Karn

Yes, despite the mind-bogglingly clueless questions you asked in your previous post, I'm the one whose knowledge is lacking. Yes, women like form fitting clothes, you know, as in tailored clothes? Perhaps the women you work with are all sexless drones who wear hoodies and sweatpants and expect the same from men, but at my workplace the women are fit, attractive, and dress well. And they always appreciate a compliment.

Why do you think male attention deserves jail time? Did you try to pay a woman a compliment once and did it so clumsily that she called security? Memories like that can be hard to get over, I imagine.

Women flaunting sexual characteristics in a professional environment is neither common today

Of course not, like hula-hooping at an office party, or wearing a nice suit or dress, or high heels. But again, perhaps you've only ever worked with aforementioned sweatpant- and sneaker-wearers.

nor has it been common in the West throughout the ages

Right... no man in the West ever seduced (or got seduced by) his secretary or female co-worker. You must live a remarkably sheltered life.

You clearly confuse sexual desire with when and how people pursue it

You clearly have no clue that people pursue sex whenever they can, as much as they can get away with despite your "social pressures." I wonder why... could it be that you are remarkably unattractive?

you are completely blind to social pressure

I'm not the "completely blind" one here....

I fear that if you don't get that long due spanking soon you have some serious lawsuits awaiting you in the future, and possibly some jail time

Don't worry "pron," unlike you, I'm always aware of when my attention and advances are desired or not. Your mother clearly knew you were hopeless and just told you to not even try, ever.

especially if you keep taking sexual cues from insects.

Really? You're going to just make stuff up now? Saying that insects display sexual behaviour === taking sexual cues from insects?

Perhaps it may seem baffling to your juvenile mind, but I adopted my screen name over twenty years ago, well before the internet, and back when it was just my acronym and had no other uses whatsoever.

Well, good for you! It's strangely prophetic and very apt, if that's true.

If you're old enough to have chosen your username 20 years ago there's no hope for you and I've really been wasting my time. I did in fact think you were a clueless younger guy. Bye now.

I see the wilfully-clueless are out in force on this one. I really thought your questions weren't serious, as to normal people these things are self-evident by age 15. However, seeing as how you identify yourself with "pron", I realised you're serious and you actually don't have a clue about these things. All right, I've had too much caffeine today and I'm feeling generous, so here goes:

why is it that women find the need to flaunt their "sexual characteristic" at a workplace party (or any party for that matter)?

Women, men, children - everyone likes attention. The best kind of attention for a sexually mature person is sexual attention from a person that they desire. To display yourself at your best and be appreciated by someone you like is one of the best feelings there is. Not that you would know anything about that, the best feeling you've had was while watching "pron".

Is this behavior common among women of all cultures?

Yes (duh). In fact, it is also pervasive among animals and even insects. I know, I know, who'd have thought?

Has it been common throughout the ages?

Yes (duh).

Is it a result of women's peculiar biology or perhaps of another mysterious dynamics?

Only someone who calls themselves "pron" would think this is in any way peculiar. To not desire attention from the opposite sex (let's leave homosexuals out of this for now) would be extremely peculiar.

Is this practice commonly regarded as pleasant among human females?

See answer #1. Being appreciated feels good. People like to feel good. You do the math, genius.

And what is it exactly that they want if they hope to achieve it with this colorful behavior

Anything ranging from the momentary pleasure of being appreciated, to finding somebody to love and spend the rest of their life with.

I once heard that human females may want a stable male partner to help rear their young;

You haven't heard the half of it, son. What human females ideally want is a man who will provide the best genes for their offspring and be the best provider. Such a combination being rather rare, often females try to secure a gene-donor and provider separately. Typically, maladjusted men like you, who are, to put it kindly, not attractive to women, end up in the role of provider, and the desirable men get to have their offspring raised by the clueless providers.

is this "hula-hooping at a party" the best evolutionary strategy to obtain that goal?

Replace "hula-hooping at a party" with "showcasing their assets" and even you should be able to figure it out. Push up bras, high heels, corsets, hoop skirts, dancing, anything that tends to attract the attention of the opposite sex, helps to attract the best mate possible.

