We see this effect in hundred million light year wide voids in space. Visibly empty, we can see galaxies way way off in the background, yet LARGE amounts of gravitational lensing, and we know that it's not caused by black holes.
They are nearly 100% certain that there is galaxy amounts of invisible mass in these voids that cannot be seen. We can't detect dust of any kind, we can't detect black holes, yet we can detect huge amounts of mass. At this point, it is a fact that there is invisible mass.
Is it the cause of the strange observation of galactic rotations? We're not sure, but we know it would almost perfectly match up with the observations.
1) We know there is "Dark Matter", whatever it is
2) We are not sure if Dark Matter is the cause of our observed high speed outer arm orbits in galaxies, but it would be a nearly perfect fit
Dark Matter is a 60 year old concept that has only recently be all but confirmed, The addition of Dark Matter into Universe simulations also fixed the issues we've been having.
I was under the impression that Dark Matter and Dark Energy were completely unrelated. I was also under the impression that Dark Matter, whatever it is, is somewhat well accepted because of our understanding of electromagnetism, and that we know there is mass, but we also know it does not interact with photons, and we haven't detected any interactions with normal matter.
You can't move through space faster than c, but space can move or expand faster than c. The space between us and some distant galaxies is greater than c, meaning, we could never get to them, even at the speed of light. Some galaxies have been measured to have red-shifts past 2c. Even if you were a photon, they'd still be moving away from you at c, which is hard to understand because a photon does not experience time.
You may not want to connect your thermostat to the Internet, but you may want it connected to your home network, which so happens to have Internet access. The heating and cooling system in my old home for 10 years ago kept a multi-year log of each and every time the heating or cooling kicked on, what temp it was, what the humidity was, and all kinds of other stuff. Accessing it over a serial port was annoying. It would have been a lot more convenient if it had a web server that ran over wifi or Ethernet.
Comcast could return their OpEx by 20% going FTTH instead of FTTN, at least that's what the average is for FTTN to FTTH conversions.
I personally get the impression that bandwidth is quite cheap once you get past entry level. I can get a business class dedicated 15/15 fiber connection to my ISP for $40/month, who uses Level 3 exclusively as their upstream, and since my ISP doesn't use any CDNs, 100% of their bandwidth is transit. You can run that connection ragged and they won't complain, I've ran my line near rate for months until I got bored of trying to find ways to push my connection to its limit. Many many terabytes, per month. They don't just cover the local city, but a huge portion of the county, well beyond city limits by several miles. Not bad for a private ISP that turns down government broadband grants and loans on principle.
Since it's dedicated, you can rate limit your P2P or whatever high bandwidth stuff you like to use, to 75% of your link speed, and you won't even get beyond 1ms of jitter while playing games. Around 80%-85%, you'll start to get 10ms-20ms of jitter, and 90%-95%, periodic loss.
I was told they have a teamed redundant main trunk that could handle one of the links going down, effectively cutting their bandwidth in half, and still only be about 50% link usage based on normal peak usage, they also have a secondary link that is also fully capable of handling peak load without congestion. They could handle 6x their normal peak bandwidth in a pinch, so no worries of congestion on their trunk. Since their upstream is Level 3, I get my full rated speed to nearly every IX in the world.
Who knows, maybe if my ISP was 50,000 bigger, like the size of Comcast, my ISP could offer better prices and faster speeds, since every 2x-3x increase in price seems to be a 10x increase in bandwidth. 1mbit for $300, 10mbit for $1,000, 100mbit for $2,000, 1gb for $6,000, at least these seem to be the prices Level 3 offers around here. No listed prices(please call) for 10gb or higher, but I assume it scales decently.
An anecdote, yes, but my point is a small private ISP in a rural area can manage to run fiber to the farms without government help, while providing dedicated symmetrical business class bandwidth, and cheaper than the competition! Based on how expensive everyone makes everything out to be, my situation should be an impossibility.
