You seem to fail to understand why people keep saying that. The only "evidence" you have of women not being able to choose computer science as a career path is that there are less of them choosing it.
"Women being predisposed to liking different things is fine but there's not enough of them liking this because they are being discouraged which is obvious because not enough of them like it."
And you assert that it has to be because of advert material focused almost exclusively (weasel words) on male demographics? You have some kind of concrete proof the advertising material came before a change in demographics?
You can theorize on the effects of advertising all you want but you have no way to quantify or even study the advertisements of the time. The only concrete historical data of the two things you just listed is "when the home computer showed up on to the scene". Which is would make a much stronger data-point for why the ratio changed.
Why do people think that brains are all exactly the same? Of course there are genes for intelligence- that's what separates humans from chimps after all. That a complex combination and interaction of genes, upbringing and nutrition might play a part in intellect and interest is almost certainly true. The fact that there are things under the umbrella of "intellectual disability" pretty much proves that not all brains are the same. Look at X-linked intellectual disability and try to tell me that genetics ha no bearing on intelligence.
Is that "example" really what you call "proof"? We know that physical capabilities are genetic (as in how far a person can progress is limited by their genes) yet not all professional sports players are children of the previous generation's professional sports players.
Your example falls flat on upbringing alone. Not to mention that just because something is heritable does not mean it will be inherited.
I guess I misinterpreted what you meant originally. I think you can enjoy what you do and be "passionate" without having your soul sucked out by assholes.
A "developer" isn't the one that gets to choose agile. And when the company decides to do agile wrong (which seems to be fairly common) it turns out even worse.
I specifically meant companies with bad policies. Pull a rabbit out of your hat once or twice and they tend to expect that instead of fixing broken practices.
Rational or not, people putting more passion into it are going to out-perform you. That's also some of the worst advice I've ever heard. "Don't enjoy your job; that's not rational."
while the "rock stars" can react to sudden and dramatic changes of requirement and need and crank out the changes relatively adroitly (not necessarily quickly)
All well and good until that is expected every time. The "this is going to be a problem but don't worry about it, X will fix it" mentality probably makes a lot of poor management teams lose good talent.
Most people paying for programmers are looking for a fairly run-of-the-mill web-application. They don't want people messing with IO requests unless absolutely necessary. Problems like that were common at one time, but not anymore. For the most part they are now solved to a better standard than an average programmer could do anyway.
"Social justice warrior" as a pejorative is insulting to those that fought for actual social justice.
No, self-absorbed idiots stroking their own egos by claiming to fight for social justice while doing nothing of the sort is insulting to those that fought for actual social justice. Again I must repeat: you do not get to leech off others' accomplishments. You are not them; you are not in their league.
You are a lying sack of shit that edits quotes to change reality to match your Nazi utopia. Keep on hating equality and lying about it.
Damn, you got me. When I said people don't like SJWs because they immediately use non-sequitur insults as soon as someone doesn't agree with them you completely proved me wrong by claiming I'm some horrible thing that had nothing to do with what we were talking about and you had no reason for saying. Your one rhetorical tactic is just too strong for me.
To clarify, I didn't change any quotes; I mocked you. You said you didn't claim anyone was bad. Then in the very next sentence said people were bad. Do you really think people won't catch on to what you are trying to do when you say people hate *insert good thing*? You may be an idiot but most of us remember the question "why do you hate freedom?" we got by questioning the American war in Afghanistan.
It didn't work before so you'll try again, huh? You've got one tactic and you'll flail away with it until everyone just gets bored and you feel vindicated. You don't get to just conflate two completely different things. You know exactly what people mean when they say "social justice warrior".
No one is "resetting" any term but you. You are well aware people are using it as a sardonic pejorative. Your response of "these people did things that some random person might have called social justice and therefore they are social justice warriors so you can't use social justice warrior as a pejorative" is humorously asinine. The abolitionists had nothing at all to do with the current culture of what people pejoratively label "social justice warrior". Stop trying to defend your vacuous moral preening using the accomplishments of others. And that is exactly what you are trying to do.
