652 karma · joined July 30, 2012
100% agree with you. I also think a lot of the difference in the gender ratio can be attributed to the fact that women simply have far more options.
Ok, asshole childless person is at least mildly related to the topic at hand, but the rest of these just seem like irrelevant ad hominems.
>Now do the world a favor, and shut up. Forever.
Why do I get the feeling your tumblr is full of equally venomous "go kill yourself"s?
Nowadays we'd just give a scholarship to a rich PoC female.
I don't think she's doing that. Note that she doesn't say that you haven to have been programming since age 2, just that you have to have a natural interest in "solving the puzzle or building something." I came late to programming since I didn't have access to computers I could tinker with, but I was still putzing around with k'nex and getting yelled at for taking household appliances apart from a very young age.
These special ed for women programming events are harmful to all women, not just women who already program. You can't de-emphasize gender by putting more emphasis on it...
Did you even read the article? The point she made is that feminists are trying to "fix" the gender ratio in tech by expanding the definition of hacker to people who have no idea what solder even is and have never printed a hello world in their life.
>dismissing behaviors that she doesn't find valuable (in her words: "ephemera -- popularity, beauty and fitting in").
These things are in no way relevant to producing good code. They're completely orthogonal.
>Are we defining "hacker" to include only people with bad social skills and no interest outside of technology?
The only person putting forth that argument here is you.
How classist of you. There are plenty of people from working class backgrounds who achieved great things. Just because you started in poverty doesn't mean that you've never achieved something worth talking about in response to an interview question like this.
Honestly, I think disadvantaged people are in some ways at an advantage here--we have so many more limitations, that we have to become quite creative in our attempts to get around them. The more advantaged people can take a more convergent path because there are fewer obstacles in their way necessitating an annoying (but ultimately educational) detour.
Speak for yourself. My natural habitat has great public transit, so I get my exercise built into my commute.
Hardly. People have been enslaving each other throughout the entirety of human history. To suggest that America is somehow exceptional in this regard reeks of ethnocentrism. The Arab slave trade is arguably just as important, but somehow I doubt you condemn residents of the Middle East as harshly as you do whites...
White people were slaves, too. Both in the Americas and elsewhere. In many places, they were treated more harshly and considered less valuable than African slaves.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-irish-slave-trade-the-forgo...
>If you can get a cab
If you're poor, you aren't going to be taking a cab no matter what color your skin is.
>Muslims didn't get to...thousands of times in thousands of contexts over hundreds of years...get the economic boost that comes from a large proportion of the population existing to serve.
"During the 8th and 9th centuries of the Fatimid Caliphate, most of the slaves were Europeans (called Saqaliba) captured along European coasts and during wars.[2] Historians estimate that between 650 and 1900, 10 to 18 million peoples were enslaved by Arab slave traders and taken from Africa across the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Sahara desert.[3]
Unlike the trans-Atlantic slave trade to the New World, Arabs supplied African slaves to the Arab world, which at its peak stretched over three continents from the Atlantic to the Far East."
If you want to condemn white people for slavery, you're going to have to condemn everyone else for it, too.
>Because it lets white Americans...[shift] the focus away from them and their ancestors.
Not every white American had ancestors that owned slaves. In fact, most white Americans had nothing to do with slavery--much like today, only the top 1.5% (1) or so of Americans enjoyed any of the benefits stereotypically ascribed to "white people." Poor white people were left to scrounge for low income jobs and educational funds, much as they are today.
Blaming all whites for slavery is much like blaming all Muslims for 9/11. From the past to the present, only the rich have benefited from slaves--as can be seen by the fact that the first slave owner in America was actually a rich black man. (2)
1. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Unite...]
2. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_%28colonist%29]
The rug is really cute. I hadn't seen it before; I wish they'd kept it.
One of the smarter guys in my physics class was convinced that programming was a dead end career. I was perplexed since he read a lot of science and tech news and seemed pretty up to date on things in general.
It's not SF, but there's a really nice tech scene here in NYC. Who cares about the finance people? I don't care if NYC's #1 most famous industry is tech. Rank #2 or #3 or #4 is fine too, just so long as there's a decent enough amount of it going on to enjoy.
Yes.
I think it really depends a lot on where you live. I live in NYC now, and fruits and vegetables here are about 75% cheaper than when I lived in the midwest. I can get a pound of blackberries for $2, when I'd pay probably double that for just a few ounces of them in my home state. Takeout is almost as cheap as cooking (filling, tasty meal for $4-5), which helps drives down costs when you're exhausted and don't have any more energy left to make something.
Fact remains: feminism is a dying movement. For good reason, and good riddance.
>Quotes from privileged, mostly white women
Does exceeding a certain number of privilege points negate the existence of your vagina? Aren't all women supposed to be helpless victims of The Patriarchy (TM)?