I personally feel that Google Fiber is not too much to ask of any ISP that is "of size".
Send or receiving does matter, Level 3 is a Tier 1 and everyone, except other Tier 1s, pay for access to Tier 1s. Maybe I should start charging my ISP money to access my network because I feel like it.
Comcast does not do it's best to do anything. The only thing I know is I pay less for symmetrical business class dedicated internet connection from my privately owned local ISP, which does not get any government support at all, than what Comcast charges, and I'm in a low population area of the USA.
For the price Comcast charges, anything less than dedicated bandwidth is monopolistic abuse.
Running a fiber from the CO to your house is closer to $700. The $2,000 cost includes EVERYTHING, from the network equipment, to trenching fiber, to sending someone to your house to hook everything up.
The cost breakdown goes something like this:
Fiber: 2% - Copper is about 5x more expensive
Network Equipment: 8% - Copper is 2x more expensive up front and 20% more to operate
Trenching fiber to the house: 30% - fixed cost, no matter what tech you use
Sending someone to your house to hook things up: 60% - fixed cost, no matter what tech you use
USA actually has it much better when it comes to density. Very high density populations are actually worse for costs. It's much easier to drill a hole into the side of a house than to go through an 80 story concrete apartment and drill holes. On average, and the average is all that matters, it's cheaper to deploy fiber Internet in the USA than Japan or South Korea.
Verizon actually said that FIOS reduced operational costs and was a good investment from a technology standpoint. The problem is FIOS didn't increase revenue enough. It allowed Verizon to offer a faster and cheaper service, but it didn't allow Verizon to get paid more, or at least not enough more toe warrant the upgrade.
Around here, we have a private ISP, and when they rolled out fiber, speeds went up and prices went down. Verizon is not private, they're a public company. You can't do that. Prices must go up, but Verizon is already milking as much money from their customers as they can afford. Verizon has no incentive to upgrade, even if it saves them some money while making customers happier.
Netflix went with an ISP that doesnt have the best connectivity and no other ISP really wants to improve connectivity with them because of how this particular ISP demands to handle peering arrangements. It was a win for netflix in that they got a better monetary deal, but its also a loss because the reason they got a better deal is that their ISP is a professional cheapskate seeking to take advantage of lopsided peering arrangements.
Actually, not true. Comcast actively refused to accept Netflix from anyone other than Cogent. Netflix wanted to use some other CDN services, but Comcast would not allow it.
You have no clue how routing works. You NEVER let a route get congested. If a route gets congested, you either stop using it all together or upgrade it, but you NEVER let it stay congested. Level 3 recently came forward and stated their average link usage is 35% during peak hours. They also had a blog showing link utilization, and how you should never have dropped packets, unless you've having a transient issue.
It's an ISP's job to make sure their supply can handle demand.
Comcast wants Netflix to either buy transit from bandwidth providers or pay Comcast for the transit;
Not true. Comcast outright refused to accept more Netflix traffic from a 3rd party. Comcast forced Netflix into direct negotiations. You also mentioned Netflix purchasing "transit" from Comcast. Netflix is not purchasing transit. If Netflix was purchasing bandwidth from Comcast to access European customers, that would be transit. Transit is "Inter-network, not intra-network".
ISPs do not charge each other based on gigabytes, they charge based on megabits. They don't care if you use 1mbit 24 hours per day or 1mbit 1.5 hours per day, you get charged exactly the same, for 1mbit.
The problem with the mail analogy is with ISPs, you also pay for receiving. Actually, you pay no matter what.
Lets try to make a better analogy.
Lets say the USPS instead of charging per parcel, instead charges each tax payer a base $30/month, but the customer is allowed 5 parcels per month. But you only get that deal if you bundle with their overpriced car insurance, otherwise you pay $60/month for 5 parcels. If you want to get more parcels, then you can get the 20 parcel per month for $100, for the first 6 months, then $150 after.
