It's quite ironic that in a sentence about sexism and a male-dominated industry, the author addresses the developer by 'sweetie'.
In general I'm always very wary of "teenage prodigies" stories, they're very marketable but I think they're bad for everybody involved: on one hand the "prodigy" is on exhibit like some kind of circus freak and at this age is probably ill-prepared to deal with the attention, on the other the people he's supposed to inspire (kids his own age) just see a bar that's impossible to reach. You can't expect your average 16yo to write a high quality crypto tracker app regardless of gender. It's not inspiring, it's discouraging.
Mozart and Tiger Woods are both thought to be prodigies, but their parents were very involved in their developmental process.
Don't know enough about Mozart to know if his father actually wrote and played 90% of his works.
you're completely missing my point. Your logic is incredibly infantile.
Strong mentorship is important. It's like the difference between a good and bad coach on a sports team. If a sports team wins a champion, its unlikely they could've done it with a coach who doesn't know what they're doing.
if Earl Woods or Mozart's father had ZERO background in music and golfing, could Tiger Woods and Mozart be known for their talents? Maybe, but they would be far less dominant. Just another golfer and musician, the average person has never heard of
Unless by "mentor" (as seen on the dialogue-screesnhot) means "X and Y designed this and that for me so all I did was put my name in the front page).
We have hundreds of people doing this in https://hackclub.com, many of whom are 16 or younger.
Interestingly, at least in my area, it's generally only used by women and effeminate gay men. As a result, actually using the term does imply effeminacy, so a straight man using it to insult a woman may be unknowingly implying something about himself which he'd find embarrassing.
That being said, I believe this particular use was intended to be ironic/sarcastic. Though it ends up being just a distraction.
However, the author may genuinely not have noticed the sexist connotation until it was pointed out.
Either that or she is being deliberately patronising towards perceived innocence, also for comedic effect.
If anything its very civil language towards a spoilt brat whose parents should be ashamed to have raised a liar.
As for the actual article, I guess it goes to show that this "kid genius" media stuff is always self-interested on the part of the institutions and rarely if ever benefits any kids.
I'm sure the author had a point they were trying to make, but it was completely lost on me with the condescending turn to 'sweetie'.