swampangel

It's not necessary, one account lets you reply/boost/communicate with anyone.

But if you find an instance catering to a community/topic you like, you may want to create an account there to fully participate in that instance's local timeline.

If you end up in the crosshairs of a user with many aggressive/abusive followers, seeing their tweets in your mentions ruins the SNR of your twitter experience.

There's a reason why celebrities have had the "quality filter" available for ages. A very high volume of tweets makes it more difficult to use twitter to communicate.

Caramel colour is widely used, but some whisky enthusiasts are opposed to it:

(2001) http://www.just-drinks.com/analysis/caramel-addition-may-pro... (2011) http://www.masterofmalt.com/Blog/post/Can-you-taste-Caramel-...

It's definitely an enthusiast/purist attitude, but common enough that some distilleries now specify "natural colour". Even large whisky producers like Diego have natural colour product lines:

http://www.diageo.com/en-row/ourbrands/categories/spirits/Pa...

The actual impact of artificial colour on taste/aroma/overall experience is likely negligible, but I wanted to point out that it is an issue to some.

While this doesn't sound like a great working environment, my advice while you're there is to ignore the tone of your coworkers' comments and focus on their content.

If a developer condescends to you it's likely (a) accidental, because they don't know how best to explain something simply+accurately or (b) aimed at your current knowledge, not at you on a personal level. It might also be (c) they think you should have solved it on your own, which may/may not be true. In any case, all you can do is focus on the information and let the rest bounce off you.

The best favour you can do yourself is to be rigorous about following steps, checking your work and documenting things (just scratch notes for personal use).

Senior devs should be happy to help you learn, but won't like helping you fix sloppy/repeated mistakes. If you are confident that you've done your work with care, then others' bad attitudes shouldn't affect you as much (although it never feels good).

You may be able to turn this into a good experience. However, you may just be stuck on a team where where the pressure is on and nobody has time allocated to mentor you. If the situation doesn't improve, find a new job -- look out for yourself first.

Ask them to make a better offer. If they can't/won't do that for you, why would you be expected to make a sacrifice for them?

Regardless, your old company can't compel you to go work for a new employer. Morally or legally.

Alternately, what's to stop you from accepting the deal and then leaving in 4-6 months anyway?

> about 65% of our applications are currently from men, and men are about 65% of the people we invite to interview

That sounds to me like the point where blind review of applications would take place.

Consider 2 candidates with github profiles:

- A has a created small number of functional and elegant projects

- B has created a large number of functional but sloppy projects

Which is objectively better? The candidate who is more productive, or the candidate whose products have higher quality?

One may be a better fit for your organization, based on your group's needs and existing makeup, but that doesn't mean they are objectively "better" than the other candidate. Do you believe one of these candidates has more "merit" than the other?

Some people who believe a person has objective merit (as opposed to suitability for a particular organization or role) are actually expressing an aesthetic preference (selecting for tidy code, or work ethic, etc) while claiming/believing that their preference is "objective" truth. People opposed to using "objective" or "meritocracy" as labels are arguing for more nuance in understanding the needs and biases of people and teams.

They did point out that the first round selection is done based on anonymized applications.

It might not be not perfect, but if round 1 is blind to X, and rounds 2 and 3 admit people in similar ratios to round 1, it sounds pretty good to me.

> Like Shanley Kane's claim that men have a much easier time getting a 6 figure job out of college... except that unemployment among male college graduates is 50% higher than women's

"A study of more than 400,000 graduates who left university last summer showed that 9% of males were unemployed six months after quitting compared with just 6% of women.

However, when it came to salaries, those men who had found their way into work were earning higher salaries than women with 32% earning more than £25,000 a year - compared with just 18% of women." [1]

Men are more likely than women to be unemployed or employed full time, while women are more likely than men to work part time at one or more jobs. [2]

Your statement is accurate, but so is hers.

