lomegor

How could you solve the problem without indicating the group of people who is being treated differently?

I understand what you are saying, but there's no other way to achieve equality, other than specifically separating the groups that need to be treated differently than they are now. Otherwise you wouldn't even be able to do statistics or anything to see if what you are doing is working.

The question you should be asking, is why is it not?

Have you searched for those things? There are lots of campaigns to get more women in those jobs... just google the job title and more women or even feminism.

Example: http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/135815/API_Study_Getti... https://jobs.telegraph.co.uk/article/fancy-commuting-by-heli... http://www.womeninmining.org.uk/

> no one should be made to apologize for a belief that half of the country

He wasn't made to apologize.

> between dialogue/engagement and intimidation/suppression, the latter was chosen.

I've seen much more dialogue and engagement than intimidation and suppression. Most things I've seen on this topic were people complaining and writing, not forcing Mozilla to do anything. The only one that got close to "intimidation" is the OKCupid thing, which is still debatable.

> Do these people realise that the exact same arguments were used for the suppression of gays? how are these valid now?

Are you seriously comparing the oppression of gay people with the "oppression" of people who have homophobic views? I don't think this should be explained to you, but it's totally OK to discriminate people because of what they think or the opinions they have; is not OK to discriminate people by what they are. For example, any company should be free to fire White Supremacists, but not to fire white people just for being white. Are you seriously saying that people shouldn't dissociate themselves from people whose opinions they find offensive? And you are complaining about political correctness?

> But even worse than that is the argument that nothing illegal was done. Yep, the same as stripping Alan Turing of his awards was legal at the time, or put him under "treatment", or marginalising and ostracising him.

Again with this comparison! You seriously need to stop comparing the discrimination of gay people with the discrimination of homophobic people. Next thing you know, you are probably going to argue that LGBT organizations need to accept homophobic managers and volunteers.

> look at the lack of compassion as human beings people have for those who dissent in a way that offends them.

I'm not even sure what you are saying here. I haven't noticed a lack of compassion. in your whole comment, there is no single argument to explain your position, and the only thing you did was create arguments from thin air and disproving them. I don't even know who you are talking about... everyone who supported the firing of Eich?

It's a sad day when homophobia is not a valid reason for so much people to fire a representative of your company.

> The underlying message of this program is that as programmers, girls are different than boys. This is both false and absurd -- mathematics, logic and computer science have no gender.

No, the underlying message is that society treats women and men differently, and thus comparisons like what you just did (changing "girls" for "boys") do not work. You may not believe that, but that's another problem. If I create a program to help poor people become programmers, am I really saying that rich people are different than poor people? And do you think I can use "low income" and "high income" interchangeably on those programs?

Why do you feel the need to say that Asian people are more at a disadvantaged that women? Can't we agree that both are at a disadvantage and we should help them? Your statement is highly subjective and really difficult to prove. You are also implying that we should help women less and Asian people more. Don't be like that. There's absolutely no need to try to empower one group while lowering another one.

"just because the victim is a woman, doesn't mean it's sexism."

You really think people forget about that? That there are a lot of people around the planet who think any aggression against a woman is sexism? So much that you think your comment is necessary and adds to the discussion?

I agree with some of the points, but the first one really put me off with reading the article. I've never suffered over sensitivity from Americans, and in fact, I see just the opposite. This could be my biases crawling in, but it really bothered me (and I'm not American) reading "(oversensitivity with not telling obese people to get their act together is a major contributor in my opinion to why there are so many of them in the states)" because it was just a cheap shot, especially since it may very well be the opposite from the truth: http://www.businessinsider.com/weight-discrimination-linked-...

Are saying that all men are a "racist" stereotype, so if there was a woman it would have to be a "sexist" stereotype? How does that make sense? Why can't one of the "racist" stereotypes be a woman? Just because a woman is not a man, it doesn't mean that you need to add something to repeat that they are different.

There are other differences between the characters in TF2 other than their nationality that do not get their own sterotypes. Why is it necessary that as soon as a woman appears, sexism is necessary? Why isn't the reverse true? Do you think that it may have something to do with male being considered a "default" gender?

This is not about something being "feminine" or not. A lot of people will say that War is not feminine, but it still doesn't make sense that there were no women in CoD.

1. Because of institutional sexism. Things that exist that discourage or push women off the path to working in technology.

2. It's not that only men can ride it, it's that it's already full men, which is the current situation. Most people trying to get jobs in the technology area are men.

3. The elevator would be policies that help women in the technology areas. Be it affirmative action, or programs designed to help women in the area.

4. Because if you allow everyone in the elevator it would be full of men once again, and a line would form, with the same situation that it's happening in the escalator. If you could manage to make a line where people all queue correctly, and cancel both escalators, you would lose the current situation where people more skilled get to the second floor first.

I thought it was pretty clear. Did I manage to explain it better?

All these articles are assuming Nintendo will get the whole profits from the videos, but I'm not seeing that in any sources. Does any one have more info on that? As far as I understand it, Nintendo will only get a cut from the profits, YouTube another cut, and the rest will go to the creator of the video. Not that it makes the move much better, but I think it's important to note if people can still make money from Nintendo Let's Plays.

