Sure, if we're talking about an office of programmers, this might all hold true, but most businesses in this world manufacture white tube socks. They manufacture white tube socks the same way today as they did thirty years ago. If my 486DX250 hadn't gone missing in 1998, it would still be adequate for the manufacturing of white tube socks.
There are many employees who feel demoralized because they manufacture white tube socks. And if you show them new, shiny, expensive things, then they'll feel better about themselves. ..for a few days. Life is like a mop; it gets full of dirt and crud and hairballs and stuff. Sometimes, people just want a new mop because they don't want to clean the old mop -- even though their job is to clean.
As for the lovely comment of spending 1% of a salary to improve 5% productivity, that presumes a whole lot of crap, like a) the 5% won't dwindle a week later; b) there's 5% more work that could be done; and c) that same employee won't ask for six more 1%'s because they really can't stick with a set of tools that work.
I have a car, a sportscar, it's 8 years old. Do I want a new car? Hell no! Does my car have a back-up camera, heated seats, gps, fantastic speakers, well-retractive seat belts? It has none of those. But none of those are a part of a car. Those are weird luxuries and dumb conveniences that may be nice but they aren't a part of a car. Instead, it has all of the wonders of a great sportscar. I'm not going to throw out the great car for a new car just because the new car has more gizmos. Because guess what. ..the new car doesn't have the limited slip differential. Those new gizmos are all nice, and they are nice added value, but you need to have something to add it to.
I do have/run/operate a small business. It's a web-programming business. My desk is a solid wood gorgeous desk, now 15 years old. My main workstation is 9 years old -- spec'd properly in the first place, it's faster than most reasonably-priced new machines. Abuse it, and it'll be garbage in ten minutes.
Take care of your tools, whatever they may be, and not only will they last, but you'll be so much happier with them than you ever would with a new replacement.
Dang, $5 for a bag of fruit that I press into juice, with or without a device, is obscene.
Not only does $5 of fruit amount to WAY more than a single glass of juice around here, but $5 of fruit has WAY more than just juice in it. I can eat the fruit, which quite frankly is WAY better than juice alone.
And if I want just juice, well then I don't need lovely fruit. I can get unripenned (often better for raw juice) or over-ripe (often better for sweetened juice) even cheaper.
And if I really just want juice, $5 buys me a beautiful tropicana carton of WAY more than just one glass of juice.
welcome to democracy. The majority can choose to agree on anything -- it doesn't need to be true. In this case, the majority decided the movie was bad, and the majority decided that they didn't need to see it to judge it.
welcome to democracy. if everyone's vote counts the same, and everyone isn't intelligent, then the vote is equally not intelligent.
still democracy -- actually, even moreso, since the vote is specifically for what people want, independent of truth.
so, until you say that democracy should weigh votes based on value -- in this case, geolocation, or having seen the move, and in presidential elections by some degree of education, investment, or at least understanding of candidate platforms -- then you get crap opinions from crap people.
Stop listening.
Why would you base your actions on the opinions of random strangers?
Perhaps a more concise example: move oscars. They've never voted a shitty movie for the best picture award. Some crappy action movie, like starship troopers, or some crappy animated movie, like bubble guppies clearly aren't impressive, innovative, or special in any way. Except that they usually deliver precisely what they promissed to deliver. So if you watch it, based on the trailer, and you expect what you saw in the trailer, and it delivers what you expected, then isn't it the perfect movie for you at that time? Just 'cause Shmikel and Jeeburt don't think it's worth seeing, doesn't mean it isn't the perfect movie for your evening.
In this case, maybe the majority vote this movie as crap because they feel it's crap based on the subject matter alone. Isn't that valid? You might think a movie is crap because the title is mis-spelled, or because you hate a particular actor, or because they abused the canine actors off-camera.
The point is, it's a valid opinion to state, whatever the source of the opinion, and it's a stupid opinion to read, unless you know and agree with the context of that opinion.
I never wanted a dozen browser tabs grouped into one window. I don't want a dozen file explorer tabs grouped into one window either. I certainly don't want a dozen photoshop tabs grouped into one window!
Think harder. Remember the reason that I opened multiple photoshop instances to begin with? I'm working on multiple different projects.
