reuwsaat

Facebook is free! (So long as you're comfortable being the product.) I know, I'll create a new account with another service and then pay them to delete my history. Never mind that now yet another company, this time one without an obvious privacy policy, potentially has access to my personal info.

No small amount of irony posting this on Hacker News.

It's funny[0] that "Number of deaths" = "Number of people killed by animals". Perhaps if humans allowed that the deaths other animals is also of consequence we'd have a healthier relationship with nature. It's ranting about your home being destroyed by a hurricane, especially since you just rebuilt it after last years hurricane. Deaths by malaria and the destruction caused by hurricanes always terrible, but we need to look into mitigating such harm both by working with and against nature (which we are a part of, so I take issue a little bit even making that distinction, but, for the sake of discussion).

[0] funny = sad

People that are of a sexual persuasion that their employer disapproves of. Victims of domestic abuse. People with stalkers. Bunch of other example. But really I think the author is speaking about the benefit of not, well, what the article's title says.

Agreed. Bitcoin provides anonymity and people that use it for political or convenience reasons are sometimes looked at suspiciously. But, if I go into Walmart and pay for $150 in groceries in cash, no biggie.

Services like SpiderOak that include anonymity as a feature to a small extent do a disservice so the otherwise laudable principle of "can't I be anonymous sometimes without being a criminal?" Maybe zero-knowledge features would be looked upon less suspiciously if they were just included as a feature, without being advertised as a feature? Well, I think you get my gist?

This is news how? Isn't this what reviews are or on Amazon?

who's to say? please see ridiculous amount of references to bathrooms in other comments. next time i'll just submit something on bathrooms. i think it'd do great on hn.

i was curious as to what people would assume about my gender. i didn't want to say because my question/post was about an icon. not me. and the icon is about USERS. not gender.

but, since it's becoming fairly obvious what many of you have assumed, i'll clarify. i'm a guy. i'm white. i'm straight. i'm upper-middle class. was raised christian (but have since converted to otherwise). grew up in texas. hold two degrees. in fact, i went to asu which was the #1 ranked party school one of the years i attended. i worked in a global investment company in the financial district of new york for 5 years before have the insanely fortunate opportunity to take a year off to study mathematics so i could transition to machine learning. i'm not the "persecuted" type. i'm actually the poster boy for not-persecuted. this is not about me.

this. is. not. about. me.

this is about assumptions.

subtle, banal assumptions. (at this time you're encouraged to dig in deep to the hannah arendt reference.) especially in the digital world. we are digital; online there is NO ANATOMY. out with skeuomorphism. web design has gone flat. so what's the rational behind using skirts (gender) to define a user (agent)?

"I'm a guy, the guy icon is blue, I don't care." really? really?? and thank you for speaking on behalf of our entire society.

you're a guy, you had the right to vote first. you have, on average, better pay. you are more often elected to public office. you occupy more seats on the supreme court. you control a greater percentage of the worlds wealth. i could go on. and on. and on.

regarding "adds some nice colors to the app", and this will be my last reply/comment because I'VE GROWN WEARY OF THE FALSE CHOICES PRESENTED AS "COUNTER ARGUMENTS," if the point of the icon is to add color, then use color. if it's to show different users then maybe use faces as netflix does for the ipad. if you want to use symbols, it doesn't have to be m,f,u and thus assume english; many, many other symbols would suffice. similar to what the other person said, when i go to a my favorite mexican restaurant and they have completely non-english, non-'united states culturally', absurd black and white photos to differentiate, i don't walk into the wrong stall. i don't turn stupid and have to ask my server what's what. and like the other person said, if i did, it'd be funny. whatever.

we are not stupid. some of us are just not concerned.

it's about assumptions. and since several replies have gone off topic, i'll go global. it's not just gender. it's also about culture. it's also about race. it's also about economic freedom. it's also about religion. it's also about language. it is about DIFFERENCE. the difference the icon is trying to demonstrate is the difference between two USERS. rather than give another, of the cuff, option for demonstrating two different USERS and have the entire conversation rear off course, i'll just say, i think we can do better.

it's true. the restroom sign has come up a lot as i've shopped this question around to my friends. i think it's a spot on point. sexism seems primarily to be discussed in the media when extremely heinous things go down. but i think it's equally import to look at the banal, everyday manifestations of it. including bathroom signs. what does going to the bathroom have to do what we wear on our bottom half anyhow. we all drops our pants in order to use the facilities, regardless of gender.

clearly not everything is trying to get me. and, i wouldn't bother if it was. i'm confident that i can handle myself. you comment speaks exactly to my point though. the icon is supposed to show two different USERS. not a man and a woman. and that you think that the icon is the best way to show the difference between a man and a woman is also to the point. maybe the starkest differences between a male and a female are not color or clothes. but, that IS the way many think. i think there is a problem with perpetuating that.

poster here :)

please keep in mind that this was a support ticket, not a thesis. i think my assumptions are obvious, fair, and valid.

how "groups" are depicted in public is internalized, privately. "hmmm, everyone in that commercial looks like me / doesn't look like me. i think i'll buy that product / won't buy that product."

it's like the problem with public bathroom signs. and false choices. why not instead use the letters "M" "F" "U". Male, Female, Unisex. There. We can embrace kilts and convenience. (and if that doesn't work, there are other options. i'm sure we can come to some agreement that doesn't require equating gender with "my favorite color is..." or "most people of gender x/y (pun totally intended) wear...")

so, is it just me? or is this icon sexist? (even a littel?) you decide.

so courts can force companies to relinquish users data globally, but corporate taxes are still protected. we're such suckers.

"We’re all in this together, so grab a friend and SPLIT!" Unless you're striking. In that case, Uber will not be with you. Uber will in fact be against you. What about when the strike is over. Well, Uber isn't really with you then either. Please see terms and conditions. We're all in this together "throughout the entire 48-hour strike until 6am on Thursday morning". Then, when unions have been busted and public infrastructure de-funded, you're on your own again.

Real time discussions between employees and management instead of some arbitrary scores for goals set 11 months ago that are then fitted to a bell curve (Yahoo, AIG, many more). I haven't given Ambition full look-see yet, but I really, really appreciate the sentiment.