Any further questions? Although I don't even know why I'm trying at this point. Something about horses and water comes to mind.

EDIT to answer the question you added later:

Also, males of lesser species often display their buttocks prominently to attract females. Is this accepted behavior among humans, too?

As a matter of fact, women love muscular legs and buttocks on a man. The far more common "massive upper body, scrawny legs" physique isn't nearly as attractive to women. Strong legs are an excellent indicator of overall strength and good genes; in many primitive tribes, people explicitly desire "strong legs" in a mate. Even in older English literature you'll often find statements like "the lines of his/her legs showed good breeding" and so on.

Displaying the bare buttocks would normally get a man put in jail, so not in public, no. However, many men do the second-best thing by wearing form-fitting clothing. And women love it. Not too tight, though, that tends to attract the wrong kind of attention.

Is it common practice at GitHub?

I seriously doubt whether anyone at GitHub does the kind of training necessary to build strong legs and glutes, so I doubt it. However, you can see this behaviour on display in other environments, like the gym, the beach, etc.

Do you have a source

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7408466

Yes because women moving their hips means they automatically want to be considered for their sexual characteristics. /sarcasm

Actually, yes, they do. If you don't know this then either you're very inexperienced with women or you're the kind of guy they willingly keep in the dark about what they want.

And I'm saying it's perfectly OK to "spend a prolonged time watching it".

If women are doing something that involves a lot of pelvic gyrations, then yes, it is absolutely understandable AND acceptable that men will stare. It's not the men turning them into "sex objects" or whatever, the women already did that. And it's healthy, and normal, and most red-blooded men and women not only find it acceptable, they enjoy it. If you have the mindset that if women are dancing a man may only glance at it for a few seconds, I pity you and whatever caused you to turn out that way.

And this was at a party. If someone is so repressed that watching men stare at dancing women at a party makes them uncomfortable, they should stay home. Or move to a burqa-wearing country.

Hula hooping in a non-private space is equivalent to screaming "LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME!" If people are hula hooping, regardless of whether they are male or female, people are going to look. If the women were working on a laptop, or having a quiet conversation, and THEN men were gawping, that would be unacceptable. Want to hula hoop without being looked at? Do it in a private space.

You are basically using the same logic as countries that require burqas in public.

Of course, because saying that "if you do attention-attracting activities in public, people are going to look, deal with it" is the same as saying "women must cover themselves head to toe in public."

The founder's wife sounds like she was threatened by JAH being an attractive and presumably smart woman being around her husband. The founder sounds like a pussy-whipped loser who doesn't know how to set boundaries for his wife. Most of what JAH describes is unfortunately very believable. I've had resentful coworkers delete/overwrite my work in the past.

That said, complaining about men staring at hula hoop dancers just sounds really odd to me. If someone is hula hooping in a non-private space, of course people are going to stare. Being geeks/nerds/people who generally tend not to have the most highly developed social skills, some of those stares may be awkward. Get over it. She wasn't even the one being stared at.

Further info in support of the above comment:

- The Mig had been manufactured in February 1976 and thus was one of their latest most sophisticated production aircraft.

- Transistor circuitry was not used but instead the Soviets relied on vacuum tubes for most of their electronics.

- The Soviets reasoned the vacuum tubes were less affected by EMP waves in the case of nuclear attack; were more resistant to temperature extremes and they were easy to replace in remote airfields where transistors may not be readily available if repairs were needed.

- Welding was done by hand.

- Rivet heads were exposed in areas not critical to parasitic aerodynamic drag.

- Pilot forward vision was highly obstructed.

- With huge Tumansky R-15D-300 engines the Mig was considered almost a rocket.

- Pilots were forbidden to exceed Mach 2.5. There was a total of three engine instruments and the airspeed indicator was redlined at 2.8 Mach.

- Above Mach 2.8 the engines would overheat and burn up. The Americans had clocked a Mig-25 over Israel at Mach 3.2 in 1973. Upon landing in Egypt, the engines were totally destroyed. We did not understand that the engine destruction was inevitable.

- The combat radius is 186 miles.

- Without using afterburner; staying at optimum altitude and not maneuvering, the Mig can fly in a straight line for 744 miles.

