HN user
Laughing at cyberbullying because it happens online is as dumb as laughing about school bullying because it happens in school, an environment which most adults will agree is ridiculous.
That doesn't mean there aren't a few good points in there, but for someone who claims to abhor narcissism, this person sure likes to talk about themselves and their achievements a lot.
Nope, because the math articles are mainly made up of circular references which only use generalized, abstract examples to illustrate.
Here's the simplest and most convincing argument I've heard to not dismiss evo psych.
The development of male features in foetuses is triggered by a massive release of testosterone. The second stage of gendered differentiation, puberty, is similarly driven by the release of sex hormones in both men and women. Noticeably, adolescent boys with a malfunctioning endocrine system do not display typical male features (lowered voice, facial hair, etc), lesser tendency to masculine psychology (like risk taking and aggression), and don't develop sex drive (straight or gay) unless they start taking injections for life. It should be uncontroversial to say that sex and gender differences, both physiological and psychological, are tied to hormones.
Next up, the brain: the most complex and expensive organ we have, a complex system of feedback loops, again driven and regulated by secretions of hormones and peptides and so on. To say that evolutionary psychology is false and just anecdotes, you'd have to argue that, despite all the other visible changes that sex hormones make, somehow, the brain is entirely unaffected by all of that. That gender is mostly (or as some claim, entirely) a social construct, determined by something as subtle as a tone of voice or the presence of 'patriarchal gender roles'. Even though studies show children and teenagers are more affected by their peers' behaviours and attitudes than their parents'. Even though there is no culture where gender roles are truly swapped, and the 'Norwegian Gender Paradox' remains true.
Not only does the science show nature plays a significant role in the "nature vs nurture" debate on sex and gender, but policies based on denying it have failed to work.
I'm not an evo psychologist, or a biologist either. But it seems a lot more reasonable to me than what's coming from the supposed equality camp.
I also read the paper. I didn't have any trouble understanding it. The point is that it can be explained 10x better in 10x less space, just like you did.
The people he "raped" were singing his praises on Twitter after the supposed incident took place. The woman only went to the police to see if she could compel him to take an STD test.
"definitely rape" is so far off base, it's ridiculous. You're either gravely misinformed, or shilling.
Probably because the mathematicians don't seem to have the ability to explain why it is not sound without devolving into obscure symbols and jargon.
Yeah we should be so happy that, instead of staying relevant and bringing the web forward, Mozilla has turned into a bastion of feels where expertise and merit is ignored. Nothing Mozilla does is remotely related to any of this, and just because a few whiny LGBTs got their panties in a twist doesn't mean they speak for every gay person out there.
The only good part is where the author criticizes the "doing good" cult vibe that's been substituting common sense at Mozilla more and more lately.
Text is hard, and HTML/CSS has a monopoly on it in the browser.
How many people would be offended at the statement "white people can't see the colour purple"? Very few, I'd imagine, because it's patently ridiculous.
If you imply that women are inferior though, the statement has to be vigorously opposed. Imply that feminism isn't necessary, and the tumblr and twitter brigades will come out to shame and silence you, until you agree that women have it harder.
It's absurd behaviour for a group of people who supposedly believe women are equally capable as men. Once you figure this out, feminism makes a lot more sense. When they can blame men, they blame men. When fairness requires them to blame women, they blame 'society'.
As I said, gender is not the most important factor overall, their family status is. So if you slice only along gender lines, you will see a gap that is meaningless, because you are comparing apples and oranges.
Here's an article that cites several different studies. Granted, I cited the higher end, it could be lower, by all means make up your own mind. They also add the caveat here that it only applies to metropolitan areas, but this is the vast majority of the population nowadays.
... in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in the U.S., the median full-time salaries of young women are 8% higher than those of the guys in their peer group. In two cities, Atlanta and Memphis, those women are making about 20% more. This squares with earlier research from Queens College, New York, that had suggested that this was happening in major metropolises. But the new study suggests that the gap is bigger than previously thought, with young women in New York City, Los Angeles and San Diego making 17%, 12% and 15% more than their male peers, respectively. And it also holds true even in reasonably small areas like the Raleigh-Durham region and Charlotte in North Carolina (both 14% more), and Jacksonville, Fla. (6%).
As for the somewhat depressing caveat that the findings held true only for women who were childless and single: it's not their marital status that puts the squeeze on their income. Rather, highly educated women tend to marry and have children later. Thus the women who earn the most in their 20s are usually single and childless.
http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274...
