flootch

> Obnoxiousness seems to be a characteristic quite ingrained into elite hacker culture

That was not my experience with the elite developers I have known. I find that behavior endemic and distributed like a bell curve throughout society.

Engineers used to understand that and would debate taking positions in the military industrial complex, and would discuss the ethics of whistleblowing.

Go through my comments the past few days and witness today's engineers basically saying "Uber has been good to me, I am not responsible for the other parts"

+ initial bonuses not paid + hourly guarantees not paid

New upfront pricing allows Uber to change prices on every single ride (implicit surge) while not paying driver's surge rates

The FTC has fined Uber for telling drivers they could earn $90K a year driving

Uber tells drivers it takes a flat 25% commission, but booking fees turn that commission into 40%.

Uber cheats drivers.

before this generation of engineers looks beyond the high tech goodness and high salaries they personally achieve to see the poison you enable by staying on with Uber?

ethics/shmethics it's a great job at an important company!

> That’s the average amount of time, the company said, that users spend each day on its Facebook, Instagram and Messenger platforms (and that’s not counting the popular messaging app WhatsApp).

So that's not Americans it's users, and it's not FB, but I am hopeful that it's Messenger, WhatsApp and Instagram, which I perceive for now are "task" based communications and sharing apps, not the "spam my friends and family with my political beliefs" stuff I don't want in nearly the amount that FB shovels at me.

You had me scared there for a moment, but I bet you are more right than wrong in your basic point It's probably the prime source of news in the western world. This is not to be underestimated.

Q: If you do not have family, and are reasonably healthy, what are the ethical implications of retaining a position at Uber and not resigning?

I find it laughable to hear Uber engineers cry about how unfairly Kalanick treats them.

Self-awareness 0.

Berkeley allows student organizations to invite speakers. Berkeley is not allowed to discriminate against those speakers based on viewpoint.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/everyon...

> The problem with this argument is that it was not Berkeley itself that invited Yiannopoulos. It was the Berkeley College Republicans, who are legally a separate entity. And as Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks explained, “long-standing campus policy permits registered student organizations to invite speakers to campus and to make free use of meeting space in the Student Union for that purpose.” So the issue is not whether Berkeley should have given Yiannopoulos a platform. It is whether Berkeley should have denied some of its students the ability to give him a platform. And “consistent with the dictates of the First Amendment as uniformly and decisively interpreted by the courts,” Dirks argued, “the university cannot censor or prohibit events, or charge differential fees.”

> somebody were to tell Berkeley that they had to allow certain speakers,

Somebody has told Berkeley just that, the people speaking through the courts.

Here is more of the same from various Law Professors and Chancellors of UC

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/berkeley-milo-yiannopoulos-...

> Campus officials at Berkeley recognized that Yiannopoulos had a First Amendment right to speak. Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks rightly resisted demands, including from Berkeley faculty, to ban Yiannopoulos’ appearance.Even the expression of hate is constitutionally protected; court cases have addressed this very issue on college campuses in the past. Although hate speech unquestionably causes harms, it nonetheless is expression that is covered by the First Amendment. We therefore strongly disagree with those who say that campus officials at Berkeley could keep Yiannopoulos from speaking because of his hateful and offensive message.

> Second, campuses must do all they can to ensure that audience reactions against a speaker are not allowed to silence the speaker. Free speech can be undermined, not only by official censorship and punishment, but also by individuals who seek to disrupt or shut down others when they attempt to exercise their rights. If officials do not work to prevent or punish disruption then there will be a “heckler’s veto” of all unpopular or controversial speakers, and this is not consistent with free speech principles. Campus officials have a duty to protect the free speech rights of protesters, but they must also protect speakers and prevent heckling. Apparently, this, too, occurred at Berkeley. Staff members spent weeks planning extensive security arrangements, including bringing in dozens of police officers from nine other UC campuses.

> Third, there may be situations where controlling the audience proves impossible and there is no choice but to prevent a speaker’s presence to ensure public safety. This should be a last resort taken only if there is no other way to prevent a serious imminent threat to public safety. This appears to be exactly what occurred at Berkeley, where the riotous demonstrators could not be controlled. In such cases, authorities should do all they can, after the fact, to identify and punish those who used violence and violated the law, and should assess how different security arrangements might be more effective in preventing future disruptions. Campus officials should also do what they can to reschedule the speaker for another time.

> By Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the School of Law, University of California, Irvine and Howard Gillman, Chancellor, University of California, Irvine

I encourage you to level up on your knowledge of and defense of free speech rights. Your repeating your mistruths may be part of the problem.

