factorial

You must be joking! The book you are referring to accompanies a course called "CS116". What about digging through some graduate school course catalogues instead?

Of course Kernel development isn't impossible. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any kernels in the first place. But of course it is the domain of a rather small number of people.

I'll quote you again:

"There is nothing, in software engineering that can’t be done by other “non-genius” programmers. Further no one developer is greater than a community of developers. - Coding Ninja"

If you think that kernel programming is easy and can be done by "average" programmers then you are either so far ahead of the curve that you don't even realize it, or you are a prime example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I strongly suspect that it's the latter.

The important stuff gets done by truly outstanding people. To deny this is nothing but laughable.

Who creates the tools that allow, in your world view, average programmers to compete with "geniuses"?

Further, you are the one making bold claims, so the burden of proof lies on you. There are more than enough examples of great software written by "geniuses". But now please mention one great (groundbreaking) project that was written by an army of mediocre programmers.

Let's just make it a little game. I'll go first:

Don Knuth: TeX

Now is your turn!

Do you know who McCarthy and Alonzo Church were, what the lambda calculus is, and in which way LISP relates to mathematics? If this is all Greek to you, then please look it up. Next time, though, please do some research BEFORE you write blog posts. It will save you from being ridiculed.

This blog post is ludicrous. Seriously, how bloated does your head have to be to insert your own quotes in your blog articles? Check this out:

"There is nothing, in software engineering that can’t be done by other “non-genius” programmers. Further no one developer is greater than a community of developers. - Coding Ninja"

Are you so sure about it? A million mediocre mathematicians couldn't have achieved what Grigori Perelman did, and a million of mediocre developers couldn't have produced the tools we use nowadays. There is absolutely no evidence that a community of average guys could have come up with something like LIPS or Smalltalk. If you claim otherwise, then please mention ONE example. We're all standing on the shoulders of giants, and only a myopic cretin would deny the staggering impact they have on all our lives and our profession.

For further reading, dear OP, check out this post by Joel Spolsky: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/HighNotes.html

So, do you know accept that there is a biological difference between men and women? It seems that you do. But now you claim that we have to "beat biology" to eliminate the differences. Bravo! You are twisting and turning, pulling random arguments out of your hat as you see fit. What is your background? I would be more than surprised if it was technical.

What about this angle: given that men are apparently quite superior to women when it comes to abstract thinking, then why don't we do our best to improve male performance even more? By the time women will have caught up (if ever), we've probably lost a few centuries of progress. This concept is called "opportunity costs." I am not sure it's taught in Gender Studies.

Note that I'm playing devil's advocate to make you realize how incredibly shady your argument is.

Do a Google search on "IT needs more women", make a mental note of the number of hits you get, and then do a search on "Plumbing needs more women". Please report back which number is bigger. For extra credit, calculate by which factor the first claim is more often made online.

Do they really start out equal? I've played chess for a few years, and all I know is that it gets quite competitive rather soon. Probably you are referring to scholastic chess where teachers plunk down chess sets in front of their pupils and teach them the basics. Sure, pushing wood around is fun for a while, but there will be the point where you need a lot of tenacity to continue.

The issue about CEO compensation has absolutely nothing to do with this argument.

Yes, most girls JUST don't like to go into IT. Two years ago feminists said that girls are "too smart" to go into IT. Now that it's one of the few fields that are booming, they have to be in IT.

Also, did it ever strike you as slightly odd that there was never a woman speaking for herself who came forward and said something like, "Geez, I really would have loved to study advanced algorithms, and functional programming, and later on work in Big Data." The women seem perfectly content with their choices. It's only feminists (of both sexes) who think that they have to speak up for some allegedly silent majority of women who are kept out of technology for whatever reason. If they want to get into the field, they can acquire all the knowledge they want. It's available online, and for free. Let me tell you something: I am a man, and there never was a day when someone rang my door, shoved some programming tutorials into my face and told me, "Go, and work through that." No, instead I had to sit down and find my own sources, and people I could learn from. All of this is hard work.

Oh, and let me tell you another non-pc truth that is so unpalatable for you: technology and sciences are, even for most guys, not necessarily a ton of fun, and if we had the option of simply looking good and marrying a millionaire, we might be less inclined to go work hard as well. Or why do you think there are so few hot women in tech? Surely Elin Nordegren would have had no use for a CS degree.

If it's only played due to the platform it is on, then it's due to a novelty factor. I got that you were after "viral spread", but imagine a world in which people cared a bit less about rapid deployment and more about quality. I rather play a finely-crafted game than one that was put out in less than a day. This is not to say that it is not possible to put something decent together in a short amount of time. Just check out Ludum Dare for some examples.

Easy: Look at the gender balance in engineering, and you'll find that there are not many women. Conclusion: Women don't like engineering as much as, say, political science, medicine, or communications.

Re.: brain differences: it's called spatio-relational reasoning. Another issue is, and this is a highly non-pc one, that the female IQ distribution doesn't reach the same highs (and lows) as male IQ distribution. This isn't some arcane knowledge I am referring to, so I'll leave it up to you to fire up your search engine of choice and type in a relevant combination of nouns and adjectives to unearth the answers to your concerns yourself.

Yes, and discussing a positive question might reveal that discussing how the world should be according to some people is a futile concept as it denies biology.

Sadly, the author doesn't understand the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy and neglects the possibility that boys and girls are simply "wired" differently. Modern science supports this view as there are significant differences between the brains of both sexes. If you accept biology as given, then wouldn't it be "normal" that boys and girls prefer different toys and children, and that men and women flock into different occupational areas as adults?