I want one window for each project. I want one window with three browser tabs, two file explorer tabs, and a photoshop tab. I'm working on a poster in photoshop, and I've opened two website tutorials, one local tutorial, and some documentation to support my photoshop design. When the phone rings, and it's my other client, I want to minimize it all. When I open my taxes, I want it obviously separate from my poster work.
And no, workspaces and virtual desktops are way too far for that. I'm one person, with one workflow. I need to see everything that I'm not working on too.
I'm actually a web developer (big surprise here, I'm sure). I can't do anything without: UE for typing code, two browsers for testing code, FTP-something for pulling and pushing code, SSH for configuring code, something mysql for data-play, and the client's e-mail open to figure out what I should be doing. And something note-pad so I can remember what to say back to the client days later. I'd love to tab the two different browsers together. I'd love to tab SSH and FTP together. I'd love to tab a query browser and the e-mail together. I'd love communication with client data together in one window, browser testing together in another window, server communication together in a third window, and my text creation together in a fourth window.
Instead, I get ten windows to juggle. And then a second client calls. One minute, let me open your ten windows.
If it's such a small percentage, you'd think they could have auctioned off the seat before calling security. There aren't many cases, in my life, where I wouldn't have taken $2'000 for a 1-day delay. It's an airline. Just stand there and raise the award until someone says yes.
I'm sure the time-delay to call security cost the airline more than $2K.
You Americans may average $53K in salary, less $13K in taxes, and take-home $40K, but what do those taxes cover? From my interviews, that same average American pays $10K in insurances, bringing the household income down to $30K, which ain't enough to do anything but live. Take $5K for the car, $5K for food, and a $20K mortgage, and what's left?
The taxes go somewhere. Counting them without counting their effect is completely meaningless.
...and offset those gender-discrimination bottlenecks against those sleeping-to-the-top fast-lanes, and I think you'll find that women have more opportunities to get ahead than do the men -- whether or not such opportunities are subjectively attractive.
You're absolutely right.
But it's a stupid tunnel here. It's perfectly fine to say that some personalities aren't as interested in STEM. And it's perfectly fine to say that some personalities are more often found in one gender/age/demographic/geography/timezone than another.
I have no problem with the abstract concept that, as a population, women aren't as interested in STEM as are men, for whatever reason. I also have no problem with women not wanting to work around men -- that's also reasonable.
I'm not fit, I don't want to work around life-guards and fire-fighters. I don't like sports, I don't want to work around athletes and jocks. I'm not asking for society to make fat people more welcome in working in the fitness industry. I just don't build web-sites for personal trainers & gyms -- and you know what, it's not because they are terrible clients, it's because every day they invite me to work out with them, and to take lessons from them, and I'm not at all interested in getting sweaty and showering with my web-site clients.
A thousand years ago, entertainment was more truth than fiction. Hear the adventure tell his story of what he saw, where he went. Told "well", sure, but still "based on a true story". Fiction was for children's bed-time, and even they were "how the beaver got its tale" legends.
Today, most entertainment is fiction -- sit coms, action movies, etc. We even have the greatest oxymoron of all: "reality" shows -- where the fiction is "told" live through artificial scenarios and fabricated editing.
So, in a modern world where we look for creative writing in stories of complete fiction, it's no wonder that we prefer our "news" to be equally "creative". "yet-another-bombing" isn't interesting, I've heard that story countless times before. A government conspiracy bombing, still unproven, now that's a more creative story, and much more interesting.
You might say that the fake news isn't valuable, and that I shouldn't care about it, but honestly, I don't care about the real news either. I'm not going to do anything when there's a bombing 1'000 miles away. I'm not going to do anything when there's a bombing 100 miles away. Quite frankly, if there's a bombing down the street, I'll simply drive around the block to get to work. I'm not an emergency responder, so until the bomb is on my street, there really isn't any difference between real-news and fake-news in terms of my actions.
So if the news isn't going to affect me anyway, I might as well read the interesting version, because it's a better read.
This is exactly how women in high positions screw things up for women everywhere.
STEM doesn't need more women learning STEM. STEM needs more women actually succeeding in STEM. The problem has never been that women have trouble with STEM. The problem has always been that women don't stay in STEM.
