ceol

Reddit.com is defined by its default subreddits — its front page. The fact that other subs exist doesn't negate the very real culture that has risen to the top of the site like the layer of oil on a cold, disgusting bowl of soup.

[0]: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/07/reddit...

[1]: http://royal.pingdom.com/2012/08/21/report-social-network-de...

Seriously, what's up with this? There are at least two Bitcoin articles on the front page every day.

I had no idea Coinbase was funded by YC, though. I wonder if there's any correlation.

They aren't repaying. They're paying. The grant is given so that they don't have to pay.

Do you understand exactly what the grant is doing? It's giving money to women who already qualify for the school but can't afford the expenses of living in NYC during their time there. This has nothing to do with chocolate factories or whatever you're talking about.

Actually, no. You made the first assertion that teachers don't have a problem with the lack of men. I'm countering with the opposite. There is no assumed default in this case, so it's up to either of us to prove our argument. Here is my proof: http://www.menteach.org/ There are outreach programs to get more men into teaching, which means teachers do think it's a problem.

> I'm not going to bother spending time arguing with a child.

I can only assume the name-calling is due to your frustration with being proved wrong. You should spend some time learning how to better handle yourself.

Change is much more likely to happen if there is a substantial population of women participating in the industry.

Another unsubstantiated claim. It's like you don't understand how claims work. Saying whatever you believe as though it's fact doesn't make it so.

> like I said, Sweden education system tried and failed and that fact is not hard to find for yourself.

First: It's not my job to prove your argument for you. Second: According to you, Sweden apparently tried gender-exclusive classes. Hacker School isn't excluding men from its program. It's just providing a way for women to pay for expenses. Those are two very different things.

> Others has published articles such as

That article actually proves you wrong...

>> These programs have brought or accompanied significant gains for women and minorities. In the past 25 years, black participation in the work force has increased 50 percent and the percentage of blacks holding managerial positions has jumped fivefold. In 1970, women comprised only 5 percent of lawyers compared to 20 percent today. Twenty-five years ago, the student population at University of California, Berkeley, was 80 percent white compared to 45 percent today.

So, they are beneficial, and they do work.

No, that's not how it works. Again: Read up before commenting on a topic you're not familiar with. Having a penis does not guarantee a person is a man, and having a vagina does not guarantee a person is a woman. This is pretty basic stuff to understand. I'm not sure why you're having trouble.

> Do you have a problem that grants to students are given on the specifics of someone being of the racial and ethnic minority called African American, and is male?

No. Your comment implied you had the problem, as though because they give it to black men, it somehow detracts from the fact they're giving it to men — like it doesn't count.

> or African American male teachers.

So then, what's the problem? They're still men, which is apparently the defining factor. That comment doesn't really help your case here; it just makes you look petty and a little bit racist.

> Is there any grants that gives men money just for the fact that they have male genitalia and are willing to enroll in education?

Gender has nothing to do with genitalia. You really aren't informed on this topic, are you?

A lot is. Contrary to your comment, programmers have to interact with other people in order to participate in the industry, whether they're in college learning or have just taught themselves and are looking for a job. I've had quite a few female friends tell me about high school teachers and college professors who told them, straight to their faces, that programming was "for men" and they don't belong. There are still plenty of male employers who pass over perfectly qualified candidates just because they're women; plenty of male classmates who harass women with "get back in the kitchen" jokes. One of my friends even dropped out of the program all together because of it.

> Why don't we try to make this profession more interesting to everybody, instead of focusing on just 50% of the people?

Because in order to make it more interesting to everybody, we need to even out our numbers. Otherwise, when we open up the field to everyone, all we're going to do is inflate the numbers without changing the ratio.

The total number isn't the problem; it's the ratio.

So then... your source? Because I'm sure if you talked to any random teacher, they would tell you that the lack of men in teaching is a problem with the industry. You're still not providing anything to back up your claims.

> after evaluating each individual on the basis of their merits, one may discover that the individuals who have been found to excel may belong to the same group.

So exactly what I thought. Which part of the brain makes women more inclined to teach grades K through 12? Which part makes men more likely to teach at the college level? Which part makes women not excel as much as men in programming?

