pksdjfikkkkdsff

Why does it not work the other way round, some women with bad experiences don't overrule the good experiences of other women?

For what it's worth, many of the accounts of "bad experiences" didn't really convince me, either. It is too easy to attribute all of one's issues to sexism. For example the common complaint of being passed over in promotions, or of having one's opinions not being appreciated. That happens to men all the time, too, they just don't get to claim it is because of sexism.

Confirmation bias may play a huge role in those personal accounts, too.

As I said - usually the comparison to actual experiences of men is missing. There are many, many more men who have been passed over for promotion than women who have been passed over, in the tech industry, for example.

Another thing that is missing is an account of the advantages women have, like men being eager to help, extra funding only for women, hiring quotas, and so on.

From 100 thousands to Billions is kind of rags to riches. And even so - you are saying he doesn't deserve his success? It doesn't count because he went to Montessori school?

Most "studies" of that are rather distorted, you have to read very carefully. For example they may summarize that many women have experienced discrimination at some point. That can mean in 4 years of study, somebody once made a sexist joke in passing. It doesn't imply they had real issues. And the issues of men are not even studied for comparison.

That latter thing might be the biggest issue. The basic assumptions seems to be that things always come easy for men and they are always welcome.

And yes I know many women in tech, as I studied with them and worked with them.

I have also seen many articles by women in tech who say they didn't have issues. But somehow they don't count and are quickly forgotten, because they go against the narrative.

Not everybody becomes a Billionaire, but most people with intelligence and skill amount to at least something. The luck factor is mitigated by people trying several things until they succeed. You throw out the hypothetical example of the talented people who didn't amount to anything, but how common is it really?

Would you also say Steve Jobs was merely lucky, and everybody else could have founded Apple? Perhaps people just don't know enough about what those CEOs do?

And of course at a basic level, it is always luck, because even being born, being healthy, the place where you are born, intelligence, and so on, are luck.

I think to assume people don't deserve stuff because they were lucky is rather backwards.

Imagine you had a brain tumor, and you need brain surgery. There is a surgeon who was very lucky - he was born white, male, to a wealthy family, so that he could afford to go to the best schools to become a really good brain surgeon.

Would you then say that guy doesn't deserve your money, because he was just lucky?`

I'd say that's just bullshit. It doesn't matter why or how he got his qualifications by luck, magic, whatever. What matters right now, what makes you willing to give him money, is that he can provide you with the best odds of a successful brain surgery.

You are welcome to pick a random poor person from the street to perform that surgery, for the sake of fairness. After all, it isn't their fault that they weren't able to afford the education to become a brain surgeon, right?

And if you say that brain surgeon should have to operate on you for free, that is exploitation, plain and simple. You dispose of his body. In the end he would be punished for becoming a brain surgeon, because people would feel entitled to his services and would make him work 20 hours a day, with no compensation.

"> Whether it should be possible to be arbitrarily rich is another question.

You were so close to getting it, what happened to you?"

There is a difference between limiting how rich anybody can get, and taking everything away from families if the head of family dies.

"Hey, person who can barely make it to get by and spends all of their income on subsistence-level living, why don't you just get more capital?"

How many such people even exist? If you barely make it, you should aim to improve your situation. Try to find a better job, try to learn skills that enable you to get a better job, and so on. Few people are really doomed to such a situation forever. And those who are, usually because of illness, need charitable help or insurance. It's a separate problem.

"everyone should be given a fair chance to make it--but what is fair, how is this decided, who enforces it?"

Well who do you want to decide what is fair?

I think markets are the best mechanism to establish fair prices. Other than that, you can establish some baseline - access to housing, food and education, so that people can try to make something out of their lives. It can be discussed. But certainly it doesn't mean fair has to be everybody has to have the exact same starting positions. It is not even possible, because not all parents are the same. If your parent is Paul Graham and he teaches you programming, you already have an advantage against other kids, even without economic resources.

"So it's perfectly acceptable when Coca Cola sends death squads to kill labor organizers."

Obviously not. I think you are being silly here. Basic laws still apply.