Does anyone here think that Ivanka will suddenly become an engineer next year? She certainly could, but she won't.
And if she starts to learn, and effectively "quits", do you think her daughter will decide to continue on a path that mom quit?
This is simply going to be yet another high-profile example where two women enter STEM, and both quit.
That's not helpful -- not to anyone.
If you want to change reality, it always requires the very same thing: sacrifice. If Ivanka wants to get more women into STEM, she can easily give up her other dreams, and go into STEM herself.
And if "actresses" want to be considered "actors", all they need to do is refuse to accept the "best actress" award, three years in a row. That's it.
...not working for uber you can't. my argument is that there is less and less of that comfortable middle-ground in gig-jobs. that's my argument. it's blue-collar shift work, without the reliable hours and without the benefits.
I've been one for three decades now. Self-employed is, and always has been, a recipe for way more work. The benefit, of course, is way more control; you're expected to translate that control into less work over time -- either by shifting the type of work, or by proceduralizing the efforts involved.
A gig, as is being discussed, doesn't provide any control benefits. A lyft driver can't outsource the driving, can't build the better car, and can't make better routes. Similarly, most of the other gigs are already fully proceduralized, and hence are already so commodity-based, that there is no legitimate benefits for improvement. This results in the up-front huge efforts similar to any self-employment, but without any opportunity to reap the benefits of that extra work.
Secondly, and this is probably the bigger deal, most of these gig-workers aren't entrepreneurs. Instead, they are would-be-factory-workers, lured by more-and-flexible hours, unable to see what they've lost as a result. Typical wage-earners usually work full weeks, for reasonable pay, with reasonable hours and reasonable benefits, but dream of "more hours" and "more flexibility". These gigs offer both of those, but don't translate into "more money".
But that's always been the farce of "the american dream". You can come to america, and you have every opportunity to make-it-big. You can be the next mcjagger. Of course, so can everyone else, so you aren't at all likely to be. What percentage of garage-bands become the rolling stones? You're much more likely to fizzle -- on the order of a 100 to 1. Think about it. 300 million americans, 1% make it big, 297 million don't -- and 200 million don't even come close, with 100 million failing miserably.
When challenging a much more advanced force, where head-to-head is a guaranteed loss, asymmetric fighting tactics almost always point to cheap attacks causing large financial cost on the part of your advanced adversary.
Cue the traffickers. A photo of a lure in a hotel room? The same hotel room? Not a green-screen photo of a different hotel room? So, for the cost of photoshop, a trafficker can not only elude the fbi, but also send them to a different hotel room, far far away?!
So if the chicken, in the lab, never eats anything, then explain to me exactly what nutrients I'm getting when I eat your tasty cellular sponge? Today, I select my chicken based on what it ate. Grain or corn, peas or carrots.
And it "takes" gallons of water to produce a pound of beef? What, cows don't piss any of it back? Water cycles. It isn't "taken".
Actually, I'll correct that statement. Water is indeed "taken" when the laboratory uses it, and taints it with biochemicals that don't get consumed by nature.
So, enjoy your lab that destroys water, oh, and land, to produce sponges that taste good but have zero nutritional value. You got half-way there with your factory-farms -- along with your diabetes, mad cows, tainted everything, bland, boring, tastless meat -- enjoy the rest of the ride.
I'll be over here, talking to my local farmers, and eating animals that I can certify myself.
So here's the problem, of course not mentioned in the article. The Patriot Missle is doing a heck of a lot more than just destroying the flying drone.
A butterfly net can take down a tiny drone -- but it can't destroy the explosives being carried by the drone. It can't resist a well-thrusted drone either.
How big of an explosion does it take to destroy a mysterious flying object in a safe manner? No clue.
The Patriot missle was designed in an era where the only way to have something fly a long distance to a specific target was for it to be an expensive device. So, an expensive defense made sense.
Now, not so much.
Much like the man-with-baseball-bat-on-the-sidewalk, you can't stop a random person from flying a cheap drone onto the white house lawn. It's just not possible. Similarly, you can't stop that tiny cheap drone from carrying a major explosive -- like a marathon pressure-cooker.
