hnnsj

If anything, the pros of walkability and good public transport compounds over time in daily life.

That is certainly not extremely unlikely, at least not in any European country I've been to. I'd say at least 80% of the travelers look at their phones, a book, paper etc. I can do it almost any time I choose to.

This makes me excited to be human again. I need to do something more meaningful with my life.

"People get worked up as hell and I frankly just want to have fun with my devices."

How is this entire post anything but "getting worked up as hell"? Seems to me to be a case of "when other people complain, they're whiny, but when _I_ get annoyed, heads must roll!".

Forgive my ignorance, but when I was introduced to the Chromebook concept a few years ago, it was basically supposed to be a cheaper "thin" (not physically necessarily but spec-wise) computer mostly running web apps. Now they're instead high-end laptops. Are they no longer about running mostly web apps, or what? What changed in the last couple of years? Why is this hardware needed? I don't get it.

Then again, I fail to see how this is a major improvement over just clicking the first location of interest in an ordered list to generate a new list etc.

My main point is that to me, you're either interested in going to the closest location from where you are, and you'd probably want a brief description of each location to filter out points of interest to you. A list is just as good if not better (since you can quickly glance more information about each place) for that purpose.

Or else you're interested in the geography of the different locations or their exact spatial relationship and then you need a normal map anyway.

Sure, this is a neat geographic data visualization, but I just can't see myself using it in a real world situation.

Well, to some degree, yes. Maybe it's even mostly true. But the fact that point A and B are close to point C by some mode of transportation does not guarantee that they are close to each other. They might be separated by some geographic feature like a river, mountain or large road that doesn't separate them from C. Or the transportation options between A and C and between B and C may be excellent, but horrible between A and B. And so on. You need a normal map, or very good prior knowledge of the geography indeed, to know that.

Two locations that are close to a third location need not be close to each other. A and B might be separated by some barrier which does not separate them from C. Maybe a bit of an edge case, but still, not that uncommon.

How is this more useful than an ordered list of search results, exactly? Once you've picked your destination, based on travel time, you still want figure out how to get there.

Nitpick: Only the northern tip of Sweden is north of the polar circle. But yeah, Sweden is pretty dark anyway.

It's pretty sad to me that there's more excitement for Snapchat filters than for VR. Also, I'm getting absolutely fed up with the term "social". People are attention junkies, that's what it is. It's not "social". They're hooked on likes and instant gratification.

What's your point? That oat milk is processed? Do you usually drink cow milk from the udder? Of course it's heavily processed and enriched with different additives as well.

People are obviously not grossed out because it's called milk or because it's a white liquid. They're grossed out because of how the animals are treated. Or because they think diary production is principally wrong. Or maybe they just don't like the thought of drinking animal milk. Or simply don't quite like the taste. Maybe they're milk protein intolerant.

Or they're not grossed out at all. They just make the rational decision to not consume dairy because of the water, energy and food consumption of the dairy/meat industry. Or because of the greenhouse gas emissions.

What are you saying, if you don't want to contribute to the things mentioned above, you shouldn't be allowed to drink anything that remotely resembles cow milk?

E.g. Norway, the country where EVs are the most popular in the world?

Do everyone seem to be fine with it? Why do we have these massive discussions about economic and work equality, then? Obviously a lot of people think it's a major problem. I think there's clear evidence for that. It's just that, in my opinion, most people are not really prepared to do what needs to be done to change, they'd rather just try in vain to treat the negative symptoms.

I actually live in Sweden, and I can tell you that there hasn't been any social engineering projects at a large scale. Sure, there has been some adjustments to teaching and elementary school, but gender norms are very much alive and well here. It's not nearly enough to change a few things in school to actually make a dent, there's still soooo much influence from media, advertising, role models, friends and most adults.

Yes, yes, yes. You have to go to the root of the problem. It's impossible to solve the problem by (only) changing the recruitment processes. It starts way earlier than that. You can't expect to have the current gender distribution in education and job applications that we have today and then expect the numbers to magically even out in recruitment no matter what policies the companies have. It basically doesn't matter what way you measure differences in programming interest, at every level there are vastly more men than women that are interested in programming, let alone has anything more than cursory experience with it.