- The plane was so heavy at 64,200 pounds, that according to early rumors Soviet designers had to eliminate a pilot ejection system. However this was disproved.

- Most MiG-25s used the KM-1 ejector seat. The last versions used an early variant of the famous K-36 seat. The speed record for the fastest successful ejection (Mach 2.67) is held by a KM-1 equipped MiG-25.

- Maximum operational altitude: Carrying two missiles, 78,740 feet (for maximum two minutes duration); carrying four missiles, 68,900 feet is maximum.

- Maximum altitude of missiles: 88,588 feet.

- Ability to intercept an SR-71: Belenko states the Mig-25 cannot intercept the SR-71 for several reasons: The SR-71 fly too high and too fast; the Mig cannot reach it or catch it. The missiles lack the velocity to overtake the SR-71 and in the event of a head on missile fire (The Golden BB), the Guidance system cannot adjust to the high closure rate of the SR-71.

- The Mig-25 has a jam proof radar but cannot distinguish targets below 1,640 feet due to ground clutter. The radar was so powerful it could burn through jamming signals by approaching bombers.

- Maximum G load: With full fuel tanks 2.2 G's is max; with near empty fuel tanks, 5 G's is dangerous. The Mig-25 cannot turn inside a U.S. F-4 Phantom fighter!

- The plane was made of steel alloy, not high temperature titanium, although strips of titanium was used in areas of high heat concentration.

- In a tight turn the missiles could be ripped from the wings.

- The Mig-25 was was not a fighter or an air superiority aircraft but rather designed by the Soviets to climb at tremendous speeds, fire missiles at one pass of the target and then land.

- Search and tracking radar had a range of 55.9 miles.

- The pilot duties were to take off, turn on the auto pilot and await instructions to fire the missiles from ground controllers. The Mig-25 had a superb auto pilot and digital communications from an onboard computer to ground controllers.

- Credit is given to the Soviets for building a high altitude Interceptor in a short period of time with the materials and engines available to them in 1967 in order to counter the perceived threat of the XB-70.

Source: http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/mig25.html

Correct on all counts. People need to realise that smart people tend to have short tempers because they've encountered the same idiocy many, many times; the first few times they may have explained patiently but after a while it begins to get wearisome. People with precious, precious feelings should stay away.

"The entire principle is wrong: it's like insisting that adults live on skim milk because the baby can't eat steak." - Heinlein

And here we see the pitfalls of fuzzy thinking. There is all the difference between "that's a stupid idea" and "you're an idiot."

I'm glad Linus isn't budging on this one. As soon as you start considering how not to hurt someone's feelings, you're putting speed bumps in the paths of your thoughts. If something is fucking stupid, then someone needs to say exactly that, not "That's a good idea, but it seems to me and my mealy mouth that such and such may be another way of doing it...?"

The fact that the hacker community is full of mean gits is no coincidence. Let's consider where the opposite type of people (the ones who'll smile charmingly while stabbing you in the back) congregate - HR, PR, management, politics - all fields where creativity is less important than manipulativeness.

I'll take a brutally honest genius over a charming "socially intelligent" liar any day.

Verdana is great for alphanumeric characters, and a little enhancement of the scope characters/operators makes it perfect for programming: http://i.imgur.com/KCKtUR1.png

That was the digital audio version of the Feynman Lectures on Physics. After years of being bombarded with mediocre TED talks, this is a shining example of pure excellence.

Why is this garbage on the front page? Hacker News isn't for antisocial 12-year-olds, chronological age or otherwise.

> How does the created know if it has that trait?

Exactly. In this setup, the created can't know. Therefore it is pointless to worry about it.

Let's say this god entity as understood by any major religion, past or present, exists. Or would that be entities?

1. It doesn't communicate its rules to its created (C) in a way that would be undeniably from It. Books can be written by anyone. Give me letters of starfire in the sky, or floating letters of stone a mile tall, or something similarly miraculous that would be an undeniable mark of its divine provenance.

2. It gives C built-in rules (a moral sense), but enforces an external set of rules that often conflict with the internal rules. Why not just implant the rules in C in the first place?