And, on top of all of that, you aren't going to fire a patriot missle at a drone hovering over the white house lawn. Welcome to border vs domestic defense.
When water rains down on a mountain top, drips over a few miles of mountain rock and moss, floods fields in which tomato plants grow, then I know why the tomatoes are nutritious -- plants are really good at eating soil, and in that case, they'll pick up all of the minerals and dead animals on those rocks.
When cows spend all day, every day, eating and chewing grass, then I know why the beef is nutritious -- the cow uses three stomachs and a few million chews to extract the nutrition in the grass.
I'm not eating beef and tomatoes for the taste. I'm not doing it for the texture either. I'm doing it for the nutrition. That's what the taste really signifies. I'm doing it for the energy to live -- and the calm to digest -- that a nice beefsteak and beefsteak tomato can provide.
So when you grow it in a lab, what kind of nutrition does it have? If you're telling me that the lab takes vitamins, grinds them up, and then spends all of this effort to make the vitamins taste like steak, then I'm not interested. I can just eat the vitamins and save everyone the trouble.
If I'm not eating dead nature, then I fail to see what I'm actually getting from this "food".
My house has a front door, with a dead-bolt, that can be easily picked in a matter of minutes. But the window next to the door can be smashed in seconds. My car has locks and an alarm, neither of which stop the locksmith from opening it with an airbag. My windshield wipers can easily be removed. Nothing stops anyone from key-ing my car, throwing eggs at my house, or toilet paper in my tree.
I've left a ten-dollar bill under my wiper for two years. On-coming traffic, at 250kph collisions, is separated by a yellow line of paint. I don't wear a helmet when I walk the dog, anyone could swing a baseball bat at my head, and kill me in an instant. I don't even know how I would stop someone from dropping a handful of dandelion seeds onto my green lawn.
Really, I don't care about my phone, nor anything in it. Between, insurance, accountability, and having chosen a safe place to live, I don't expect anyone is actually worried that their life and family would be disrupted by anything in their phone.
one complaint, maybe two. not two years. you can leave, and then sue. you don't need to work there for three years, take the money, and then complain.
also, if everyone leaves, isn't that the worst thing that can happen to the company? and if it's just you, and no one else is upset, then let the baby have it's bottle. you're just not a good fit for the group, for whatever reason.
who ever guaranteed that you'd get a job, and that it would be there, forever?
but really, i don't care who you are. if you don't like the way that others treat you, then stop working for other people. people suck, all people. you either find the people who suck the way that you like your sucking, or you start your own company and suck however you damned well please.
another woman complaining about a bad company at which she's chosen to remain. Yes, HR will always protect the company, that's why the company pays for an HR department. If you don't like what's going on, and if you don't like how you're treated, and if you don't like the amount that you're being paid, then you get to do the one thing that every man gets to do -- you get to threaten to quit. That's called negotiating to get what you want. And most of the time, you get to leave. That's exactly what it takes to get what you want.
You don't get to complain, in this case, three years later!
My company isn't like that. My industry isn't like that. Yet, you've stayed in a company that has mistreated you from the start.
Start your own company. That's what I did when I wasn't happy.
Yeah, so we add this stuff, and that means you won't waste this other stuff.
a) I trust the new stuff is cheaper than the ketchup itself -- and by cheaper, I mean cradle-to-grave with the machine, the material, the shipping of the material, and the invention efforts too.
b) I really don't care about the last half-penny of ketchup in the three-dollar bottle.
"Given a list of inputs and outputs for each code fragment", "can turn your descriptions into working code in seconds,"
Yeah, if I had either of those, I'd already be done. "descriptions" are pseudo code, and inputs-and-outputs are already pretty damned close to almost every business-logic algorithm.
Now, if you can tell me what the client actually wants, figure out how their business runs and what they actually need, then maybe you can spend a week figuring out the inputs, outputs, and code descriptions. Then whether I spend five minutes typing perl, or five minutes using microsoft's tool to find snippets, welcome to the very last 1% of the job.
Much like 3D printers, this only changes the tools. I could have always built a chair from wood with power tools really easily, given a diagram. The hard part was figuring out how I wanted the chair to look, and doing all of the finishing. The 3D printer doesn't do any of that. This snippet-finder doesn't do any of that.
