I'm sure there's some useful information in here, but it's not worth digging through the patronization to find it.
I would have the same condescending sarcastic attitude while doing it if I was venting too.
I also know a lot of people who like my sarcasm when talking about topics like this, so yeah as a guy who very much gets's where the author is coming from I agree this seems like a double standard.
I wouldn't read this if it was a tutorial and not a story.
Statistically speaking, maybe that's the same as me not reading it at all in 90% of universes.
https://medium.com/@genchilu/brief-introduction-about-the-ty...
The problem is that a solution for I/O bound workloads has become generalized as the solution for all concurrency needs when in reality, that’s just half the picture.
Presumably “queue depth determination”, another new term for me, means determining how big the queue of pending requests for a service is allowed to get before further requests are refused (another load shedding measure) rather than being enqueued.
Anyway, what i do really like abt this post is it shows the chain of technical details across the call chain. it connects together info on dozens of man pages, etc. I also appreciate how it points out the inefficiency is quite convenient for service providers.
I think criticism about gratitude is strange when the author is pretty clearly coming from the standpoint that it was a bad idea to use this in the first place (and, to be fair and with regards to Python specifically, I tend towards that standpoint myself) that labor begins to look like it's being set on fire. No Purple Hearts for self-inflicted wounds and all that.
Everything Rachel writes is a convoluted mess that’s impossible to follow.
To extend this further, I also don't like NewYorker for this reason alone - I don't have time for convoluted novel-like stories that has the important bit buried somewhere in the middle of 6 pages. If I want to read beautiful and creative prose, I need to be in that mindset. Not when discussing Python innards.
I wish she would put a review at the end of sources / main concepts so I can learn more.
This one, at least, is new.
According to the post, "the thing" with Python/Gunicorn/Gevent is it's less performant than one would like in some circumstances, and a lazy developer might tell you you need to 'set your system to "elastically scale up" at some pitiful utilization level, like 25-30% of the entire machine'.
That's probably true! But not that helpful if you don't say what those circumstances are. There are many circumstances where Python is appropriate for a web service, and many circumstances where green threads work just fine. Tell me when I need to consider using the more complicated solution, don't tell me the simpler solution is always useless and doomed from the start.
And jeez what do you make of the BOFH if Rachels style upsets you.
tl;dr: gunicorn doesn't know how to multiplex listeners and green threads will ruin your request latency.
The thing is, that post isn't very useful nor interesting. The point here is that the "simple" python architecture doesnt scale well at all so you might not want to use it if you're planning on scaling ever.
Seeing this comment at the top of the page on the highest ranked post on the HN front page for the only woman programmer that I am personally aware of who regularly makes the front page really feels like a kick in the gut and looks like sexist garbage. And I would like to think better of HN than that.
I've seen similar comments leveled at PG [1] and Zed Shaw [2], so I don't think it's just sexism.
[1] https://idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blowhards.htm
a) criticising content rather than delivery/tone
b) not the primary conversation around these two authors
Look to Linus Torvalds for a male example where delivery rather than content is often the primary conversation. That is how egregious the delivery must be for a male to get the tone police called on them
I don't consider Linus Torvalds that vitriolic, BTW. Most of the time when he's angry he's trying to make a point. I think of Erik Naggum [2] or Poul Henning-Kemp when it comes to real vitriol on the Internet.
Keep in mind he did create the Linux kernel and git, so even if he delivers them inexpertly, even on a bad day, he has some technical insight.
All that said: I agree there is some gender bias showing up on this thread.
Take your winnings and go home. Linus is not above social censure. His team reined him in not hugely long ago and the comment you are hissing at agrees with your larger point that there's some gender bias happening here and was uncommonly reasonable and evenhanded. I upvoted it.
I'm trying to be supportive. I'm trying to tell you "You've done enough. Relax. Take a break. Feel okay about how this went down."
I mean if your mom is dying of cancer or something and screaming at internet strangers is good distraction from more serious problems, cool. Don't let me stop you.
But if the point was "Doreen is right: this thread shouldn't be at the top of the page!" well, it's not anymore. Job well done. Have a cold brew or whatever and feel okay about it.