Since you need to get mail, you put up with this, then suddenly, after a decade of this highway robbery, Amazon starts offering this wonderful service that allows you to make use of your underutilized mail system that you pay so much for. Now you can order your regular things online and have them shipped without the hassle of going to a store or forgetting.
So lots of people start using this Amazon service. Amazon pays FedEx $2 per parcel to deliver to your city, where FedEx hands off to USPS, then USPS delivers it to you. After a while, USPS gets cranky that they're now having to deliver a lot more packages. Lots of people have upgraded to their $150/month package to get 20 parcels per month, but USPS can't handle it because they've never had this demand before.
USPS then refuses to accept more parcel from FedEX, which causes parcels to back-up and get delivered late. Amazon asks FedEx if there is anything can be done, but FedEx says they can't because USPS refuses all negotiations.
Eventually Amazon caves in and enters into an agreement where Amazon pays USPS $2 per parcel, but Amazon has to deliver the parcel to the city, then USPS will deliver it the rest of the way. Because Amazon was paying FedEx to deliver the package for them, Amazon now has to provide that service for themselves.
USPS customers are now paying increased Amazon prices, while paying exorbitant USPS prices. USPS's rational is that if the customers want to make full use of the service they've purchased from USPS, then the customer should have to pay even more, but USPS didn't want to raise their bill because customers wouldn't like that, so instead they indirectly increase their bill by charging the suppliers of what the customers want
All the while in another city, UPS(Google Fiber) is charging $50 per month for unlimited packages and even lets Amazon use their local warehouse for free, which helps reduce Amazon's and UPS's costs.
Lets put this all into perspective. Transit is priced about $0.45 retail, and costs even less. But lets give Comcast a bit of wiggle room and assume that on average, bandwidth costs $0.50/mbit. This is bandwidth that can reach anywhere in the world. Comcast oversubscribes about 20:1, which means that bandwidth is really about $0.025/mbit per customer. Comcast then turns around and charges $100/month for 100mbit, which only costs them about $2.5 in bandwidth. Then Comcast complains that Netflix is using too much of this bandwidth, because Comcast's network can't handle providing a measly 5mbit/s to many of their customers at the same time.
Comcast then gets this awesome idea, instead of paying for bandwidth, they should get paid for it! So not Comcast is making even more money, but making money isn't a bad thing in itself. So, what's wrong about Comcast wanting to make more money? Because Comcast is having their customers foot the bill for the infrastructure, then Comcast outright refuses to allow the customers to use the infrastructure to its fullest, then Comcast turns around and resells that same infrastructure for more profit to another company, while making no additional investments into the infrastructure.
The customer's didn't gain anything, they were only allowed to make more use of what they already paid for.
Imagine if you leased a 6 person van for the explicit reason to hold more of your kids and their friends, but then your car dealership tells Chucky Cheese that if they want you to be able to put 6 people into the van that you leased, Chucky Cheese will have to pay. Because... get this... 6 seat vans are expensive. No shit. Isn't that why you're paying a premium for a 6 person van over a 4 seat car?
Thin clients are back, streaming games from your PC to your Steam box will suck for 8k resolutions. Encoding 8k in real time will be hard, expect it to be at most lightly compressed. It could use a lot of bandwidth at 120fps.
For many short sighted people, a nemesis is required, but for smarter people, we need to expand beyond Earth. The general rule of thumb is to have at least one offsite back-up. Life destroying things Earth wide catastrophic events tend to happen once very so often, and we're coming due.
Great, my local city has a rule about not having vaccinations, but how does that help if I decide to travel? What if someone comes to my town? What about people in another city or state that have an outbreak that creates a new strain that causes my current vaccinations to be useless? How do I protect myself against those jerks?
Of course there will be people from out of country, but if you're a resident of the USA, the most common people I have contact with, I should have some guarantees about the lethality of coming in contact with a given person.
Not getting vaccinated is akin to dumping barrels of mercury and lead into your well. Things you do to your property will affect others.