Once again: women and men who want families make different choices.
Please explain how it is a personal attack to imply their tone needs work. Or is this just tumblr-style rage against "tone policing"?
The pay equality gap is a misdirection. Gender is not a big factor in determining your pay... until you get married or have kids, when men focus more on providing while women focus more on being with their families. Look up the US Dept of Labour's numbers. In fact, unmarried, childless women have out-earned their male peers since the 70s, but don't tell the feminists that.
.... where they can behave like cars sometimes, then behave like pedestrians when convienient. To me this needs to stop. Cities need to police bad bikers, and maybe have some training course/licensing for cyclists. There is a right way to behave on the road and I've seen alot of good cyclists, they just have to be more of them.
Biked in Europe for 20+ years, and now live in North America. The problem is exactly your attitude: that there is only one "road", that there is one right way to behave on it, and both drivers and cyclists should follow it. It's like North Americans can't wrap their head around the fact that driving is just one mode, cycling is another, walking is yet another, trains are yet another, etc. and what you call "the road" is the disproportionate part of the pavement that you dedicate uniquely to drivers.
keep my presentations congruent with no out-of-place elements
For god's sake, this. If a demo is full of "ignore that", "don't look at that", "yeah we're going to change that", the demo is a failure.
"If there's not a penis or an MBA involved, a decision can not be made."
So she not only reduces men to their genitals and implies that men rely on them when making decisions, but considers it equivalent to, say, their college degrees, in assessing relevancy. We're supposed to listen to this person on matters of sexism?
I'm a low-lander cyclist who moved across the ocean. For the most part, you're right. A couple of observations though...
The "right on red" seems to be a hack to address the fact that there are too many traffic lights. Indeed roundabouts would be better, those narrow Euro city centers are often faster. They also like their ridiculous 4-way stops instead of just yields. Right on red is indeed dangerous for cyclists, and when there's a bike lane, it is sometimes disallowed with a sign. Many drivers ignore them, and you always have to double check or risk getting creamed.
The "taking it too seriously" part is I think because biking in traffic here is an adrenaline rush. I do things here that I would never do at home, yet they are often the safer option. I sometimes bike into the third lane to make a left turn, I sometimes sneak a block on the sidewalk if it lets me use a safer crossing. Every single trip involves careful planning of your route. Often there is no bike lane, and you just have to share the road with traffic, while avoiding the swerving doors of parked cars.
Even worse is when they put a suicide bike lane between the first lane and the second/third lanes. The idea is that the first lane is a mix of parking, bus-stops and right hand turns. So you have all of those crossing through the bike lane, often cutting it short at the light, and hating you for being in their way.
The streets I rode on as a child to primary school were safer than the stuff being constructed here today. Pretty mind-blowing. They are slowly learning, but the entitlement from drivers (to whom 80-90% of the paved road is dedicated to) is insane.
To make it worse, pedestrians here just don't seem to understand cycling is a third mode, and they will obliviously wander into any bike lane even though there's literally a sign every 10 meters telling them to go onto the other path. A "shared bike/pedestrian path" is pretty much a shit show of people having 0 spatial awareness.
If the comment didn't tip you off, I'm a DSP engineer. I don't make music, I make software. The software I want to make, I can't make with the Web Audio API.
Sandboxes are cute, but they are a shitty choice to build the platform of the future on.
I just don't understand why people ignore this elephant in the room.
See, I'm not interested in what Flash could do. I'm interested in what Ableton, Garageband, etc. can do.
With Web Audio, you can't ask for mic permissions without listening indefinitely, using up battery. You can't process audio offline with the exact same API, you have to send a 0 gain signal to the speakers and do it slowly, real-time. Want complex-valued FFTs for adaptive frequency domain filters? Sorry, all you get is a toy magnitude spectrum with shitty exponential smoothing. This isn't envelope pushing in the slightest, and I don't understand why people are impressed by this. Except of course that web developers are easily amused.
In all this HTML5 malarkey, WebGL is the only API that managed to avoid "not invented here" syndrome, and even that is years behind what is considered normal on mobile, with essential extensions still waiting for approval.
Are we supposed to be impressed by the audio capabilities of 15-20 years ago simply because now you get to do them in single-threaded JavaScript, with annoying black box async APIs, shitty number types and no serious high resolution timing control? Go build a web audio API based audio player with real-time effects that can play skip-free for hours on a busy mobile device. Then I'll be impressed.