I'd like to have more data on the women graduating from bootcamps. Maybe it is a desperate move of aging single moms who find they can't make a living with their degree in English Literature? While most men who are interested took traditional degrees to begin with, so they have less need for bootcamps.

Sorry for the harsh formulation, but the point is, we really don't actually know what is going on. It is not legitimate to just assume women are being pushed away from traditional career paths in IT.

As for Military, I think the idea to become a Software Developer is by now a very common one, you don't have to come from a specific demographic to have heard of that option. Women come from the same backgrounds as men, the odds to have a baby girl or a baby boy are the same at all levels of society.

He has been going at it consistently for many, many years now. He just happened to be lucky year after year?

Most people don't even try, but it doesn't stop them from accusing people who put in the work and who take the risks from just being lucky.

"Unfair capital advantage"

Well, again, start accumulating capital, if it is such an unfair advantage.

"I, too, am in favor of a 100% wealth tax upon death. No more freeloading failsons."

I am absolute against such a thing, in fact I consider it an insane proposal.

It seems one of the fundamental human rights should be people being allowed to provide for their children.

People work to have successful children. It is absolutely incorrect that all children should have the same starting positions for a fair world. If a couple works hard to earn money, and others don't work and instead pop out 10 children, why on earth would it be fair to take money from the hard working parents to distribute it to all? I know many people who would like to have more children, but feel they can't afford them. Why should they be punished for being responsible.

It even starts before people have children. They work hard to be attractive and find a good mate, to improve the odds for their children. That is basic human nature.

The acts of their parents are not the children's fault, of course, and everybody should be given a fair chance to make it in life. But there are limits. Both strategies can be valid (have few children and try to give them a good head start in live vs having as many children as possible and leaving them to their own devices), but it would be unfair to politically punish one strategy over the other. At the very least, if you take away money from the responsible parents, you should have to limit the behavior of the irresponsible parents.

The only way to make things completely equal for everyone is to disallow people to have children, and instead rise future children in clone factories. Why should that be considered desirable?

And even more basic than that: people should be allowed to do with their money as they please. Including giving it to their children.

We know that because he did it. He literally proved it by becoming a Billionaire.

Yes, lots of people were alive in the exact same time when he started Amazon.

Why exactly is inequality a problem? Because people suffer from their envy?

People starving, having no health care, low life expectancy, that sort of thing, are problems. Their neighbor having more money in the bank is not really a problem.

There are also actually differences in skills, performance, diligence, and so on. It would be very unfair if some people weren't allowed to earn more money than others.

Whether it should be possible to be arbitrarily rich is another question.

It's not about bad faith, it is about showing the absurdity of aiming for representation of people by sexual preferences.

Sorry I have difficulties parsing what you wrote. What exactly do you mean? Who are the bad actors?

Presumably there are people who are being exploited in the world. But to claim in general poverty is a result of exploitation seems very questionable.

Start with basics. People live in the woods, with nothing. Some start building a hut from sticks, others don't. The ones living in huts suddenly are richer than the ones who don't, even though they haven't taken anything away from the ones who don't have huts.

And of the ones who don't have huts demand some of the huts from the people who built them, who is doing the exploiting?

A roof over you head can be very useful in the rain.

Arguably, almost everybody in the Western world has gotten rich.

Go visit a medieval castle sometime. The standards that now everybody has required an army of servants in the old days.

It is just a hateful lie of the left to claim "being rich" is dependent on exploiting poor people.

Afaik his finding are disputed. And even if not, why should it even be desirable to encourage labor? If capital is so great, people should seek owning capital, not seek to work more. As they say, savings plans start at 50$/month.

It seems rather great that this opportunity exists (assuming it is true). The alternative is that you have to work and work until you die.

It's certainly not "toxic all the way through". That's such an insulting assumption. I bet you for example that at engineering university women are more likely to get help than men.

But why would you expect women to be more like to choose the approach of not graduating than men, though? Women have the same options to attend university as men. It seems more likely to me that the proportions of applicants without a degree are similar to the ones with degrees.