What does "being materialized" mean? (marginalized? objectified? material-girl-alized?)

What year was it that all the men started giggling at that particular picture of Lena?

In order to draw attention to the sexism inherent in the use of the picture, Needell and co-author Rachel Ward recently published a paper where they rejected the use of Lena.

How is it sexist to use that picture, which is g rated, of Lena? Is it sexist to note that even across species, one sex (not always the female) is often what humans, cross culturally, agree is "prettier"? If it's not, then why would it be sexist to use a picture of an attractive woman in a paper?

http://www.amazon.com/Survival-Prettiest-Science-Nancy-Etcof...

Would it be exploitative of the scientists that write these papers to use their writing talents and skills to draw their readers in? Or to create well designed graphs that clearly and quickly communicate their points and draw the eye?

I have no problem with the authors using a picture of Fabio. I am trying to understand the claim that using a picture of Lena is somehow sexist.

(In my day it was a male baboon with a penis on its face that was the classic image.)

“This is a terrific story, and proof that young girls are an untapped resource of innovation,” said Change The Ratio co-founder Rachel Sklar, when we told her the news. “More and more role models in the space are showing girls like Jennie (who is now one herself!) that this is a place for them, and for their talents. And now organizations like Girls Who Code are providing the infrastructure to get there. The floodgates have opened — the ratio is changing.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_playing

Victim playing (also known as playing the victim or self-victimization) is the fabrication of victimhood for a variety of reasons such as to justify abuse of others, to manipulate others, a coping strategy or attention seeking.

And if it still isn't clear to you, have someone read to you what others, including women, have written in this thread. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5636111

In all these threads, and around the web, and in meatspace too, many women, from all sorts of backgrounds repeat the same messages, and contemporary feminists dismiss them or worse, call them chill girls and queen bees. http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/09/10/a-note...

This sort of contemptuous, dismissive, insulting, ignore them, pat-them-on-the-head-and-tell-them-to-stfu behavior is what passes for state of the art contemporary feminist argument. And better, it's is deeply reflective of the sort of patriarchal argument that contemporary feminists claim to be against but actively work to implement for themselves.

http://phawrongula.wikia.com/wiki/Witch_of_the_Week

See also https://www.google.com/search?q=wikipedia+american+women+nov... and ask yourself, if you favor scholarships, contests, special projects for American Women Novelists, but presumably not for American Men Novelists, why shouldn't American Women Novelists be cloistered into a pink ghetto category? The sponsors of such projects are saying women are lesser creatures that cannot be expected to compete with men and need special protection, special incentives, special prizes, and special attention.

I reject this thinking and am saddened people think women cannot compete on an equal footing with other humans.

Quite the contrary, it places me squarely in the majority these days. Figure my life out? Feminism needs to figure out why so many people (including me) agree with so many feminist goals while disagreeing with feminist tactics.

Two people disagree with you what the consensus of that discussion was. Both people provide links. You did not.

Who is more likely remembering the discussion correctly? The folks that provide links to it, or the person that vaguely remembers it?

And we are trolls and you are not?

This must be feminist logic, because I see this sort of stuff at feminist websites everyday.

I think that was your consensus, but here is the thread, my very brief rescan of that doesn't indicate to me that her being a woman was the issue, the consensus seems to be that twitter makes it trivial to be an asshole, and many people are happy to jump in.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5106767

In general I see lots of assertion that men in tech treat women terribly, but not much evidence. The evidence that is there usually points to events that took place before employment.

In this case, our 17 year old heroine clearly faced no jerks in tech, though it is likely she faced jerks in high school.

And it's not at all clear to me that any abuse she has suffered as female nerd in high school is any worse than the abuse male nerds face.

Women aren't frail damsels that need your condescending efforts, or need your overly protective assumptions that are mainly patriarchy disguised as a cape to help them cross a puddle that you can manage.

The key to more women in tech is outreach and education, not patronization and tales that they are frail, and need protection and special treatment.

You can have the last word, but next time, try reading the link I share with you.

And yes, it would be good to give everyone, regardless of gender or age such opportunities.

If you actually are interested, see this post and all of the comments: http://www.thepowerbase.com/2013/04/github-graciously-helps-...

I admit I don't understand the downvotes.

danilocampus invited me to a comment war, I graciously declined with a bit of humor.

It seemed this young woman acted identically to any young individual interested in tech.

Learned about tech. Lived tech. Talked tech. Practiced, practiced, practiced.

Didn't need any self-victimizing pink ghetto look at me give me an advantage because I'm a poor damsel in tech crapola.