I never said anyone else is bad. That is purely a fabrication by those who hate equality, progress and politeness.
I'm not saying anyone is bad; I'm passive aggressively saying they are bad. That's what makes me morally superior!
No one hates equality you imbecile. I don't have to make you look bad. Your pathetically transparent attempts at grand-standing do that all on their own.
Let me spell it out for you. You are exactly what people mean when they use SJW as a pejorative. A pious fool that thinks they're profound. A person that immediately labels anyone that disagrees with them as some list of non-sequitur horrible things because you are too intellectually stunted by cognitive dissonance to actually handle a dissenting opinion. "Could I be wrong? No, that person just hates puppies and probably kittens too."
Not really at all, no. I was merely pointing out the term "social justice warrior" refers to sanctimonious blowhards more concerned about their own egos than than anything that could possibly be defined as "social justice". Which is why the term causes such a fuss in some folk that feel the need to reply to it with petty insults and empty regurgitated statements they think make them sound profound like "[challenging] their comfortable world view". Which is exactly how a sanctimonious blowhard would react when someone questioned their position.
Trust me pal- nothing you can say challenges my world view, comfortable or otherwise. You are completely vacuous. You fit nicely into my world view under the category of extremely insecure people that latch onto something arbitrary that they think projects their superiority to the world.
You are more than welcome to post your drivel here. Just don't expect everyone to pretend you aren't a fool. I am really unsure how you thought that post wouldn't make you look like an insecure infantile loudmouth. But I guess you sure showed me?
It was a miniscule event that would have meant nothing in a week if it were handled with even a "woups, sorry". The scandal was a small group of media friends decided to instead start promoting that a large chunk of their audience were misogynist, horrible, racist, homophobic, right wing, terrorist (you get the idea) to deflect blame from a complete nonevent that shouldn't have even mattered.
You can guarantee that very few people cared about some extra press some lame game got. What they did care was being called some pretty vile and untrue names.
It is incredibly disingenuous to claim ownership of people's actions in the past. They had nothing to do with you and you do not get to leech from their accomplishments.
It is that exact fallacious and dishonest nonsense that got SJW labelled as a pejorative. You are transparently trying to say "these people did good things and I say I do good things therefore we are the same and you are bad". You aren't nearly as clever as you think you are.
People loudly proclaiming they are doing things for the "greater good" or "social justice" rarely are. Every horrible asshole in the history of civilization claimed to be doing things because they were righteous.
It's a subcategory of keyboard warrior- which has always been a pejorative. People that lash out at pointless things in pointless arenas and think they're heroes. Nobody likes sanctimonious blowhards.
You just described the primary reason why Twitter is popular. It really only allows vacuous shouting so it attracts people incapable of forming coherent ideas but still want to blurt out their opinions without having to worry about them being challenged by meaningful discussion.
It is also good for making fun of people. So it at least can be amusing watching the dynamics of these two incompatible groups of people interacting.
Don't get me wrong- C is definitely the right tool for some jobs. I'm not about to give up my C compiler. I am merely lamenting this macho culture around it. "Real programmers use C" and the idea that if you don't use it it means you are a bad programmer.
Perhaps I am just extra critical of this because it was the prevailing attitude with the faculty and student body at the university I attended. Coupled with a fairly anti-math culture it produced less than stellar results as you might imagine.
This is why romanticizing C is not a good idea. It's a pain in the ass language that should only be used when it has to. Currently there a far too many C zealots that are trying to project to the world that they are experts but would be better described as Dunning-Kruger sufferers.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to fail to understand why people keep saying that. The only "evidence" you have of women not being able to choose computer science as a career path is that there are less of them choosing it.
"Women being predisposed to liking different things is fine but there's not enough of them liking this because they are being discouraged which is obvious because not enough of them like it."
Begging the question.
And you assert that it has to be because of advert material focused almost exclusively (weasel words) on male demographics? You have some kind of concrete proof the advertising material came before a change in demographics?