So, to summarize, if by "coder" you meant "translates-pseudo-code-into-java", then congrats on your blue-collar career in a white-collar industry.
Slashdot Mirror
I've always wanted to drink from the fire hose.
Sure, if we're talking about an office of programmers, this might all hold true, but most businesses in this world manufacture white tube socks. They manufacture white tube socks the same way today as they did thirty years ago. If my 486DX250 hadn't gone missing in 1998, it would still be adequate for the manufacturing of white tube socks.
There are many employees who feel demoralized because they manufacture white tube socks. And if you show them new, shiny, expensive things, then they'll feel better about themselves. . .for a few days. Life is like a mop; it gets full of dirt and crud and hairballs and stuff. Sometimes, people just want a new mop because they don't want to clean the old mop -- even though their job is to clean.
As for the lovely comment of spending 1% of a salary to improve 5% productivity, that presumes a whole lot of crap, like a) the 5% won't dwindle a week later; b) there's 5% more work that could be done; and c) that same employee won't ask for six more 1%'s because they really can't stick with a set of tools that work.
I have a car, a sportscar, it's 8 years old. Do I want a new car? Hell no! Does my car have a back-up camera, heated seats, gps, fantastic speakers, well-retractive seat belts? It has none of those. But none of those are a part of a car. Those are weird luxuries and dumb conveniences that may be nice but they aren't a part of a car. Instead, it has all of the wonders of a great sportscar. I'm not going to throw out the great car for a new car just because the new car has more gizmos. Because guess what. . .the new car doesn't have the limited slip differential. Those new gizmos are all nice, and they are nice added value, but you need to have something to add it to.
I do have/run/operate a small business. It's a web-programming business. My desk is a solid wood gorgeous desk, now 15 years old. My main workstation is 9 years old -- spec'd properly in the first place, it's faster than most reasonably-priced new machines. Abuse it, and it'll be garbage in ten minutes.
Take care of your tools, whatever they may be, and not only will they last, but you'll be so much happier with them than you ever would with a new replacement.
Dang, $5 for a bag of fruit that I press into juice, with or without a device, is obscene.
Not only does $5 of fruit amount to WAY more than a single glass of juice around here, but $5 of fruit has WAY more than just juice in it. I can eat the fruit, which quite frankly is WAY better than juice alone.
And if I want just juice, well then I don't need lovely fruit. I can get unripenned (often better for raw juice) or over-ripe (often better for sweetened juice) even cheaper.
And if I really just want juice, $5 buys me a beautiful tropicana carton of WAY more than just one glass of juice.
For a second-term president, maybe. But for a first-term president, that's just another movie that you haven't yet seen.
welcome to democracy. The majority can choose to agree on anything -- it doesn't need to be true. In this case, the majority decided the movie was bad, and the majority decided that they didn't need to see it to judge it.
welcome to democracy. if everyone's vote counts the same, and everyone isn't intelligent, then the vote is equally not intelligent.
still democracy -- actually, even moreso, since the vote is specifically for what people want, independent of truth.
so, until you say that democracy should weigh votes based on value -- in this case, geolocation, or having seen the move, and in presidential elections by some degree of education, investment, or at least understanding of candidate platforms -- then you get crap opinions from crap people.
Stop listening.
Why would you base your actions on the opinions of random strangers?
Perhaps a more concise example: move oscars. They've never voted a shitty movie for the best picture award. Some crappy action movie, like starship troopers, or some crappy animated movie, like bubble guppies clearly aren't impressive, innovative, or special in any way. Except that they usually deliver precisely what they promissed to deliver. So if you watch it, based on the trailer, and you expect what you saw in the trailer, and it delivers what you expected, then isn't it the perfect movie for you at that time? Just 'cause Shmikel and Jeeburt don't think it's worth seeing, doesn't mean it isn't the perfect movie for your evening.
In this case, maybe the majority vote this movie as crap because they feel it's crap based on the subject matter alone. Isn't that valid? You might think a movie is crap because the title is mis-spelled, or because you hate a particular actor, or because they abused the canine actors off-camera.