Whatever a drunk driver with a child in the car that had got involved in an accident would get, a parent that doesn't vaccinate their child for no good reason should get the same. This is considered child endangerment and is a felony in many states.
That link had several lies or used sources of bad science. They claimed that unvaccinated children had a ~50% reduced rate of autism according to whatever study. I have NEVER read of any study in the past decade that came to this conclusion. There have been numerous studies from very reputable Universities and research centers that came to the conclusion that the autism rate is identical.
Whomever did the study came up with results that fly in the face of every other trial that has ever happened. It is so far out that it cannot be explained by anything other than being purposefully false.
Women aren't turned off by intelligence. They are turned off by constantly being made to feel stupid. They are also turned off by bad social skills, bad physical health, and the inclination to play video games and study all day every day (rather than going out and doing something fun with friends).
I can understand where he's coming from. Most women I've met fall under one of two categories, are smart and already taken by a significant other that they've known for decades, or boyfriend hopping because they want a "fun" guy which means they are not responsible and not marriage or father material.
My guess is he's talking about the second type. They complain about how all the guys they date turn out to be jerks, but they don't give a geek/nerd the time of day because they're not socially "fun". In my experience, many of these women seem to just need attention because of a lack of confidence in themselves. They don't like spending time with family and like to get drunk and party or talk about how horrible their life is.
Maybe if they stayed home and found some video games that are fun to play with their socially awkward boyfriend, they'd be more happy.
Throughout my career, I have worked with many engineers, programmers, and other nerds. My experience is that they are the least misogynistic people I have ever met, and they have mostly been polite, professional, and welcoming to their female co-workers. Have you ever worked with salesmen? Or construction workers? Nerds are saints by comparison.
This has been my uniform experience also. My personal experience has been the smarter(in the practical sense) someone is, the fewer stereotypical biases they have.
Slashdot Mirror
We see this effect in hundred million light year wide voids in space. Visibly empty, we can see galaxies way way off in the background, yet LARGE amounts of gravitational lensing, and we know that it's not caused by black holes.
They are nearly 100% certain that there is galaxy amounts of invisible mass in these voids that cannot be seen. We can't detect dust of any kind, we can't detect black holes, yet we can detect huge amounts of mass. At this point, it is a fact that there is invisible mass.
Is it the cause of the strange observation of galactic rotations? We're not sure, but we know it would almost perfectly match up with the observations.
1) We know there is "Dark Matter", whatever it is
2) We are not sure if Dark Matter is the cause of our observed high speed outer arm orbits in galaxies, but it would be a nearly perfect fit
Dark Matter is a 60 year old concept that has only recently be all but confirmed, The addition of Dark Matter into Universe simulations also fixed the issues we've been having.
I was under the impression that Dark Matter and Dark Energy were completely unrelated. I was also under the impression that Dark Matter, whatever it is, is somewhat well accepted because of our understanding of electromagnetism, and that we know there is mass, but we also know it does not interact with photons, and we haven't detected any interactions with normal matter.
You can't move through space faster than c, but space can move or expand faster than c. The space between us and some distant galaxies is greater than c, meaning, we could never get to them, even at the speed of light. Some galaxies have been measured to have red-shifts past 2c. Even if you were a photon, they'd still be moving away from you at c, which is hard to understand because a photon does not experience time.
You may not want to connect your thermostat to the Internet, but you may want it connected to your home network, which so happens to have Internet access. The heating and cooling system in my old home for 10 years ago kept a multi-year log of each and every time the heating or cooling kicked on, what temp it was, what the humidity was, and all kinds of other stuff. Accessing it over a serial port was annoying. It would have been a lot more convenient if it had a web server that ran over wifi or Ethernet.
Comcast could return their OpEx by 20% going FTTH instead of FTTN, at least that's what the average is for FTTN to FTTH conversions.