When I hear statements like that, I always wonder if they try to hire 2% pedophiles, too. About 2% of people in the real world are supposed to be pedophiles, so if they want to reflect the real world, they should aim to hire them.

The article claimed that 50% is the goal.

And if people aiming for diversity don't have 50% as a goal, somehow I have never seen them name another number that they would consider satisfactory.

I don't know what your question refers to, tbh?

Women (or any other group) can't speak for themselves about properties of the group. Everybody is just an individual. Statements about groups can only be made by using statistics or at least observance of several members of the group.

If that sentence offends people, I don't know. It is obviously a joke (not implying the opposite, but of course smart people go into programming).

Also, I am sorry, but I am entitled to have an opinion on that matter. You are welcome to challenge my opinion, debate me, present alternate facts, whatever. But you (or anybody else) don't get to tell me that I am not allowed to have an opinion. That's a ground rule I am not willing to budge on. Nobody gets to tell me what to think, or to like.

The second reason (apart from being smart) is that women have more choices/options than men. This is actually well documented, but the article chooses to ignore it because it would spoil their pitch.

All these discussions, by the way, imply that women are stupid for not choosing engineering, and need to be convinced to choose it against their own judgement. Is that really better than my quip about them being too smart to choose it?

Edit: I seem to have overlooked the second part of your statement , or you added it later.

As I said, there are studies showing women have more options - they tend to have talent in multiple fields, and many men only in one. (That's for the studies). Women are also shown in studies to be perceived as more agreeable than men. Another reason they have options is that they have less need to make a good income. And the ultimate option is to have kids and drop out of work that is not entirely pleasant. I personally like Math, but even I find it difficult to voluntarily do Math. So I am not surprised if many people don't keep doing it, when they don't have to.

Also I think drawing cartoons is very different from being an engineer in a Software Company. You can work in cafes. You can stroll the city and draw sketches. You can do such things as a programmer, but it is not the norm - actually you can only make cartoons if you can afford that lifestyle, anyway.

And the bias is different. Employers have tried to put me into ugly rooms several times in my career (basements, windowless rooms, open plan offices). I think for creative work like drawing cartoons, people would be more ready to acknowledge that the artists need a nice environment to get inspiration.

Also, there is the prestige. Being an artist vs being a programmer. Or being a doctor vs being a programmer (70% of medicine graduates are women, but conveniently it doesn't count as STEM for some reason). There are glamor TV shows about being a doctor or a lawyer. How many shows are there glamorizing programming? It has only gained some prestige because some people famously got rich doing it.

It's abuse of statistics to fabricate a nonexistent problem. People do it because it works so well and is so easy. Everybody wants to help women and "marginalized groups". So with some superficial, misleading statistics, you can attract attention, money and hiring advantages. Why wouldn't people do it? (I mean campaigning for those parity goals. Why companies chose to try to comply is probably simply PR, and the hope to be able to hire cheaper developers).

Unconscious bias has been debunked.

Because you would sacrifice your kid's wellbeing just to make some arbitrary, meaningless statistic look good.

And do you think women having to work with computers all day would end up being less grumpy than men who have to do it? Why?

I've always said women are too smart to become programmers. I'm pretty sure it is better for the soul to have a job with more people interactions. (Yeah I know there are meetings and you have to communicate with clients - still, you end up staring into a glowing screen most of the time. The general work environment often isn't great either. Why would Software Engineers need a nice environment, they only stare at their computers anyway, seems to be the general thinking).

There are many stories of people who had horrible experiences with Google interviews. White people get anxious, too. You acknowledge yourself that those feelings may be irrational, but nevertheless I wanted to point out that you don't really know what it is like for white people going through those interviews. White people are not automatically being hired, either.

That's independent of gender or race, though.

Because they make it so in the admissions process. How is that even an achievement? OK they get female applicants, which presumably is not automatic. But then to tune admissions so that you get to 50% is not really something to be proud about imo.

So her claim is that going to t top tier university is a complete waste of time and money, because boot camp graduates end up being just as capable?

What are top tier universities doing to keep being competitive with those low cost boot camps? It seems to me for the additional money, they should be able to provide some additional value?