You can theorize on the effects of advertising all you want but you have no way to quantify or even study the advertisements of the time. The only concrete historical data of the two things you just listed is "when the home computer showed up on to the scene". Which is would make a much stronger data-point for why the ratio changed.
Why do people think that brains are all exactly the same? Of course there are genes for intelligence- that's what separates humans from chimps after all. That a complex combination and interaction of genes, upbringing and nutrition might play a part in intellect and interest is almost certainly true. The fact that there are things under the umbrella of "intellectual disability" pretty much proves that not all brains are the same. Look at X-linked intellectual disability and try to tell me that genetics ha no bearing on intelligence.
Is that "example" really what you call "proof"? We know that physical capabilities are genetic (as in how far a person can progress is limited by their genes) yet not all professional sports players are children of the previous generation's professional sports players.
Your example falls flat on upbringing alone. Not to mention that just because something is heritable does not mean it will be inherited.
You are ignoring economies of scale and the benefits of longer shelf-life.
I guess I misinterpreted what you meant originally. I think you can enjoy what you do and be "passionate" without having your soul sucked out by assholes.
A "developer" isn't the one that gets to choose agile. And when the company decides to do agile wrong (which seems to be fairly common) it turns out even worse.
I specifically meant companies with bad policies. Pull a rabbit out of your hat once or twice and they tend to expect that instead of fixing broken practices.
Rational or not, people putting more passion into it are going to out-perform you. That's also some of the worst advice I've ever heard. "Don't enjoy your job; that's not rational."
while the "rock stars" can react to sudden and dramatic changes of requirement and need and crank out the changes relatively adroitly (not necessarily quickly)
All well and good until that is expected every time. The "this is going to be a problem but don't worry about it, X will fix it" mentality probably makes a lot of poor management teams lose good talent.
Most people paying for programmers are looking for a fairly run-of-the-mill web-application. They don't want people messing with IO requests unless absolutely necessary. Problems like that were common at one time, but not anymore. For the most part they are now solved to a better standard than an average programmer could do anyway.
They'd likely be punished for rebuilding the engine or DIYing the brakes in the company car too.
And when the use contradicts the previous use and the books, people generally complain about it.
Let me help you with that: Sarcasm see also: Sardonicism. It isn't a complicated concept really.
"Social justice warrior" as a pejorative is insulting to those that fought for actual social justice.
No, self-absorbed idiots stroking their own egos by claiming to fight for social justice while doing nothing of the sort is insulting to those that fought for actual social justice. Again I must repeat: you do not get to leech off others' accomplishments. You are not them; you are not in their league.
You are a lying sack of shit that edits quotes to change reality to match your Nazi utopia. Keep on hating equality and lying about it.
Damn, you got me. When I said people don't like SJWs because they immediately use non-sequitur insults as soon as someone doesn't agree with them you completely proved me wrong by claiming I'm some horrible thing that had nothing to do with what we were talking about and you had no reason for saying. Your one rhetorical tactic is just too strong for me.
To clarify, I didn't change any quotes; I mocked you. You said you didn't claim anyone was bad. Then in the very next sentence said people were bad. Do you really think people won't catch on to what you are trying to do when you say people hate *insert good thing*? You may be an idiot but most of us remember the question "why do you hate freedom?" we got by questioning the American war in Afghanistan.
I have no idea what you just said.
It didn't work before so you'll try again, huh? You've got one tactic and you'll flail away with it until everyone just gets bored and you feel vindicated. You don't get to just conflate two completely different things. You know exactly what people mean when they say "social justice warrior".
No one is "resetting" any term but you. You are well aware people are using it as a sardonic pejorative. Your response of "these people did things that some random person might have called social justice and therefore they are social justice warriors so you can't use social justice warrior as a pejorative" is humorously asinine. The abolitionists had nothing at all to do with the current culture of what people pejoratively label "social justice warrior". Stop trying to defend your vacuous moral preening using the accomplishments of others. And that is exactly what you are trying to do.
