cvbcvbcvbcvbc

So the article is just about what the person writing the article thinks is cool. OK - whatever.

Viable VR headsets for home use only came out last year (Oculus Quest). Nvidia's latest graphics card is sold out. People got rich mining cryptocoins on their computers (granted, 10 years ago, but still).

There are still many interesting things to do with Computers.

Also back in the day, people who liked Computers were likely to become outcasts in society. They were not the cool kids.

“While we found that women are negatively impacted by this strategy, we found that men are less likely to cover because they are less likely to anticipate discrimination."

I can believe they somehow measured that "men are less likely to cover" (by some measure), but how do they know the reason is that they are "less likely to anticipate discrimination"?

I think it is a huge problem with such papers that they mix data with their personal beliefs and interpretation. It seems to be typical for feminist papers. They collect some data, then, in the summary, they claim "the reason we see this data is because of ongoing discrimination". Many people seem unable to distinguish the different parts of such papers or "studies".

There is one part to assert authority, "see we are doing the science thing", and then they use that to push their agendas.

I think since the media has destroyed its authority completely, this is the next frontier of politics to watch out for. We had to learn not to trust journalists, now we have to learn not to trust scientists. (Everybody can claim to be a scientist).

Not really. There is a huge replication crisis. Even the famous "anonymous orchestra auditions" have been debunked afaik.

I think what can be inferred is that you are very set in your beliefs. I'll leave you at that.

I've never seen people flaubnt their karma or congratulate others on their karma here, and I have been on HN almost from day one. I've also been on the leader board at some time (when the board was introduced or was topic of discussion, may have been the only time when people where congratulated for their karma or position on the board).

These days I use throwaway accounts because of the increasing censorship and to force myself to ignore the karma system.

I think karma does affect the algorithm that decides if you get flagged or banned, or at least alerts the mods. May just be the short time votes on specific comments, though.

I'm not opposed to speculating about things. Just don't claim they are facts without providing any evidence.

He was given extra reading material and read advanced math books while in high school, afaik.

But we do know that Einstein was actually good in physics, so the argument that "she was better in objective parts" seems rather questionable.

People fail exams all the time, for a variety of reasons. Every now and then here on HN there is a big discussion on how job interviews shouldn't have whiteboard coding sessions.

Maybe she was such a person who can't do live whiteboard coding. Oral exams are something like that. Then the system is perhaps bad, but it doesn't sexism was the cause.

Also usually oral exams involve more than one interviewer.

And I think it is fascinatingly manipulative to frame it as "all female are kicked", if there was only one female to begin with.

(Note: it is of course possible that sexism was the cause, but it can't be inferred from the information given. BBC sure wants to suggest it, though)

Not sure people care about it, I think it was added just for fun.

I don't mean it is not important, but it doesn't change how society thinks about things in a significant way. Evolution theory offers an alternative to the explanation that "god created everything". That affected everybody, not just the scientists.

It was a huge leap because it was the first time somebody offered an explanation for the diversity of life, other than "god made it so".

She did work in physics, though - she worked with Einstein on his papers, as we learned for example from the article here.

You don't actually need permission to work in physics. Didn't Einstein also write his seminal papers while he was working at the patent office?

Also from that example, it seems that three times more male students than female students failed their exam. Doesn't really prove sexist discrimination, especially with the first example where she got the good grade and Einstein the bad one.

"No, that's just a thing I can relatively readily point to that gets respected here if you have male bits between your legs but gets roundly dismissed as worthless internet points if you have female bits between your legs."

Sure, whenever anything you say is dismissed, it must be because you are a woman. Not because you didn't provide any evidence at all to make your case. Also, women don't have to provide evidence, I guess, they just know things and have to be believed.

Pure speculation, though.

How did they both fare after their breakup? Did she continue to work in physics?

What exactly do you mean?

I don't know - at Darwin's time, evolution theory was a huge leap given the beliefs of the time, isn't endosymbiosis more like a detail?

Good alternatives to Keep that can be hosted privately?

I hope contacts would still be on my phone if I lost access, or is that hoping too much?