Also, why are those feminists only lamenting the lack of female engineers? There are many fields that require that kind of analytical thinking, albeit on lower levels. Heck, why not start a, "Get more girls into plumbing!" campaign? Of course, the feminists are only after the cushy office jobs.

"Honestly, HTML5 games get more attention just for being HTML5 – deserved or not."

...that's one of his arguments why HTML5 is the "best platform". I wish he would have gone more into detail how he defines "best" as his understanding of that adjective doesn't seem to take into account that more mature platforms have some benefits too. For instance, maturity.

Did it ever strike you that men and women are not actually the same? I know, this line of reasoning is not popular among the gender studies-infested crowd, but it's just biology. There are dolls because girls like to play with dolls, and not because we force them to play with them. There are differences between male and female brains, and this is why they prefer different activities. Read up on science before making your absurd statements.

Yes, girls and boys can grow up to become whoever they like, but most girls just don't like technology, just as most guys have little interest in playing with dolls. Blame biology but not society.

There's nothing keeping parents from buying the more elaborate LEGO set for their daughters.

Logic is completely absent from your argument. Imagine you are a your typical US high school graduate, and the message you've gotten for years was that women are better at anything, that they are more likely to finish school, get a degree etc. pp. Somehow, you think you want to fight the odds, and have a look around, wondering what you might study. You find that many departments at university lack rigor and due to your preference for logical thinking you go into science/engineering because you find them more welcoming than, say, male-bashing on an institutional level like in Gender Studies and humanities.

The claim that there is a shortage has nothing to do with the fact that tech is more welcoming to men. It's two completely separate issues. Or do you think that just hiring a bunch of unqualified women (or men) will be what solves the problem? There is a lack of skills, not bodies, and it takes some hard work to acquire those skills. Because there are not enough skilled people around, and because tech is booming, there is now a shortage. (I doubt that it's as bad as you think it is. Just look at the Dice board for plenty of disgruntled IT people.)

Maybe we should encourage more men to actually consider college. What about that? Sure, it doesn't gel well with your feminist agenda.

Lastly, do you actually work in tech or are you merely on a PR trip? Sockpuppets are quite common these days and I wouldn't be surprised if some "think tank" had sent a couple of drones to pollute the otherwise intelligent discussion on HN.

The gender pay gap is a complete myth and noting but propaganda. In fact, accounted for hours, women actually earn slightly more than men. Seriously, if any employer can get a woman to do the same job as a man then why on earth does anyone even bother to hire men in the first place?

Are you a man or a woman? Further, do you work in tech or don't you? There is certainly something fishy about you and your style of argumentation. Your rhetoric also reminds me of women. Sure, cold hard facts are "ugly". What's next, calling me "mean"?

BTW, isn't it funny how fashions change? Two years ago you read comments like, "(...) another researcher concludes that only "boys" are stupid enough to go into a field that's globally-fungible, where entry-level salaries are declining, and it's common to think that staying up all night for a company-paid pizza is a good deal.'"": http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/12/17/2043254/Not-Enough-W...

Since IT is hot again, and the economy otherwise depressed, suddenly the feminists fire up their PR machine and want to get some of their sisters into cushy (so they think) office jobs. But why aren't there any initiatives to get more women into, say, plumbing, firefighting, or the military?

I smell hypocrisy.

Please elaborate on why my second point is "outrageous nonsense". You just aren't convincing me with shaming language.

Huh? How does this relate to anything either you or I have written in this thread? Now all of a sudden we have to get more women into tech because there is a "shortage right now". Why not motivate more men who may be more interested in tech to begin with?

By the way, the alleged shortage is addressed by H1-B visas. They have the welcome side effect of driving down prices of domestic developers, and if this doesn't help, the corporations just collude a tiny little bit and make anti-poaching agreements.

I'd say that the statistics speak for themselves. If you (sp332) say that women are discouraged from entering tech, it's just as valid to claim that men are discouraged from entering basically any other field. Besides, I get the uncanny impression that you have some political agenda, as evinced by your lack of facts and reasoning in your arguments, and substituting it by mere claims and rhetoric.

What's your rationale behind your reasoning? I'd say we need people in this field who can actually take some heat, no matter shether they are male or female. There are certainly also plenty of guys who get driven away. Just have a look at how quickly some people get shot down on SO for submitting not-that-great answers.

Further, there are surely quite a few women around who are only around because they are women. In other words: their work is sub-par but they keep their job due to their gender. Just like we lower requirements for women in the military, we lower them for women in tech. Yet, there aren't many women signing up for the military. Maybe it's because they just aren't interested in the first place?

Hmm... Couldn't it just be that men are discouraged (!) from entering basically any field other than science/technology these days? Just have a look at the gender distribution in most majors. Why is nobody making a fuss about creating more "education opportunities" for men in medicine, journalism, communications, education, or just about college in general?

This certainly does not apply to conferences that cost a cool four figures to attend and are geared towards the corporate market. Nobody can tell me that the organizers are not making money.

Please tell this to the crowd that is so desperate getting more women interested in computers....

Why do you assume that the community is unwelcoming toward women? Isn't it just equally plausible that women just don't really want to be in technology-oriented fields? Maybe they just much rather prefer other areas. I know, the thought that men and women are actually different is deeply troubling to those who think that the only differentiator beween the sexes are a couple of sex organs.

The SNES is now close to 25 years old, and the older the hardware gets, the more serious the issue of "bit rot" will become. Among NES collectors, it's not rare to find people lamenting not being able to play their original cartridges anymore. Those cartridges don't last forever. Thus, emulation serves an important archival purpose, and without it, those games may be lost forever.

Why is this on HN? The "after" picture looks as if the guy had just pulled in his belly, to be honest, and calling a diet "radical system-hacking" is quite a stretch, isn't it?