I never said anyone else is bad. That is purely a fabrication by those who hate equality, progress and politeness.
I'm not saying anyone is bad; I'm passive aggressively saying they are bad. That's what makes me morally superior!
No one hates equality you imbecile. I don't have to make you look bad. Your pathetically transparent attempts at grand-standing do that all on their own.
Let me spell it out for you. You are exactly what people mean when they use SJW as a pejorative. A pious fool that thinks they're profound. A person that immediately labels anyone that disagrees with them as some list of non-sequitur horrible things because you are too intellectually stunted by cognitive dissonance to actually handle a dissenting opinion. "Could I be wrong? No, that person just hates puppies and probably kittens too."
Not really at all, no. I was merely pointing out the term "social justice warrior" refers to sanctimonious blowhards more concerned about their own egos than than anything that could possibly be defined as "social justice". Which is why the term causes such a fuss in some folk that feel the need to reply to it with petty insults and empty regurgitated statements they think make them sound profound like "[challenging] their comfortable world view". Which is exactly how a sanctimonious blowhard would react when someone questioned their position.
Trust me pal- nothing you can say challenges my world view, comfortable or otherwise. You are completely vacuous. You fit nicely into my world view under the category of extremely insecure people that latch onto something arbitrary that they think projects their superiority to the world.
You are more than welcome to post your drivel here. Just don't expect everyone to pretend you aren't a fool. I am really unsure how you thought that post wouldn't make you look like an insecure infantile loudmouth. But I guess you sure showed me?
It was a miniscule event that would have meant nothing in a week if it were handled with even a "woups, sorry". The scandal was a small group of media friends decided to instead start promoting that a large chunk of their audience were misogynist, horrible, racist, homophobic, right wing, terrorist (you get the idea) to deflect blame from a complete nonevent that shouldn't have even mattered.
You can guarantee that very few people cared about some extra press some lame game got. What they did care was being called some pretty vile and untrue names.
It is incredibly disingenuous to claim ownership of people's actions in the past. They had nothing to do with you and you do not get to leech from their accomplishments.
It is that exact fallacious and dishonest nonsense that got SJW labelled as a pejorative. You are transparently trying to say "these people did good things and I say I do good things therefore we are the same and you are bad". You aren't nearly as clever as you think you are.
People loudly proclaiming they are doing things for the "greater good" or "social justice" rarely are. Every horrible asshole in the history of civilization claimed to be doing things because they were righteous.
It's a subcategory of keyboard warrior- which has always been a pejorative. People that lash out at pointless things in pointless arenas and think they're heroes. Nobody likes sanctimonious blowhards.
It offers nothing of value over the other two. And it is lousy Python.
Until it gets too big, rots your crops, runs off and infects your water supply with e-coli.
Sadly this metaphor is still going strong.
This is why we can't have nice things.
And that's totally not the excuse every fascist and authoritarian uses to curb free speech and dissent.
I am sorry comrade; you must not insult the Kremlin. Such speech is harmfully affecting our society bad[sic]
Wait- Putin is that you?
You just described the primary reason why Twitter is popular. It really only allows vacuous shouting so it attracts people incapable of forming coherent ideas but still want to blurt out their opinions without having to worry about them being challenged by meaningful discussion.
It is also good for making fun of people. So it at least can be amusing watching the dynamics of these two incompatible groups of people interacting.
Don't get me wrong- C is definitely the right tool for some jobs. I'm not about to give up my C compiler. I am merely lamenting this macho culture around it. "Real programmers use C" and the idea that if you don't use it it means you are a bad programmer.
Perhaps I am just extra critical of this because it was the prevailing attitude with the faculty and student body at the university I attended. Coupled with a fairly anti-math culture it produced less than stellar results as you might imagine.
This is why romanticizing C is not a good idea. It's a pain in the ass language that should only be used when it has to. Currently there a far too many C zealots that are trying to project to the world that they are experts but would be better described as Dunning-Kruger sufferers.