zallen

It's a terrible definition of intelligence. Intelligence is far more than just predicting things based on a massive set of similar things. We do do pattern recognition, but I don't need to have seen 10k dogs to be able to recognize a dog. And it's not a difference of degree, either. "Meaning" is something I am able to derive from my experiences, and it is not something an LLM does or will ever be able to do (nor is training data even analogous to having experiences in any way shape or form.)

I mean, here's a pretty good starting point then: https://aclanthology.org/2020.acl-main.463.pdf

Whoever downvoted me not only has no sense of humour but is also clearly bad at math. Maybe you need to be replaced by a lady.

Oh, I don't know, let's math it. I keep hearing that women need to be twice as good to make it half as far. Sooo, 20% women in STEM x 2 x 2 (twice as good; and, multiply by two to make up for half as far) = ... 80%

Q.E.D.

I keep reading this positive stereotype about women needing to be twice as good to make it half as far, and yet this outcome would be a the natural consequence of that if assessment was to suddenly become fair. People need to better choose their 'ladies in the workplace' stereotypes methinks. Unless it's true, in which case...

Let's see, 20% Women in STEM x 2 x 2 (twice as good; and, multiply by two to make up for half as far) = ... 80%

Q.E.D.

This guy has just got daddy issues: his father is a CS prof at Yale.

(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gelernter, mention of his son as this guy: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240529702038331045770721...)

Answering this question feels like the hardest problem I've solved yet... ;) Because, I don't know: I've never really thought "this one! THIS is the hardest!" You just iterate and things get more and more challenging as you build skills. What seemed hard to a junior tech doesn't seem hard to me as a senior tech now. It's all just engineering. It is all just sitting down, reading manuals or prior art, getting familiar with protocols or fundamentals, and building maps in your head until you understand something. Then building proofs of concepts and outlines; then, applying a bunch of troubleshooting principles; repeat until problem is solved. I've written academic papers this way, I've built streaming servers off esoteric industrial process-control database APIs, I've done process visualizations, I put a model railway online (before that was an out of the box thing)... and it's all the same: use what other people did, understand it, and then build from there.

> "That wasn't so hard. Why did it take me so long? Am I bad at this stuff?"

Hah. Always. Hindsight bias and impostor syndrome are a fun mix! I remember writing a blog suite (with comments!) in Perl in the late 90s; back then, without S.O. and other knowledge-sharing beyond some Usenet forums, inventing the wheels as we went along... it was all hard.

You do realize that finance is one of the worst places for representation of women and is recognized as a cesspit? (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0316/072_terminated_women....). It's wonderful that your friend has had positive experiences throughout her career.

That is a very good start.

Found this sneaky advertorial for CodeCore Bootcamp, which promises to make you a software developer in only 8 weeks! 8 weeks! Sos that you can access fabulous jobs in Vancouver for the exceptionally high average salary of $50k a year! FIFTY K, PEOPLE.

Amusing rebuttal here (more about Vancouver than the 8 weeks aspect): http://blog.deliciousjuice.com/2014/01/07/12-reasons/

So. 8 weeks? To make a software dev? A Hootsuite intern, perhaps...

I'd argue that it takes several years to develop a problem-solving toolkit, best-practices, and just enough fundamental theory to be a half-decent developer with both breadth and depth enough to write non-embarrassing, maintainable code without needing tonnes of support, feedback (which is always helpful, but particularly essential in early days), and nights spent falling asleep with K&R on your face. Whether that's in school or out, getting employable takes time: time spent doing code, and thinking about it, and talking about it. I feel like these CodeGuru guys are being misleading at best, and that article reads to me almost like satire.

Fuck you.

...Was that emotional enough? Or not emotional enough? It's so hard to tell.

@kansface It's not bad for your credit rating. A number is simply a representation of the account. The account doesn't change. It's not like getting a whole new item of credit issued. Just the means to access it.

Also, great idea. But a pain, because most of my bills - cell, internet, insurance(s), etc all go through my credit cards. Is a gigantic pain to change the numbers.