I personally get the impression that bandwidth is quite cheap once you get past entry level. I can get a business class dedicated 15/15 fiber connection to my ISP for $40/month, who uses Level 3 exclusively as their upstream, and since my ISP doesn't use any CDNs, 100% of their bandwidth is transit. You can run that connection ragged and they won't complain, I've ran my line near rate for months until I got bored of trying to find ways to push my connection to its limit. Many many terabytes, per month. They don't just cover the local city, but a huge portion of the county, well beyond city limits by several miles. Not bad for a private ISP that turns down government broadband grants and loans on principle.
Since it's dedicated, you can rate limit your P2P or whatever high bandwidth stuff you like to use, to 75% of your link speed, and you won't even get beyond 1ms of jitter while playing games. Around 80%-85%, you'll start to get 10ms-20ms of jitter, and 90%-95%, periodic loss.
I was told they have a teamed redundant main trunk that could handle one of the links going down, effectively cutting their bandwidth in half, and still only be about 50% link usage based on normal peak usage, they also have a secondary link that is also fully capable of handling peak load without congestion. They could handle 6x their normal peak bandwidth in a pinch, so no worries of congestion on their trunk. Since their upstream is Level 3, I get my full rated speed to nearly every IX in the world.
Who knows, maybe if my ISP was 50,000 bigger, like the size of Comcast, my ISP could offer better prices and faster speeds, since every 2x-3x increase in price seems to be a 10x increase in bandwidth. 1mbit for $300, 10mbit for $1,000, 100mbit for $2,000, 1gb for $6,000, at least these seem to be the prices Level 3 offers around here. No listed prices(please call) for 10gb or higher, but I assume it scales decently.
An anecdote, yes, but my point is a small private ISP in a rural area can manage to run fiber to the farms without government help, while providing dedicated symmetrical business class bandwidth, and cheaper than the competition! Based on how expensive everyone makes everything out to be, my situation should be an impossibility.
I personally feel that Google Fiber is not too much to ask of any ISP that is "of size".
Send or receiving does matter, Level 3 is a Tier 1 and everyone, except other Tier 1s, pay for access to Tier 1s. Maybe I should start charging my ISP money to access my network because I feel like it.
Comcast does not do it's best to do anything. The only thing I know is I pay less for symmetrical business class dedicated internet connection from my privately owned local ISP, which does not get any government support at all, than what Comcast charges, and I'm in a low population area of the USA.
For the price Comcast charges, anything less than dedicated bandwidth is monopolistic abuse.
Running a fiber from the CO to your house is closer to $700. The $2,000 cost includes EVERYTHING, from the network equipment, to trenching fiber, to sending someone to your house to hook everything up.
The cost breakdown goes something like this:
Fiber: 2% - Copper is about 5x more expensive
Network Equipment: 8% - Copper is 2x more expensive up front and 20% more to operate
Trenching fiber to the house: 30% - fixed cost, no matter what tech you use
Sending someone to your house to hook things up: 60% - fixed cost, no matter what tech you use
USA actually has it much better when it comes to density. Very high density populations are actually worse for costs. It's much easier to drill a hole into the side of a house than to go through an 80 story concrete apartment and drill holes. On average, and the average is all that matters, it's cheaper to deploy fiber Internet in the USA than Japan or South Korea.
Verizon actually said that FIOS reduced operational costs and was a good investment from a technology standpoint. The problem is FIOS didn't increase revenue enough. It allowed Verizon to offer a faster and cheaper service, but it didn't allow Verizon to get paid more, or at least not enough more toe warrant the upgrade.
Around here, we have a private ISP, and when they rolled out fiber, speeds went up and prices went down. Verizon is not private, they're a public company. You can't do that. Prices must go up, but Verizon is already milking as much money from their customers as they can afford. Verizon has no incentive to upgrade, even if it saves them some money while making customers happier.