The other thing I would like to know if anyone has more info, is if this in fact, affects Let's Plays. Maybe they were only going after machinima, or videos that show trailers or cutscenes. Is there any source where I can read more of that? I think this could be the crux of the issue: if they aren't trying to get money from Let's Plays, the move isn't so bad. EDIT: NVM, read the original source and they are claiming LP videos... that's sad, really.

What I find weird about this whole thing is that neither Nintendo or YouTube have issued an explanation of how things are going to work, and why they think the move is a good one. With all the backslash that this has created in the last week, I would think those companies would like to offer their side of the argument.

You do realize that the sentence you quoted (and the article itself) does not say that only women suffer from high performance demands? It's just saying that a lot of the high performance demands for women stem from the fact that being fewer means more scrutinization?

> Many or even all men can feel this same expectation in performance-based professions, but they will not blame their sex.

Maybe they should, maybe there is a problem affecting men right now because of their gender. Why are those men (and apparently you too) dismissing the concept entirely? There are science fields made to study this topic. Why don't men take advantage of them to figure out if the high performance demands come from masculinity or some other gender-related thing?

Where does the article says that men are simply being sexist?

Wow, it seems most of the comment here, as of now, decided to overlook the parts of the article that explicitly state problems that are most suffered by women. For example, how this woman had a boss who stroke her hair, or how another boss hated to hire women. That kind of pressure does not exist for most men in the industry.

Yes, men suffer from high performance demands in business, but this is not oppression Olympics. Nobody is trying to figure out who has it 'worse'. All this article is saying, is that, as a woman, she has suffered a lot of pressure that is based on her gender, and she even presents examples of it. Men can suffer too because of their gender, but that doesn't mean there isn't a "women in tech" problem, it means we have a "women in tech" problem and a "men in tech" problem.

And it's also true that there is a small pool of women CS graduates. But that doesn't prove that discrimination isn't real. You can also say that the reason the US only has one black president has to do with a smaller pool of black men running for elections, but it'd be ludicrous to say that proves discrimination against black people isn't real.

Then there's one comment of someone implying that the "women in tech" problem is just men wanting to get more women around them, which is not only really men-centric, but also completely ignorant to the article where a WOMAN is explaining the topic and trying to find a solution.

It's incredible how Lewis's Law holds true even for HN.

Agh, not again. As far as Kurzweil theories are semi-crazy and border on beliefs, he is not forgetting about social learning. What you are forgetting is that these things could be done much more faster on a machine than on a human being, especially if we had a better grasp on how they happen. Especially considering they don't need to also develop a physical body. And some things that we learn when we are babies could be "built-in". Also, I don't believe that Kurzweil would say "We wouldn't deliberately build in any pathologies of any sort."

And to finish this rant, the idea is that this "improved social learning" would also be applied to humans, not only to AI, because it would be a really important tool. And that may be the main reason why we would develop something like that.

It's explained in the post, at the end, that the difference is that for most if not all of women's only colleges there are other universities that are similar that accept men. Not only was the author not referring to ALL men's only colleges, but she was talking about a unique opportunity that women do not have just because of their gender.

It's widely used in Latin America. AOL and Yahoo! IM were almost never used there, and MSN had almost all the marketshare a few years ago (before people started using Google Talk and Facebook).

After reading the article, who assumes the universe is a computer? The only times I heard it is people suggesting the possibility, not believing in it. I'm sure there are some people who actually think the universe is a computer, but this is not a widespread problem, or anything really.

So you are only taking into account the comments from a white guy while totally ignoring the feelings expressed by the minorities saying that that's their problem?

> Everyone keeps talking about the 'white guy' as if there's only one type of person who is white and male.

That's another issue, but not the one we are talking about. There was a lack of diversity in some important areas. Maybe there was a lot of diversity in other areas, but that doesn't contradict the first assessment.

Why Panoramic? Panorama has been in Android's Camera app for years. I think you mean Photosphere, which is different than panoramic.

Although I understand that you want something to run faster, preemptive optimization is not always the best solution. It can lead to bad code and to weird behaviour. For example, arrays and especially associative arrays should not go inside double quotes, most of the times (I'm not sure if it's even possible). That way, double quotes are only useful with single variables, meaning that sometimes, even with double quotes, you would need to use concatenation.

And that's not even taking into account sanitation, because with double quotes it's easier to avoid it, and harder to notice.

I prefer choosing one of those types of quotes and sticking to it throughout the code. It makes code more readable and makes it easier to notice bugs and optimization problems.

Well, yeah, that could be it. But that restriction is just on the general ToS and I don't think Apple was bound by that. And I think that both Google and Apple could have agreed to let Apple maps use turn-by-turn, disregarding the API ToS.

I find it hard to believe that Google did not want iPhones to have turn-by-turn. In their minds, the more people use their services the better. And I never saw one piece of evidence of Google crippling a product on iOS so people buy Android.