I've defended Linus once or twice. I'm also glad he chose to take some time off and rethink things.
I can't think of any women we give similar accommodation to. That doesn't mean they don't exist. But the reality is that Linus is in a league all his own. It just sounds catty to make comparisons to him in that fashion.
I imagine if we genuinely had a "female Einstein," she would be pretty unique and would carve out her own unique relationship to the world at large.
I'm sincerely not trying to bust your chops.
My point is that we do have examples of female excellence, but almost invariably they are not uncouth. It seems more likely to me that the uncouth ones are silenced than that only male excellence can come in a brusque box
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Reno
I'm short of sleep. I really don't desire to continue this discussion. I only spoke up because you seemed really frustrated and I wanted you to feel okay about how things went and that's apparently not your takeaway at all from my comment.
I'm not getting into this argument about how it's not sexism because (bs example pretending men and women get treated exactly alike when everyone knows that's absolutely not true).
(Not disagreeing with you! I just thought it was an interesting question.)
However, what seems to have happened here is that a bunch of folks are upvoting this link to the top of HN because of who the author is.
Meanwhile, other HN readers find this particular post to be a waste of time because, frankly, the content of the post itself is not particularly interesting or useful for most HN readers. Other posts[1][2] by this author have been much better suited for the top of HN, for example
[1] https://rachelbythebay.com/w/2018/04/23/pace/ [2] https://rachelbythebay.com/w/2019/11/18/oldbash/
But of course there are other people that may get more out of it and not have a negative reaction to it.
Seems weird to get worked up over spotting a complaint on HN just because a woman wrote TFA. And btw, most complaints on HN are leveled at men simply because men populate this forum and tech more than women. Does that mean this forum hate men? Why is it assumed men can handle it but women can't?
I have to wonder how many women are turned off by the idea that they need to be babied like this and can't take generic online criticism. Or the suggestion that criticism was only leveled at them because they are women. It sure reeks, to me.
Criticizing how a message is delivered is standard HN criticism. Especially the sort of "everyone is smart except for me" tone of TFA. I myself criticize commenters here for that as it's something I can't stand, either.
Why would you think it's something we only see leveled at women here? And, according to what? And, yes, you're then infantilizing women when OP does receive that criticism. I think your heart is in the right place, but you're doing exactly what you think you're condemning.
a) much more likely to happen for much softer offenses
b) much more likely to become the primary conversation rather than an aside buried three levels deep in the comments
Perhaps in this instance Rachel's rhetoric was so off-putting that it really deserved top billing for conversation/criticism here. But that doesn't ring true for me, and I sincerely doubt the conversation/top post would be the same if instead written by e.g. Carmack
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/29/clinton-trum...
> “When a woman says it, it doesn’t sound as crazy,” said Maria Guadalupe, a professor at France’s INSEAD Business school and a co-creator with Joe Salvatore, clinical associate professor of educational theatre at New York University’s Steinhardt School, of the play.
Hmmm.
Is your conclusion based on actors reading off lines, or real life tone policing?
Maybe if it's a "natural experiment" it could be that women know they'll be held to a more tolerant standard (by most people) so they can get away with being a bit ruder. Or maybe they don't know the standard is more tolerant for women (they might even think they're being oppressed) but know where the line is where a crowd will turn against them (like most people do), and that line happens to allow them to be a little ruder.
1) The smiling aspect is explained (for me) by society pushing women to constantly smile, but not men. The amount we expect men and women to smile is different and when they violate those norms they're either a bitch (women for too little) or fake (men for too much).
I'm not sure how to interpret the tone aspect, and it's super interesting! It definitely flies in the face of multitudes of studies showing the reverse. I'm inclined to believe the studies which are really quite simple e.g. have people grade a short essay where the only difference between groups is the essay author's name.
Entire audience hears "Some whiny bitch reading in sexism where there is none and that needs to be shut down cuz reasons."
And therein lies the problem.
But I promised myself I wasn't going to be dragged into some shitshow. I knew no matter how carefully I worded it, it was likely to get ugly pushback and not get good faith engagement.
So I'm out of here. Thanks.