3. There are rumors among C that they are being judged, and if they don't behave according to aforementioned poorly-communicated rules, they will be "rejected". Why? As the creator it's responsible for any defects in the created.

All together these seem like the actions of a cruel psychopath who gets off on its creations failing. But these are my internal rules, you say. Sure, but it planted them in me. What else am I supposed to use? The Book (any "Book") makes no sense by these rules. And I cannot respect a creator so childish and cruel, because my internal rules forbid me to and because by my rules, I am far superior to it - I don't torture those with less power than me.

I could pretend to respect it, but if it's omniscient as is always claimed, I couldn't fool it. So the only way to live is by my rules, and if at the end it turns out that there is a creator and that it is, indeed, as described in The Book and that I am, indeed, going to Hell, I can only hope for a chance to spit in its face when I meet it.

Sorry, I don't get the point of this. It took my CSS with related rules grouped together and spread them all over, and expanded my shorthand CSS into longhand. The file size change was minimal.

Also, telling people "your X is garbage" isn't the best way to greet your users.

> The company was convinced by one or more management consulting firms to outsource design and production of the 787’s components.

All that needs to be said.

That too. I didn't bring that up because comparing the two is completely illogical and doesn't merit discussion.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

"The boss has learned something about you and now he doesn't like you. Should the boss fire you?"

Like has nothing to do with it. Are you seriously suggesting that the matter under discussion is one of a boss not _liking_ an employee? "Oh, he slept with my wife, I really don't like that guy."

I'll take your question at face value and give you some examples.

If the boss doesn't like you because you are gay/introverted/unsocial/not into sports/don't make a good drinking partner/refuse to perform sexual favors - no, the boss shouldn't fire you.

If you slept with the boss's wife or a co-worker's wife, then you have no place on a team and yes, you need to be fired.

The two aren't even remotely related. Being gay is a strictly individual choice that has no effect on the employee's performance or that of other employees. Sleeping with the spouse of a co-worker immediately and intimately involves the co-worker and is devastating to them. I don't even begin to see how you could compare the two.

It's about not establishing the wrong precedent. If a corporation is seen to get away with behaving badly towards the court, the court is only setting itself up for worse trouble later on. The legal system depends on the law being respected - as others in this thread have said, this is why contempt of court is a Very Serious Offence.

The kind of environment/attitude the author is proposing is not one that engenders excellence. The problem is not criticism, it's ad hominem attacks ("this programmer is obviously a moron" compared to "this is a stupid way to do this"). Criticism is a sine qua non for progress, and people who can't handle it have no place in an adult environment.

The punchline of that joke is completely invalid: in the novel, the tycoons do in fact grow their own food. But then again, why bother to read an actual book when you can form your opinions based on hearsay?

This shouldn't be an issue to programmers. With Greasemonkey or Scriptish it's trivial to write a script to clean up the page so that you only see the results.

I agree wholeheartedly. I have a solution that I've been using for years - a stylesheet that overrides everything. I just got tired of having to adjust to different fonts and color schemes for each website. After years of using computers for 8+ hours a day I have settled on the perfect (for me) combination of color, contrast, font styles and sizes, button styles, link styles, etc., and that's what I want to see. If that's not enough I have a Scriptish script that formats any page to my specification with a keypress.

I actually think this is the future of browsing (at least for people who do a lot of reading in-browser). Books that used non-standard fonts and colors would be laughed at (say, Papyrus on a beige background for body text), but just because it's easy to go wild with websites doesn't mean people should do it.

Some of my favourites:

Michael Brook - Err: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcyQISCPTTs Michael Brook - Ultramarine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITFyP9b7ius Michael Brook - Several Times II: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK-oVQaTg_4 Cliff Martinez - Helicopter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogDj3uXLP7w Hammock - Maybe they will sing for us tomorrow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6kKjyHrXMw

I'm not sure about the legality of sharing a Microsoft font... the color scheme is my own.

I'd be happy to, what editor do you use?

I've been using Verdana for coding for years, with some modifications. I've changed the parentheses, braces, operators etc. to be more prominent - that makes it just perfect for me.

Edit: screenshot here: http://i.imgur.com/xv5oz.png