Netflix went with an ISP that doesnt have the best connectivity and no other ISP really wants to improve connectivity with them because of how this particular ISP demands to handle peering arrangements. It was a win for netflix in that they got a better monetary deal, but its also a loss because the reason they got a better deal is that their ISP is a professional cheapskate seeking to take advantage of lopsided peering arrangements.
Actually, not true. Comcast actively refused to accept Netflix from anyone other than Cogent. Netflix wanted to use some other CDN services, but Comcast would not allow it.
You have no clue how routing works. You NEVER let a route get congested. If a route gets congested, you either stop using it all together or upgrade it, but you NEVER let it stay congested. Level 3 recently came forward and stated their average link usage is 35% during peak hours. They also had a blog showing link utilization, and how you should never have dropped packets, unless you've having a transient issue.
It's an ISP's job to make sure their supply can handle demand.
Comcast wants Netflix to either buy transit from bandwidth providers or pay Comcast for the transit;
Not true. Comcast outright refused to accept more Netflix traffic from a 3rd party. Comcast forced Netflix into direct negotiations. You also mentioned Netflix purchasing "transit" from Comcast. Netflix is not purchasing transit. If Netflix was purchasing bandwidth from Comcast to access European customers, that would be transit. Transit is "Inter-network, not intra-network".
ISPs do not charge each other based on gigabytes, they charge based on megabits. They don't care if you use 1mbit 24 hours per day or 1mbit 1.5 hours per day, you get charged exactly the same, for 1mbit.
The problem with the mail analogy is with ISPs, you also pay for receiving. Actually, you pay no matter what.
Lets try to make a better analogy.
Lets say the USPS instead of charging per parcel, instead charges each tax payer a base $30/month, but the customer is allowed 5 parcels per month. But you only get that deal if you bundle with their overpriced car insurance, otherwise you pay $60/month for 5 parcels. If you want to get more parcels, then you can get the 20 parcel per month for $100, for the first 6 months, then $150 after.
Since you need to get mail, you put up with this, then suddenly, after a decade of this highway robbery, Amazon starts offering this wonderful service that allows you to make use of your underutilized mail system that you pay so much for. Now you can order your regular things online and have them shipped without the hassle of going to a store or forgetting.
So lots of people start using this Amazon service. Amazon pays FedEx $2 per parcel to deliver to your city, where FedEx hands off to USPS, then USPS delivers it to you. After a while, USPS gets cranky that they're now having to deliver a lot more packages. Lots of people have upgraded to their $150/month package to get 20 parcels per month, but USPS can't handle it because they've never had this demand before.
USPS then refuses to accept more parcel from FedEX, which causes parcels to back-up and get delivered late. Amazon asks FedEx if there is anything can be done, but FedEx says they can't because USPS refuses all negotiations.
Eventually Amazon caves in and enters into an agreement where Amazon pays USPS $2 per parcel, but Amazon has to deliver the parcel to the city, then USPS will deliver it the rest of the way. Because Amazon was paying FedEx to deliver the package for them, Amazon now has to provide that service for themselves.
USPS customers are now paying increased Amazon prices, while paying exorbitant USPS prices. USPS's rational is that if the customers want to make full use of the service they've purchased from USPS, then the customer should have to pay even more, but USPS didn't want to raise their bill because customers wouldn't like that, so instead they indirectly increase their bill by charging the suppliers of what the customers want
All the while in another city, UPS(Google Fiber) is charging $50 per month for unlimited packages and even lets Amazon use their local warehouse for free, which helps reduce Amazon's and UPS's costs.
Lets put this all into perspective. Transit is priced about $0.45 retail, and costs even less. But lets give Comcast a bit of wiggle room and assume that on average, bandwidth costs $0.50/mbit. This is bandwidth that can reach anywhere in the world. Comcast oversubscribes about 20:1, which means that bandwidth is really about $0.025/mbit per customer. Comcast then turns around and charges $100/month for 100mbit, which only costs them about $2.5 in bandwidth. Then Comcast complains that Netflix is using too much of this bandwidth, because Comcast's network can't handle providing a measly 5mbit/s to many of their customers at the same time.