I believe that can be changed. I don't think it's biological. But the changes needed are wide and deep. If you want it to change, you have to actually change something about culture. That also means letting go of things you are familiar and comfortable with, maybe even some thing you really like. Gender norms need to change. I'm not so sure a lot of people even actually want that. Many seem to want to fix some negative symptoms, but not fix the root cause.

What's wrong with eating fake meat if that's what you like?

What do you have to say to the other two responses that debunk your claim?

I see this mentality pop up time after time: How dare you say there are differences in women's capabilities! Except of course, here are some things women are _better_ at.

Sorry, but no. Either we are equally capable by nature and any differences in outcome are due to upbringing ("nurture"), or there are biological differences which means you have to accept there very well may be things women are less capable of as well as the opposite.

I'm firmly in the first camp and think it's mostly if not only upbringing and cultural biases, but you don't get to shun the notion that women are less capable at some things while at the same time claiming there are many things women are actually more capable of. Don't open that door.

In that case I'm missing your point. If everyone has equal opportunity to negotiate salary regardless of sex, then how does it matter whether or not salary negotiation skills should be awarded, from a gender equality perspective? Isn't that a separate issue then, not related to sexism?

Unless your point is that the sexism is at a larger cultural level that fosters the average woman to be less effective at salary negotiations. In that case I completely agree.

I wonder, though, how companies' hiring processes alone are supposed to fix the societal biases. Isn't it a false choice when given only the two explanations: A) We fix biases in the workplace/hiring process and get a 50/50 distribution in the workplace or B) There must be biological differences.

I'm personally rather convinced of a third alternative: There is some bias and even outright discrimination in some workplaces, but gender norms in society as a whole create such a big difference in the distribution of applicants/talent pool that it becomes impossible to correct as late in life as the hiring process. I think the gender norms are very deeply rooted and entwined through most aspects of life and that if we truly want to fix the problem, as opposed to get good PR and pay lip service, we need to change gender roles drastically. And that starts pretty much from pregnancy and goes way beyond recruiting.

How is it sexism is sex is not a factor?

I confessed I skimmed most of the article, but am I fair if I say that it makes the point that electrification is just a nice-to-have feature for rich western hipsters? And nowhere does it raise the issue of the global environmental issues if millions and millions of additional combustion engines? At least there's cake...

How about we all stop looking for reasons to be offended all the time and presume innocence and good faith until we actually do get a clearly expressed intent or do feel genuinely uncomfortable (as opposed to slightly annoyed)? I'm sure a lot of these situations can be explained by cultural differences or even language barriers such as in this case. English is the de-facto language of the tech scene, but that doesn't mean that everyone who joins in a discussion can be expected to master all the nuances of the language. It seems to be hard enough for Brits and Americans, just imagine how it is for us whose native language isn't English at all.

To be clear, I'm not talking about the harassment case here, I'm talking about the "call them women" comment.

Out of curiosity (I've never been to Silicon Valley, let alone worked there), are other tech hubs, or even other industries, that much better?

Reduced density of cities leads to longer distances and higher transportation needs, and less than ideal utilization of public transport. So that's counter-productive.

What about the effort of finding parking spaces (and the effects those large parking spaces have on urban environments), actually having to concentrate on driving, having to keep in mind to bring the car home again, fueling (or charging), servicing your car, etc etc. I find there are a lot of inconveniences related to having a car, even without considering the huge effects of congestion, real estate, climate change, air and noise pollution, etc etc.

You might find it hard to imagine, but that's how it is. I can't say exactly how much time the CEO spends on other tasks out of office, but I know that he at least does a lot of coding while he's at the office (which is most of the time). As I said, we have a minimal amount of support issues and marketing. We also don't do meetings. We don't spend a ton of time on design, and when we do, everyone participates. But that's a very small amount of time compared to the time we spend writing (or thinking/talking about) code. QA is part of the coding process. CFO is outsourced/done by the CEO. The point is, all the developers except the CEO spends at least 90% of their time coding (in pairs).

Online productivity tools. No investments, profitable, linear but steady growth, minimal marketing, small team size, close to zero process. Works great for us programmers. And the CEO does a lot of programming as well, if I'd venture a guess I'd say about 40-50%.