> I'll just quote from the legal documents shall I

You quoted Schwern's accusation, which you seem to think bears more weight than Plunkett's accusation, despite neither being legally substantiated.

[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/male-graduates-mor...

[2] http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011236.pdf page 7 (document page 17)

The post that spawned this subthread amounts to "Since gittip's main beneficiaries are women I disagree with, gittip should be shut down".

In that context, do you see how your post is stoking the fire?

You didn't indicate what you think gittip is for, just that noirin's use of it is inappropriate. You also said she "deprecates her husband", when she lists 2 facts:

a) he was arrested b) he is suing her for things she said about it

Plus, he's her ex-husband, and this is a situation where the distinction is important.

So in context, I don't think what you said was mild, I think it's somewhat hostile and inaccurate.

"Renewals available at regular price."

Their regular prices aren't expensive -- $9.78 for Comodo PositiveSSL and $11.90 for Geotrust RapidSSL. But it would be nice to have a moderate recurring discount instead of a one-time break.

Just to follow up, I picked white people because I'm confident they don't suffer discrimination in those areas. I'm white, so the only "someone" I feel comfortable speaking for is a white person.

I'm less certain that native americans, say, who have historically been treated poorly by just about everyone, wouldn't be watching for a different set of warning signs. I don't want to make assumptions about their experience in a given community.

I agree these discussions tend to boil down to man/woman and black/white but I think that's just what most of us in North America are most confident discussing. Anyway I'm glad it's been productive.

It shouldn't be the main deciding factor, but it helps. It's a signal like any other, although because it's superficial, it might be something you pick up on earlier.

Most people aren't driven to just one career path in life. They start out with a few different options that narrow as they get older. Given that, if you are investigating two careers, and they both have lots of creative tinkerers, but one of them has many more people that match up with your race and gender, is it unreasonable to factor that in to your decision?

White people don't have much historical evidence that they will receive poor treatment in the NBA or the jazz community because they're white. But black people and women do have reasons to pay special attention to signals that they might not be well received in a certain community/industry/workplace. It's not their fault for being aware of that.

No research here, just opinions: "Representation" might be a better word than "role model".

Simply, it helps to see someone who is superficially similar to you in a job/role that you aspire to. You can imagine that person overcame many of the same obstacles that you face.

People point to Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerburg to show that you don't need a comp sci degree to be a coder and an innovator. These examples are used to encourage people to continue in the field, not as models to pattern your behaviour after.

On the other hand, if you look at a sample of people in an industry and you don't identify with any of them, you might imagine that people like you (a) don't enjoy the work experience or (b) face some serious obstacle to success.

Lots of us are really weird, but only a few of us are in charge of mid-to-large organizations. And of the examples that you gave, I don't think any of them worked to have their brand of weirdness enforced over other people as law.

Eich claimed to support LGBT equality at Mozilla, but when given the opportunity, he refused to say anything like "I regret supporting a law that had negative consequences for our employees" or even "I would abstain from supporting a similar law in the future". This silence suggests he may advocate for equality at one level and against it at a higher level, which is hard to reconcile.

Team Rarebit, two developers who are a gay couple, have made several blog posts about how support for Prop 8 affected them from an immigration perspective, which of course had both personal and professional consequences.

They also posted about how Eich's resignation is not their preferred outcome, and they would have preferred to see him acknowledge that his past actions had an impact on the Mozilla team and community that extended beyond personal feelings http://www.teamrarebit.com/blog/2014/04/03/a-sad-victory/

While I understand that nobody should have to work for a boss like that, I don't understand why he didn't give two weeks' notice.

He would have gotten out of there quickly enough without damaging any other relationships and, being on a term contract, there's a good chance he would have been asked to leave immediately anyway.

I wouldn't recommend this unless you get written approval from your boss/legal dept/president, OR you leave the office for lunch and do your coding at a cafe/restaurant.

Many companies include language in the employee agreement stating anything you write on company time or company hardware is theirs.