If by "shove" you mean analyzing her story instead of blindly believing her without accountability, then sure these topics are shoving her into that category. Here is part of the other side, FYI.
When you lie to demonize a company, you are not a "whistle blower", you're just a liar.
Dianne Feinstein is the same senator who complained that the CIA searched congress's computers.
It was obvious before that it was a violation of privacy, this is just an illustration. Do you think politicians will care if it doesn't have anything to do with them?
1) She misleads us into believing that Nakamotos had something to hide because he immediately called the cops when she arrived at his doorstop, only later on to reveal that she had been harassing him for 2 months before she tried to harass him in person.
2) She uses the implausibility of (1) as a flimsy analogy for why a man who has hundreds of millions of dollars would be living in a modest home with his mom.
3) She dismisses the idea of Satoshi Nakamotos being a pseudonym because
why someone who wishes to remain anonymous would choose such a distinctive name
Which makes no logical sense. Implying a pseudonym can't be distinctive. Implying a pseudonym isn't for the sole purpose of covering up a real name.
Let's assume the writer of the article is right and that he's a private military contractor who guards his privacy. Why would he create an anonymous currency and then attach his own name to it?
If we're going to go off anecdotal evidence, most of the women I've met who no longer do engineering have done so for personal (raising a family), career (joined politics) or academic (pursued PhD in Physics instead) reasons. You leave a job because of coworkers. You leave a career due to personal choice.
As for the rest of your post, I refer you to the last line of the article:
this perception is just one more factor discouraging women from entering the tech space.
There's a reason for why there are less women in the STEM fields, and it's the intersection of two (2) problems. The first being we teach all children, regardless of gender, that the engineering and the hard sciences are difficult, and boring, and the best reason to go into them is to get a high paying job. The second being historically in western cultures, women aren't required to make money.
So if you unless you need to be a breadwinner, why would you get a boring high paying job? Why not something marketed as more interesting like psychology or marketing.
The reason there aren't a lot of women in STEM fields is the intersection of two problems:
1. We teach kids that science and technology is boring and hard but is a good money making career.
2. Middle class women and up in almost all cultures didn't need to work, and that carries over to now where there's no pressure for women to be breadwinners. In the US, women have more advanced degrees than men, but what are they all in? The soft sciences.
The only hurdle to her is a comfortable lifestyle.
What a good reflection of the American poor. Just because they can't afford food doesn't mean they shouldn't pick what junk they want to eat.
Rice and lettuce IS better food than snack cakes and soda.
I don't know why you would blame a guy who has carried dried bamboo (not against US Customs) in and out of the US before rather than a US agent who couldn't exercise reason to distinguish plantable bamboo from a flute.
I think you missed the point of the article that, instead of defending or marginalizing her actions, talk about celebrity-gossipesque world-wide pile ons for people who aren't at celebrity status. The paparazzi and readers of celebrity gossip feel justified to talk about how people they don't personally know did this or deserves that, because they're public figures and their personal lives are on display. Now this extends to anyone who sends a public message. You talk about kids getting bullied into suicide which, incidentally, parallels the mob-mentality here where strangers feel personally justified to contribute to the downfall of a person for doing "something stupid". Here, like high school bullying, why do arm chair activists do it? It's hardly for justice. It's because it's entertaining.
Multivitamins tend to prey on people who don't track what they eat, or don't know what they're supposed to be getting, and are convinced they need to supplement their fast paced and deficient lifestyle.
Now when a study comes out that isn't try to sell you something, it's worth taking a look at.
Slashdot Mirror
If by "shove" you mean analyzing her story instead of blindly believing her without accountability, then sure these topics are shoving her into that category. Here is part of the other side, FYI.
When you lie to demonize a company, you are not a "whistle blower", you're just a liar.
This picture from the article alone might be a good indication of the other side of the argument.
Dianne Feinstein is the same senator who complained that the CIA searched congress's computers.
It was obvious before that it was a violation of privacy, this is just an illustration. Do you think politicians will care if it doesn't have anything to do with them?
1) She misleads us into believing that Nakamotos had something to hide because he immediately called the cops when she arrived at his doorstop, only later on to reveal that she had been harassing him for 2 months before she tried to harass him in person.
2) She uses the implausibility of (1) as a flimsy analogy for why a man who has hundreds of millions of dollars would be living in a modest home with his mom.
3) She dismisses the idea of Satoshi Nakamotos being a pseudonym because
why someone who wishes to remain anonymous would choose such a distinctive name
Which makes no logical sense. Implying a pseudonym can't be distinctive. Implying a pseudonym isn't for the sole purpose of covering up a real name.
You're assuming she's telling the truth and not just some racist hag who mistakes accent for "imperfect English"
Let's assume the writer of the article is right and that he's a private military contractor who guards his privacy. Why would he create an anonymous currency and then attach his own name to it?
As for the rest of your post, I refer you to the last line of the article:
this perception is just one more factor discouraging women from entering the tech space.
There's a reason for why there are less women in the STEM fields, and it's the intersection of two (2) problems. The first being we teach all children, regardless of gender, that the engineering and the hard sciences are difficult, and boring, and the best reason to go into them is to get a high paying job. The second being historically in western cultures, women aren't required to make money.
So if you unless you need to be a breadwinner, why would you get a boring high paying job? Why not something marketed as more interesting like psychology or marketing.
Young? Childless? Full of piss and vinegar? If yes to any or all, take a chance.
The reason there aren't a lot of women in STEM fields is the intersection of two problems: 1. We teach kids that science and technology is boring and hard but is a good money making career. 2. Middle class women and up in almost all cultures didn't need to work, and that carries over to now where there's no pressure for women to be breadwinners. In the US, women have more advanced degrees than men, but what are they all in? The soft sciences. The only hurdle to her is a comfortable lifestyle.
People nice; man shocked.
What a good reflection of the American poor. Just because they can't afford food doesn't mean they shouldn't pick what junk they want to eat. Rice and lettuce IS better food than snack cakes and soda.
I don't know why you would blame a guy who has carried dried bamboo (not against US Customs) in and out of the US before rather than a US agent who couldn't exercise reason to distinguish plantable bamboo from a flute.
I think you missed the point of the article that, instead of defending or marginalizing her actions, talk about celebrity-gossipesque world-wide pile ons for people who aren't at celebrity status. The paparazzi and readers of celebrity gossip feel justified to talk about how people they don't personally know did this or deserves that, because they're public figures and their personal lives are on display. Now this extends to anyone who sends a public message. You talk about kids getting bullied into suicide which, incidentally, parallels the mob-mentality here where strangers feel personally justified to contribute to the downfall of a person for doing "something stupid". Here, like high school bullying, why do arm chair activists do it? It's hardly for justice. It's because it's entertaining.
Himself. And the iPad.
Multivitamins tend to prey on people who don't track what they eat, or don't know what they're supposed to be getting, and are convinced they need to supplement their fast paced and deficient lifestyle. Now when a study comes out that isn't try to sell you something, it's worth taking a look at.
I mean 10 seconds. Err, 3 months. No 5 days.
And those who can't litigate, teach gym.