Comcast then gets this awesome idea, instead of paying for bandwidth, they should get paid for it! So not Comcast is making even more money, but making money isn't a bad thing in itself. So, what's wrong about Comcast wanting to make more money? Because Comcast is having their customers foot the bill for the infrastructure, then Comcast outright refuses to allow the customers to use the infrastructure to its fullest, then Comcast turns around and resells that same infrastructure for more profit to another company, while making no additional investments into the infrastructure.
The customer's didn't gain anything, they were only allowed to make more use of what they already paid for.
Imagine if you leased a 6 person van for the explicit reason to hold more of your kids and their friends, but then your car dealership tells Chucky Cheese that if they want you to be able to put 6 people into the van that you leased, Chucky Cheese will have to pay. Because... get this... 6 seat vans are expensive. No shit. Isn't that why you're paying a premium for a 6 person van over a 4 seat car?
Thin clients are back, streaming games from your PC to your Steam box will suck for 8k resolutions. Encoding 8k in real time will be hard, expect it to be at most lightly compressed. It could use a lot of bandwidth at 120fps.
Let me know when it's built into a $80 home router.
Excellent point.
You just don't appreciate 4k because you don't watch TV up close with a magnifying lens.
For many short sighted people, a nemesis is required, but for smarter people, we need to expand beyond Earth. The general rule of thumb is to have at least one offsite back-up. Life destroying things Earth wide catastrophic events tend to happen once very so often, and we're coming due.
Great, my local city has a rule about not having vaccinations, but how does that help if I decide to travel? What if someone comes to my town? What about people in another city or state that have an outbreak that creates a new strain that causes my current vaccinations to be useless? How do I protect myself against those jerks?
Of course there will be people from out of country, but if you're a resident of the USA, the most common people I have contact with, I should have some guarantees about the lethality of coming in contact with a given person.
Not getting vaccinated is akin to dumping barrels of mercury and lead into your well. Things you do to your property will affect others.
Whatever a drunk driver with a child in the car that had got involved in an accident would get, a parent that doesn't vaccinate their child for no good reason should get the same. This is considered child endangerment and is a felony in many states.
That link had several lies or used sources of bad science. They claimed that unvaccinated children had a ~50% reduced rate of autism according to whatever study. I have NEVER read of any study in the past decade that came to this conclusion. There have been numerous studies from very reputable Universities and research centers that came to the conclusion that the autism rate is identical.
Whomever did the study came up with results that fly in the face of every other trial that has ever happened. It is so far out that it cannot be explained by anything other than being purposefully false.
Women aren't turned off by intelligence. They are turned off by constantly being made to feel stupid. They are also turned off by bad social skills, bad physical health, and the inclination to play video games and study all day every day (rather than going out and doing something fun with friends).
I can understand where he's coming from. Most women I've met fall under one of two categories, are smart and already taken by a significant other that they've known for decades, or boyfriend hopping because they want a "fun" guy which means they are not responsible and not marriage or father material.
My guess is he's talking about the second type. They complain about how all the guys they date turn out to be jerks, but they don't give a geek/nerd the time of day because they're not socially "fun". In my experience, many of these women seem to just need attention because of a lack of confidence in themselves. They don't like spending time with family and like to get drunk and party or talk about how horrible their life is.
Maybe if they stayed home and found some video games that are fun to play with their socially awkward boyfriend, they'd be more happy.
Throughout my career, I have worked with many engineers, programmers, and other nerds. My experience is that they are the least misogynistic people I have ever met, and they have mostly been polite, professional, and welcoming to their female co-workers. Have you ever worked with salesmen? Or construction workers? Nerds are saints by comparison.
This has been my uniform experience also. My personal experience has been the smarter(in the practical sense) someone is, the fewer stereotypical biases they have.