reroute1

What a pointless comment. It's just a bunch of sarcasm with no information. I was doing part time delivery while freelancing a couple years ago. Please post something substantive not this junk.

I chose a clear biological difference to illustrate the point that was being argued, about one sample population disproving the larger trend. And it's not an unsupported claim there is plenty of science and argument for why men and women choose different careers.

Please note that this doesn't discount any actual gender bias that may exist. The biological claim is only that men and women in general have a given set of personality traits. That isn't controversial science. It also isn't controversial because it doesn't claim that men are better engineers or better anything, just that more in general may naturally gravitate towards certain activities.

I could just as easily say you are looking at a biological difference and inferring a societal bias. Just because it doesn't exist in the same proportion everywhere doesn't mean that the difference is not biologically based. There are endless confounding factors that would lead to variations in different locations. The fact that the overall difference stems from biological differences doesn't require universal equivalence of the effect.

For example men on average have more muscle mass than women. If you found a random population of women that had proportionally higher muscle masses compared with their male peers, that doesn't discount the biological fact.

> There’s a lot of motivated reasoning by men that their innate characteristics are selected for computer programming. There’s a lot of hostile behavior by men towards women who are in computer science. You can view this like any other resource scarcity turf protection gambit.

That is entirely your opinion. Framing biological differences as turf protection is laughable in my opinion.

Yes but only in very poorly designed systems. We have those now with AI it's no different. I still see no reason to jump from 2 to 3 other than incompetence in design.

Guessing because it's like a programming workout (exercise)

I used to take the train into Union Station at Chicago every day and I thought I recognized parts of the model almost right away, it really is quite well done.

Totally wrong, his arguments were from the current era of science and not racist. They weren't even close to that.

Weren't there like 4 TV channels to begin with. It's been trending this way for a long time.

So? It's still force in alignment with the majority. That is better than force in alignment with one central power that may or may not have public interest.

Maybe this was a more novel thing to discover 15-20 years ago? Perhaps it is people and their opinions that have changed?

But how is this different than political ads on the radio or tv or a billboard? Sounds like you are against political advertisements of any kind.

I don't disagree there could be damage done by misinformation, but I don't think that's a compelling reason to ban political ads. I still think people should look at the ads and decide for themselves what is true.

Why should they? People can make up their own minds we don't need to restrict online advertisements. False messages appear in all other forms of advertisement, facebook or twitter is no different.

OK so you have no more information than anyone else? We all have friends who talk about relationships and its all anecdata. Not to mention you have a very specific group of open and non-standard people which could give a very different selection of behaviors than the normal population.

You are essentially arguing that all gender studies are useless because there is parity among individuals in each gender. It's true there is parity, but the scientific division between male and female is very clear. It seems VERY useful to study the differences. To throw them away because all men and women aren't identical feels to me like a terribly short sighted perspective.

Getting one side of the story is not getting the whole story.

He's talking about evolution though, and it definitely seems to hold up for our past as a species.

I agree, also this should have been called why to be pretty good at lots of things.

Or conversely she could be rewarded for fixing the underlying problems and given a new, possibly similar task.

And as someone living in Chicago or any similar metro area with strong seasonal weather can tell you, there are far higher crime rates in the summer than in the winter. Young people have more down time in the summer and people are outside and get restless in the heat. People stay inside in the cold winter and keep to themselves more.

How is sex on public tv a better indicator?

They probably are a minority, but how does that relate? There are still millions of people participating in the game, having more spectators doesn't negate the participants. If anything I think that would reinforce it being a good game.

I disagree. Lots of the streams I enjoy are largely based on the personality of the streamer and their interaction with viewers. If you start removing their freedoms of what they can and can't say that would heavily impact their interactions and limit their opinions/speech. Yes it's true that most of the dialogue isn't heavily political, but politics is a wide sweeping topic. What if they are bringing up legitimate problems with the game, or the parent game company? Totally reasonable and interesting opinions that actually happen all the time on streams would be in danger of getting banned. Not to mention discussion of everyday life outside of the game which is also commonplace on many streams.

Just watching gameplay with no opinions and interaction is a watered down boring stream in my opinion. Maybe there are times when that is what someone wants when specifically looking for gameplay tips and how pros play, but that is only a subset of game streaming even by professional gamers. If the streamer is a sponsored pro, sure they have to worry about those sponsors but what kind of advice is it to tell them they should have no opinions? It feels short-sighted of the sponsors because they are limiting the potential of the stream and if they already sponsor someone, why wouldn't they want their opinions heard?

I'm not disagreeing that it goes against company mission/guidelines, but if part of your product is player streams and you give them a caveat of not having the ability to freely express opinions that is going to be an incredibly boring stream.

Professional players maybe, but how many millions and millions of recreational players?

Most gamers aren't pros either.

No opinions of any kind... sounds like a super interesting stream!

I would say in general I agree with your point, but there are many pure skill games that have large audiences. Like most sports have incredibly low RNG compared to something like poker, but have giant audiences.

That could be a big conflict of interest though. What if the intelligent financial decision is not in line with your morals?

I am all for people running away from investing in these companies, but in reality that is a conflicting request of an investor and not something anyone who is focusing on returns will have much patience for or interest in. I just don't think it's going to convince real investors.

just cancelled my WoW sub

Great now you're able to eat one crappy meal forever. Maybe people want variety and taste and don't have time to invest in that?? Maybe people live in an area not near a good grocery store, which is VERY common in lower income areas... think harder if you can't envision this being more complicated than it seems