Wait, she looked at the cached version of the site and found the IP address? My stars! What a hacker! (not even nslookup?) They left a database backup in a publically-accessible web folder with directory listings turned on?! That's shocking. And that's not "hacking." Finding that file wouldn't take very long or very much diligence, and zero illegal access or any sketchy scripts or even much poking-around. I'm not sure this proves anything except that the political party in question absolutely deserved to be called out for their laughably unprofessional practices -- particularly if there was donor information stored there. It would have been polite to give the devs a day or two's head's up (that's what I would have - have - done) but I certainly wouldn't call a screenshot of shitty security "bullying." Who knows whose script kiddize's robot found that file before she did and used it maliciously? People need to know that shit.

The post you're trying to recall was this: http://therealkatie.net/blog/2012/mar/21/lighten-up/

Women in tech often are exposed to a culture of subtle denigration. A single incident may not seem like a big deal (and, in fact, isn't), but when it's the eighth one that day...

1. The topic isn't about men's participation in other fields; it's about women's participation in this field. The 'what about men?' argument is something that you see a lot in many spaces where women's rights and inclusion is discussed, and it's a derailment from the point. We're not discussing men's non-traditional career choices, and if we were, the barriers and issues to be discussed would be very different. That's not to say that isn't an interesting topic, but the discussion turning to be about men happens in so many discussions about women and equality that it's become a cliche (queue larger point about society in general). What you can do is ask what men, who share an interest in an egalitarian society, can do to help women in this instance.

2. You probably don't mean to, but you're displaying a lot of privilege here (in the technical sense, not pejorative): by that I mean you're making an unstated assumption that the barriers that women face getting into the field are the same as what you faced, and therefore that, given those small and inconsequential barriers, they just must not be interested -- if they were it would be as easy for them as it was for you! Sorry to say that it's not that simple, and men's and women's experiences of tech and education and society just aren't the same, for the most part, and for the most part it's women who have the lower-quality experience.

I keep returning to the time Etsy decided that they wanted female engineers (http://www.themarysue.com/etsy-female-engineers) and tried to figure out how to find them (http://firstround.com/article/How-Etsy-Grew-their-Number-of-... - good summary of their presentation points).

Interesting results; it worked. They did find that women had less industry experience, which made them riskier hires; a self-perpetuating problem, as we all know with the cliched need-experience-to-get-jobs-to-get-experience cycle.

The company was rewarded by taking the risk. The key take-aways are that they not only created an event that targetted women, but they also overcame several other barriers like women not wanting to leave already-safe workplaces (because it's more of a risk if you don't fit in as a woman than as a man) and women not asking for help as much (because if you ask for help, you're more likely to be seen as a failure/fraud) by creating a mentoring, learning environment that catered to women.

This sort of effort appears to be what's needed, even at the post-graduate level, to achieve gender parity in programming work.

I suspect that OP is one of a lucky set of gifted natural engineers who would have found her place in tech (and did) anyway. But, most people aren't natural engineers, and the deck is simply societally stacked against exploring the field as a woman if you don't have a burning innate interest already.

NB: I'm female, and I ended up in programming for mostly mercenary reasons (jerbs! My arts degree wasn't panning out); I never had any "Women in CS" events to point the way, but I did have work experience as an adult with female scientists and engineers, so it felt totally plausible that I could go into engineering myself. That exposure was key. The subfield I'm in now - web - is one of the few with a lot of female devs, and a community that actively supports us. I've heard a few coworkers express similar misgivings to OP and yet the evidence seems to be that the more we are encouraged to participate, the more we do.

It's not about you.

"Men do not hit women."

Right. Except all those cases of domestic abuse, I mean.

"Men are polite to women."

Have you ever actually been a woman? Typically men ignore women, except attractive women, who they ogle or patronize. In stores, men get served first or, if it's a couple, people assume the man is the decision-maker and speak primarily to him. People assume that men lead any social interaction. This is readily observable even if you're a man.

"Men put women first."

Except when it comes to childrearing, domestic arrangements, wages and promotions, poverty-reduction programs, marketing, healthcare (there's viagra and procepia, but it was only two years ago they figured out the structure of the clitoris), and in the classroom where boys are still called on first and it is routinely assumed that girls can't do math or science.

But otherwise, sure, you're spot-on.

(Oh, except, not identifying as a woman. We try. Especially online, where random threats of violence and rape happen routinely in certain communities like gaming as soon as you check the "F" box, often from complete strangers. But are you really saying that an entire group of people should just not be who they are to receive equal treatment? Right.)