knowitall

Interesting, but I think I'll stick to lorem ipsum for the time being.

It seems to lack any kind of physical explanation of why it should be more efficient than traditional turbines? All it says is that it uses a smaller turbine - are those more efficient? I would have expected larger turbines to be more efficient (just on the grounds of larger fans in PCs making less noise...)?

It seems irrelevant if the turbine is sitting on the ground or not. "Accelerating" the wind also seems kind of irrelevant - they can't create energy that way. However, if they manage to drive a turbine with little wind that way that would otherwise not have worked, perhaps it is a win.

Maybe it is a good technology, just saying that I don't see any reason in the text of why it should be. At least they could have written "small turbines are x% more efficient than large turbines" or sth like that.

Possibly: on the phenomenon of bullshit jobs http://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/

Wouldn't the same logic also lead to the inevitable conclusion that the (fair) value of gold is zero?

Given that people pay real money for BTC, perhaps it is time to question the theory.

Btw, I found this really amusing: apparently the Tulip Mania never actually happened, or at least nobody knows for sure and lots of things seem to indicate that it didn't happen (overpriced tulips happened, but not a mania that made the common people join the frenzy and drove everybody to bankruptcy). It's on Wikipedia (the German version seems to be more clear about it, though).

So my vote doesn't count? What qualifies you make such a general claim?

I believe you that it bothers some people (for whatever reason - too much feminist indoctrination might play a part in some people). However, I don't think we can or should eliminate everything that bothers anybody from society, and reduce public life to the lowest common denominator.

Pink world wouldn't be a problem I think. Many FPS seem to play in weirdly colored fantasy worlds.

Edit: TL;DR I think you make the mistake to assume that games and ads targeted at men imply that there are no ads or games for women. It is OK to target games at men or women imo. I seem to recall a lot of ads for gender neutral Wii games, too.

--

It's probably true that a lot of games are targeted at men. Presumably because more men are into buying them than women. So what? There are enough games with female protagonists.

I am a man and a lot of "hardcore games" don't appeal to me (the ones that advertise on the box with "choose from 300 different weapons"). I scratch my brow and wonder about the people who enjoy that kind of thing, and move on. Luckily there are many, many good games, too.

Most games I picked for myself also have female main characters. For example I played a lot of Left 4 Dead, Tomb Raider, and many RPGs which almost always have a "customize your character" option which usually means you can play a female.

I hesitate to mention it, because I don't want to consign women to certain genres, but I don't complain about games that are about horses or whatever, either.

There are also big budget games targeted for women, like "The Sims".

Do you think a lot of women would like to play hardcore shooters? I don't know, but frankly, I am doubtful. I am not saying they shouldn't, just that perhaps companies have tried to estimate the size of the market before gendering the main hero.

Do you happen to know if the games with female heroes sold a significant amount of copies to women? I don't, but would like to know.

Edit 2: I think in most games where you can play a woman you have to do the same things as the male characters, so what do you mean by "the roles they offer for us to play"?

Um yeah that is what I wrote!

Men in power probably don't see anybody as peers. That is the meaning of "in power".

"I disagree, a teacher caressing a student in a college ad would be out of place today"

Lol - I meant without the caressing. The caressing part is obviously over the top, which is typical for advertising. I don't think anybody responding to that app would expect to actually be caressed by women.

There are ads were people's clothes fly off because somebody chews a chewing gum. Of course the sexism police will think they are sexist, too, but I'd suggest it is also owed to the shortness of the spots. It's not easy to say "women/men will love you" in a few seconds without being ridiculous.

I'd just like to question the idea that showing a person as sexually attractive is demeaning or reducing that person to whatever. It's just one aspect of life.

What stereotypical role - women like to caress men? Is that it? Because men don't like to caress women?

Are you sure this is not really about being uptight about sexuality rather than gender issues?

Not so much because it is not a very safe bet to find a wealthy woman to pay for your life just because you are tall and good looking.

Although apparently good looking men have advantages, including on average higher salary. So it doesn't hurt, but it's only a supplement.

As I said, it is an ad targeted at men, and I admit it plays to some stereotypes. However, I don't think from that it can be inferred that the message is "women are only useful as prostitutes". The message is simply "become a programmer and women will like you" - a message that would appeal to men. For women there would have to be another ad. Probably there wasn't one - I don't claim the 70ies weren't biased.

Probably at the time secretary was still a common job, and most of them were women. In that light maybe it also is less shocking - about as shocking as displaying a female teacher today.

My point is that the issue is completely blown out of proportion. I consent that this ad is targeted at men, so it shows things that appeal to men (not the least women being attracted to them). Would you say that in itself is a problem?

I think it is ridiculous to make that out to be a problem, because it would imply that no ads would be allowed to target men or women specifically.

If you show me that there are no ads trying to entice women into computing it is an entirely different matter (and presumably you would find few such ads in the 70ies - I don't claim they weren't biased). But dissecting a single ad doesn't make sense. Or rather, it doesn't make sense to deny the existence of sexual attraction and desire.

I'm sure you can find lots of ads where women do x (whatever, use some perfume, drive some car, whatever), and as a result men carry them on their shoulders or buy them a house, or whatever appealed to women at the time (maybe also men stripping for them, no idea). That would be "sexist" in the same way, except that it is ridiculous to complain about that because the desire to be attractive to the opposite sex simply is a fundamental part of human existence.

To be fair, being pretty is a good strategy for women. I feel reminded of a recent Sam Altman article where he wrote "sadly, learning Ruby on Rails in <some short amount of time> is still a viable strategy".

