15 karma · joined June 18, 2014
That doesn't mean there aren't a few good points in there, but for someone who claims to abhor narcissism, this person sure likes to talk about themselves and their achievements a lot.
The development of male features in foetuses is triggered by a massive release of testosterone. The second stage of gendered differentiation, puberty, is similarly driven by the release of sex hormones in both men and women. Noticeably, adolescent boys with a malfunctioning endocrine system do not display typical male features (lowered voice, facial hair, etc), lesser tendency to masculine psychology (like risk taking and aggression), and don't develop sex drive (straight or gay) unless they start taking injections for life. It should be uncontroversial to say that sex and gender differences, both physiological and psychological, are tied to hormones.
Next up, the brain: the most complex and expensive organ we have, a complex system of feedback loops, again driven and regulated by secretions of hormones and peptides and so on. To say that evolutionary psychology is false and just anecdotes, you'd have to argue that, despite all the other visible changes that sex hormones make, somehow, the brain is entirely unaffected by all of that. That gender is mostly (or as some claim, entirely) a social construct, determined by something as subtle as a tone of voice or the presence of 'patriarchal gender roles'. Even though studies show children and teenagers are more affected by their peers' behaviours and attitudes than their parents'. Even though there is no culture where gender roles are truly swapped, and the 'Norwegian Gender Paradox' remains true.
Not only does the science show nature plays a significant role in the "nature vs nurture" debate on sex and gender, but policies based on denying it have failed to work.
I'm not an evo psychologist, or a biologist either. But it seems a lot more reasonable to me than what's coming from the supposed equality camp.
"definitely rape" is so far off base, it's ridiculous. You're either gravely misinformed, or shilling.
The only good part is where the author criticizes the "doing good" cult vibe that's been substituting common sense at Mozilla more and more lately.
If you imply that women are inferior though, the statement has to be vigorously opposed. Imply that feminism isn't necessary, and the tumblr and twitter brigades will come out to shame and silence you, until you agree that women have it harder.
It's absurd behaviour for a group of people who supposedly believe women are equally capable as men. Once you figure this out, feminism makes a lot more sense. When they can blame men, they blame men. When fairness requires them to blame women, they blame 'society'.
Here's an article that cites several different studies. Granted, I cited the higher end, it could be lower, by all means make up your own mind. They also add the caveat here that it only applies to metropolitan areas, but this is the vast majority of the population nowadays.
>... in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in the U.S., the median full-time salaries of young women are 8% higher than those of the guys in their peer group. In two cities, Atlanta and Memphis, those women are making about 20% more. This squares with earlier research from Queens College, New York, that had suggested that this was happening in major metropolises. But the new study suggests that the gap is bigger than previously thought, with young women in New York City, Los Angeles and San Diego making 17%, 12% and 15% more than their male peers, respectively. And it also holds true even in reasonably small areas like the Raleigh-Durham region and Charlotte in North Carolina (both 14% more), and Jacksonville, Fla. (6%).
> As for the somewhat depressing caveat that the findings held true only for women who were childless and single: it's not their marital status that puts the squeeze on their income. Rather, highly educated women tend to marry and have children later. Thus the women who earn the most in their 20s are usually single and childless.
http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274...
Once again: women and men who want families make different choices.
Biked in Europe for 20+ years, and now live in North America. The problem is exactly your attitude: that there is only one "road", that there is one right way to behave on it, and both drivers and cyclists should follow it. It's like North Americans can't wrap their head around the fact that driving is just one mode, cycling is another, walking is yet another, trains are yet another, etc. and what you call "the road" is the disproportionate part of the pavement that you dedicate uniquely to drivers.
For god's sake, this. If a demo is full of "ignore that", "don't look at that", "yeah we're going to change that", the demo is a failure.
So she not only reduces men to their genitals and implies that men rely on them when making decisions, but considers it equivalent to, say, their college degrees, in assessing relevancy. We're supposed to listen to this person on matters of sexism?
The "right on red" seems to be a hack to address the fact that there are too many traffic lights. Indeed roundabouts would be better, those narrow Euro city centers are often faster. They also like their ridiculous 4-way stops instead of just yields. Right on red is indeed dangerous for cyclists, and when there's a bike lane, it is sometimes disallowed with a sign. Many drivers ignore them, and you always have to double check or risk getting creamed.
The "taking it too seriously" part is I think because biking in traffic here is an adrenaline rush. I do things here that I would never do at home, yet they are often the safer option. I sometimes bike into the third lane to make a left turn, I sometimes sneak a block on the sidewalk if it lets me use a safer crossing. Every single trip involves careful planning of your route. Often there is no bike lane, and you just have to share the road with traffic, while avoiding the swerving doors of parked cars.
Even worse is when they put a suicide bike lane between the first lane and the second/third lanes. The idea is that the first lane is a mix of parking, bus-stops and right hand turns. So you have all of those crossing through the bike lane, often cutting it short at the light, and hating you for being in their way.
The streets I rode on as a child to primary school were safer than the stuff being constructed here today. Pretty mind-blowing. They are slowly learning, but the entitlement from drivers (to whom 80-90% of the paved road is dedicated to) is insane.
To make it worse, pedestrians here just don't seem to understand cycling is a third mode, and they will obliviously wander into any bike lane even though there's literally a sign every 10 meters telling them to go onto the other path. A "shared bike/pedestrian path" is pretty much a shit show of people having 0 spatial awareness.
Sandboxes are cute, but they are a shitty choice to build the platform of the future on.
I just don't understand why people ignore this elephant in the room.
With Web Audio, you can't ask for mic permissions without listening indefinitely, using up battery. You can't process audio offline with the exact same API, you have to send a 0 gain signal to the speakers and do it slowly, real-time. Want complex-valued FFTs for adaptive frequency domain filters? Sorry, all you get is a toy magnitude spectrum with shitty exponential smoothing. This isn't envelope pushing in the slightest, and I don't understand why people are impressed by this. Except of course that web developers are easily amused.
In all this HTML5 malarkey, WebGL is the only API that managed to avoid "not invented here" syndrome, and even that is years behind what is considered normal on mobile, with essential extensions still waiting for approval.
Are we supposed to be impressed by the audio capabilities of 15-20 years ago simply because now you get to do them in single-threaded JavaScript, with annoying black box async APIs, shitty number types and no serious high resolution timing control? Go build a web audio API based audio player with real-time effects that can play skip-free for hours on a busy mobile device. Then I'll be impressed.