> Male and female brains have massive differences in the amount of gray and white matter for one thing.

Your first link doesn't show that women are less likely to be programmers. It actually shows they would be more likely, as they apparently excel at intuitive thinking, multitasking, and remembering.

That doesn't touch on the fact that I said "think a certain way". I didn't say they are exactly the same. I said there has not been definitive proof that men are hardwired to be programmers/leaders/managers/etc and women are hardwired to be nurses/teachers/caretakers.

Check.

> to reach groups who otherwise would not be aware of existing services (In this case, education).

Check.

It does both things. It fills the gap of an affordable, welcoming resource for women who have an interest in programming, and it reaches women who would otherwise not be aware of a resource that is friendly toward them. You just don't like that it's reaching out to a specific group that you happen to not belong to.

> women-exclusive classes do not work, and are indeed counter-productive.

Hacker School isn't excluding men. It's merely saying they will help women with expenses while attending the school. It's not giving women an express lane through the application process.

> You discard what is a step backward, and only use what is a step forward. Small step backwards are still backward steps.

Do you have any source to prove this is a step backwards? Because one of the largest and most resourceful tech companies in the world happens to disagree with you, so you're going to need a little more to back yourself up than, "Nuh uh!"

And please don't throw around "scientific method" as though it applies here. You're not bringing in any new information. You're just stating your own opinion and then acting as though it's fact.

Source? Because I'm sure if you talked to any teacher, they'd tell you they would prefer a more balanced selection of primary school teachers. The least you could do is a simple Google search,[0] which would show there is a movement to get more men into teaching.

> after looking at the individuals, more of them may belong to one group than another.

What does this mean? That men "belong" to programming and women "belong" to primary school teaching? (Not college teaching, of course! That's still heavily dominated by men, because they evolved to prefer teaching college-level classes or something. It's biology, you see. There's a "professor" gene inside all men.) That line of thinking inevitably leads to saying men's brains are "wired" to "think a certain way", which has been proven false each time it's brought up.

[0]: https://www.google.com/search?q=men+in+teaching

There's plenty of research into "industry causes of gender bias." This is one of the solutions. You're basically claiming that because this doesn't completely solve the gender divide, it's lazy and worthless. Well, sorry, but that's not how the world works. This is one of many small steps into getting more women interested in programming, which then eliminates the glass ceilings and discrimination.

How you and the others in this thread don't see this is just baffling.

> I don't want to end up in a workforce where people are working because it was a good financial decision from yesteryear.

Well then you're barking up the wrong tree, because there are plenty of men who got into computer science because it's lucrative. On the other hand, if you told a woman, "Hey! Want to earn an upper-middle class income? All you have to do is spend every work day of your life dealing with crude jokes at your expense, boys' club mentalities, and an industry that has little more than contempt for you!" I doubt many would jump at the opportunity.

The problem with sorting by how "truly excited" they are is that some women might not know how interesting programming is to them. They were never given the opportunity, and every time they got close, they were shunned or pushed back because of their gender.

If you truly, honestly cannot see these grants as anything more than "reverse gender discrimination", I'd have to say you're part of the problem.

Aside: How much of your savings did you dump into it?

Apparently they stuck around.

The problem with all of those "design critiques" (if they could even be called that) is they derail any discussion about the product itself. As of this comment, three of the top four comments are complaining about the design or structure of the website, with the fourth being mine. You have to scroll halfway down the page to get to anyone talking about the actual product. That's shameful.

I get that moaning about its design lets you feel smart by participating in the discussion without actually contributing anything meaningful, but at least just upvote a single person for it instead of posting the same damn comment over and over again.

----

I like that it seems as open and adaptable as they could possibly make it while also keeping it simple. It would be interesting to see just how rugged it is. I'd also like to see how this could be used in an environment that requires a little less "ruggedness", like a coffee shop or a community board room.

I only ever see comments like yours on Bitcoin articles. Most every other article, HN is even more negative, and everyone goes along with it, but as soon as it's about Bitcoin, "How dare you say those things!" It's almost as if you've convinced yourself of Bitcoin to the point of not being able to handle anyone questioning it. Your mind just can't comprehend why anyone would not hold the same view as you.

I wonder what that sounds like?