Likewise, sadly concentrating on being pretty is a viable strategy for women. It's not that they can't do anything else, but they have this option (much more so than men).

Hm, is that a general rule? My son is not yet in school, so I don't know what it is like these days.

Also "like pink" is different from owning the occasional pink thing. I suppose a boy who would dress exclusively in pink would stand out, and maybe the bullies would try to cut him down. Still, I suspect it is not a large scale problem - obviously I don't condone the actions of such bullies, I mean there are probably not that many boys who would prefer to dress all in pink. (I didn't research that, though - in any case everybody should be allowed to like/wear whatever they want).

Huh? I'm not a native speaker, but I think "programmers" is a gender neutral expression.

No doubt the ad is targeted at men, but that alone doesn't make it sexist.

How is it implied that she is not a programmer? I didn't see that at all. Also I didn't see that she is employed to "welcome men" in the ad. That is just feminist glasses making you see things like that. She could just be working there and be happy to get another capable colleague.

No it wouldn't have looked weird. That is just the typically baseless claim feminists insert into their arguments.

There are lots of ads that claim product x makes women more attractive to men.

I could agree that it would have looked weird in the sense that most ads look weird. Most ads are completely ridiculous. To get worked up about them is somewhat useless. Their weirdness is also probably a function of their shortness, though.

Psst, you are not allowed to say that :-)

I don't know - there certainly are women who play "hardcore games".

The more I think about it, the less understand what the problem is? For whatever reason, women seem to play less hardcore games. OK - but what is their problem? Do they think women unfairly miss out on all the fun? Then why don't they just tell women "hey, there is this thing called games, it's fun, try it" instead of whining that society made them miss out? Or do they complain that the wrong games are being made - which would be rather weird, because people are apparently buying these games. Or in other words, to me it seems a bit like saying "I would really like spinach, if spinach would taste like chocolate". Yeah, but spinach doesn't taste like chocolate, if you want chocolate, eat chocolate, but leave people who like spinach to their spinach. No need to convert all spinach to chocolate.

In what way is it sexist - because the woman wears a mini skirt? Because it is suggested that it is worthwhile to attract women? Because the guy doesn't wear a mini skirt - and she likes him for his salary, not his looks? Because the ad doesn't mention her PhD in mathematics?

I think this is all blown very much out of proportions. Sexual attraction is a basic aspect of human life.

"doing/buying/applying x raises your attractivity to the opposite sex" is really the most basic advertising message ever. Is that really a problem (more than advertising in general)? Why/how?

I get that this ad is targeted at men - but that in itself can not seriously be made out to be a problem either? Should all ads/messages/stories/games/movies be unisex?

Sure, but doesn't that mean that we agree there is no genetic disposition towards liking nail polish/lipstick? The reason people like lipstick is not that they have a genetic disposition to like lipstick, it's because lipstick fakes a sexual signal.

True :-) More people seem to be concerned about girls liking pink than about boys not liking pink, though.

I suspect most parents hate pink, though - they just give in to the wishes of their daughters.

A handy way to sell things twice if boys and girls need different colors. Maybe not so much for dolls, but certainly for clothes (can't pass on clothes from older sibling if gender differs).

Perhaps the main desire being served is to be able to announce "I am a boy" or "I am a girl".

Also note that there aren't many pink first person shooters.

My first girl-friend threatened to leave me in case I bought a game boy. It's not just stereotypes from the media, it's also an experience that lots of men have made in their lives. But that doesn't mean we don't like the idea of women playing games. Quite the opposite. I still remember the first time I saw a woman wearing an Atari T-Shirt. I could hardly believe my eyes... Turns out by then Atari didn't really exist anymore and was being rebranded by whoever bought the Trademark, but still (I was attracted, but I didn't talk to her, so no further story to that).

It's just that it feels like a waste of time trying to get women interested in games. If they want to play, fine, but why try to make them? (Speaking from the consumer perspective - game makers of course have different incentives).

Next week I plan to have a C64 revival party. I will invite women, curious to see how many of them will also play...

My advice for women interested in computer games: just do it/try it. Don't waste time wondering if you are allowed to do it.

While I think the history of marketing of games is interesting, to be honest to me this read like "bla bla bla... Video games were heavily marketed as products for men, and the message was clear: No girls allowed.... bla bla bla"

Meaning the conclusion "no girls allowed" is just randomly inserted somewhere in the middle of a wall of text.

Just because boys and men were identified as a large audience and targeted with marketing does not imply that girls are not allowed.

Nobody is forcing you to choose either aisle in the toy shop. Just the other day I bought a playmobil horse for my son that came in a pink box. Whatever...

What exactly do they mean by girls not allowed? Girls are not allowed to play first person shooters? How would such a rule even be enforced?

Or the right games are not being made for girls, then there would be more female gamers? I think whoever believes that should go out and make those games. Put their money where their mouth is.

Never mind that there are already lots of games that are being played by lots of girls/women. "No girls allowed" simply has no foundation in reality whatsoever.

Sure, I get that, as I also wrote here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6839794

But those are messages for the men, not for the woman who applies the lipstick. So is the desire basically to be sexually attractive like a woman? Or falling in love with one's reflection in the mirror?

You assume that being brought up like a boy/girl (that is, boys toys/games vs girl's toys/games) would be the mechanism that determines our gender. Why should that be the case? The mechanism could be something different entirely (As with the ducklings who accept the first thing they see as their mother).

Without that assumption, there is no contradiction in the "theory". Although it is also not a theory that can explain how people are made to feel like girls or boys. I don't think such a theory exists yet, or if it does, it has been silenced by political correctness.