely didn't mentally catalogue those discussions because they weren't relevant to her. Confirmation bias is very real. Maybe this one specific anecdote you're providing really was an example of rampant discrimination - I don't know - either way it certainly isn't indicative of the entirety of the industry. I could share many anecdotes of my own that I could interpret as people discriminating against me specifically - but I doubt that's the case. Instead it's people just being people. This is another issue, I think that these movement often make women and minorities attribute "normal" negative behavior to be explicitly driven by discrimination or x-ism rather than it just being par for the course.

My point is that societally we should allow anyone to enter any field they desire with minimal barriers halting their progress so long as they are able to do the work - but we shouldn't try to force it just because we feel like there should be more women or more of whomever. Just because there is a disparity in the demographic make-up of a field doesn't automatically mean that's it's root cause is some negative bias or discrimination. Maybe more men fill administrative roles because more men pursue educations in business administration and leadership whereas a teacher can be an excellent educator, but a not so excellent administrator if they have no relevant experience. Does your wife have any experience in administration or any credentials that would show her to be qualified for the job? If not, maybe that's her issue - not sexism. That's like asking why do great software engineers sometimes never rise to staff/management positions - because they're good at writing software, not managing people and organizations. Is this bad? Why? Because administrative roles are generally better paid and more prestigious and more women should have that opportunity? Why not encourage more women to get into masonry or welding? Where's that movement? Has it maybe not happened because those aren't well-paying, desirable jobs for most people? Do more men occupy those industries because of the nature of the work or because of some insidious rampant sexism? I'd be inclined to say the former. If this were actually about equality, it would be happening all across the labor market and not just in a certain subset of high-paying fields.

Some of these disparities can be traced back to social conditioning and discrimination, but its also in large part just due to inherit differences in the interest and abilities between genders. It's been proven time and time again that the genders are often fundamentally different in terms of abilities and innate interest. Neither gender is better than the other, but we are different and denying that does more harm than good.

I'm unsure what you're trying to express in this reply. It seems we do agree in general viewpoint, just perhaps we have different ways of expressing that view. Discrimination definitely happens, but I have yet to see one example of "pretty open discrimination" that hasn't resulted in an all out PR disaster for the org involved ,your "Read the news" statement supports that. If discrimination were a common occurrence it wouldn't be news worthy. If anything it seems that discrimination is beginning to become more frequent in the other direction, where certain demographics who are less qualified are hired over other, more competent, candidates simply for the sake of "diversity". Not to say that's very common either, both are IME exceedingly rare. Glad that you're against shitty behavior, I am as well. Most people are. That doesn't have much to do with my comment though.

I'm sure they're effective to some degree in terms of recruitment numbers. What I was alluding to in that comment was that the current campaigns likely won't dramatically reduce the number of "horror stories" we hear - which is the crux of the entire issue. The people that are the antagonist in those horror stories tend not to change their way's based on social media movements. Whereas, the people who are interacting with and encouraging those movements would likely never find themselves in the antagonist shoes anyway. It's a very small subset of the population that would actually see those movements and decide to change as a result, and that's better than none, but it's certainly not what I think most people supporting those movements wish to see as a result.

Edit: grammar

This is a valid point, and I don't disagree that perspective is incredibly valuable. I just don't know if we've been going about it the right way. If someone is interested in technology, then we should make sure that it's as accessible to them as it is to anyone else. Yet, along with varying perspectives among varying demographics comes different interests and aspirations. In the process of pushing what we think other demographics should be aspiring to do are we not drowning out their own interests and aspirations? Are we not simultaneously warping the perspective we seek into one that more closely aligns with our own? It's 2021, anyone can google "well paying careers" see "software development" on the list and decide to pursue it. It should happen naturally, we should absolutely facilitate and encourage that natural convergence, but I think the artificial push is just as harmful as it is helpful.

The issue is the same in reverse. I've heard horrible anecdotes by male friends in female dominated industries such as teaching, nursing, etc. Why is the same societal push not happening in those industries? I never said we shouldn't strive to be welcoming and to cultivate a friendly environment for all, just that the intentional push for more of any specific demographic seems strange to me. Shitty people are going to exist everywhere regardless. A twitter campaign shouting about the injustices of the industry and pushing for more women in technology isn't going to change that. The people that need to hear the message being conveyed there aren't going to listen, and the people who are listening don't need to hear the message because they likely aren't already shitty people.

I don't understand this weird fetishism with getting X demographic into software/tech. Naturally I don't think that any demographic should be restricted from entering the field, and everyone should be equally encouraged and provided the same opportunities, but more and more I see these pushes for trying to pump the numbers of specific demographics. If someone wants to join the industry, great. If not, also great. I think that to an extent these movements do more harm than good. Women should absolutely be made aware that tech is a viable career path for them as much as anyone else - yet it seems that as of late there's a sort of societal coercion that mimics that historically seen in gender dominated industries like welding for men or nursing for women.

That's the point they were making.

It's better in the sense that you're not demolishing your attention span with low quality ~30 second videos that usually aren't even funny or entertaining. It requires some level of cognition to read Quora comments, it requires none to sit and watch Tiktok for hours.

I was mainly asking how does one know that there is an abundance of capital? Is there some specific report or datasheet to look at?

Thank you!

Can't get greedy now, I don't want to be responsible for the next wave of hyper-inflation.

Where do you get this information? I believe you, but I'd like to look more into it.