The point is, it's a valid opinion to state, whatever the source of the opinion, and it's a stupid opinion to read, unless you know and agree with the context of that opinion.
colonies on the moon? travelling to other planets? flying cars? jetpacks? biodomes?
It'll take way more than 2075 for a colony on mars. It takes a decade to build a highway 100km long.
It took thirty years for cellphones to get a touchscreen.
People have been diagnosing themselves at home for millenia. The advancement was the doctor, not the diagnosis.
Doctor-free prescriptions are called illicit drugs.
Civilization doesn't move that fast, nor that way. Makes for a nice book though.
I never wanted a dozen browser tabs grouped into one window.
I don't want a dozen file explorer tabs grouped into one window either.
I certainly don't want a dozen photoshop tabs grouped into one window!
Think harder. Remember the reason that I opened multiple photoshop instances to begin with? I'm working on multiple different projects.
I want one window for each project. I want one window with three browser tabs, two file explorer tabs, and a photoshop tab. I'm working on a poster in photoshop, and I've opened two website tutorials, one local tutorial, and some documentation to support my photoshop design. When the phone rings, and it's my other client, I want to minimize it all. When I open my taxes, I want it obviously separate from my poster work.
And no, workspaces and virtual desktops are way too far for that. I'm one person, with one workflow. I need to see everything that I'm not working on too.
I'm actually a web developer (big surprise here, I'm sure). I can't do anything without: UE for typing code, two browsers for testing code, FTP-something for pulling and pushing code, SSH for configuring code, something mysql for data-play, and the client's e-mail open to figure out what I should be doing. And something note-pad so I can remember what to say back to the client days later. I'd love to tab the two different browsers together. I'd love to tab SSH and FTP together. I'd love to tab a query browser and the e-mail together. I'd love communication with client data together in one window, browser testing together in another window, server communication together in a third window, and my text creation together in a fourth window.
Instead, I get ten windows to juggle. And then a second client calls. One minute, let me open your ten windows.
If it's such a small percentage, you'd think they could have auctioned off the seat before calling security. There aren't many cases, in my life, where I wouldn't have taken $2'000 for a 1-day delay. It's an airline. Just stand there and raise the award until someone says yes.
I'm sure the time-delay to call security cost the airline more than $2K.
You Americans may average $53K in salary, less $13K in taxes, and take-home $40K, but what do those taxes cover? From my interviews, that same average American pays $10K in insurances, bringing the household income down to $30K, which ain't enough to do anything but live. Take $5K for the car, $5K for food, and a $20K mortgage, and what's left?
The taxes go somewhere. Counting them without counting their effect is completely meaningless.
...and offset those gender-discrimination bottlenecks against those sleeping-to-the-top fast-lanes, and I think you'll find that women have more opportunities to get ahead than do the men -- whether or not such opportunities are subjectively attractive.
You're absolutely right.
But it's a stupid tunnel here. It's perfectly fine to say that some personalities aren't as interested in STEM. And it's perfectly fine to say that some personalities are more often found in one gender/age/demographic/geography/timezone than another.
I have no problem with the abstract concept that, as a population, women aren't as interested in STEM as are men, for whatever reason. I also have no problem with women not wanting to work around men -- that's also reasonable.
I'm not fit, I don't want to work around life-guards and fire-fighters. I don't like sports, I don't want to work around athletes and jocks. I'm not asking for society to make fat people more welcome in working in the fitness industry. I just don't build web-sites for personal trainers & gyms -- and you know what, it's not because they are terrible clients, it's because every day they invite me to work out with them, and to take lessons from them, and I'm not at all interested in getting sweaty and showering with my web-site clients.
A thousand years ago, entertainment was more truth than fiction. Hear the adventure tell his story of what he saw, where he went. Told "well", sure, but still "based on a true story". Fiction was for children's bed-time, and even they were "how the beaver got its tale" legends.
Today, most entertainment is fiction -- sit coms, action movies, etc. We even have the greatest oxymoron of all: "reality" shows -- where the fiction is "told" live through artificial scenarios and fabricated editing.
So, in a modern world where we look for creative writing in stories of complete fiction, it's no wonder that we prefer our "news" to be equally "creative". "yet-another-bombing" isn't interesting, I've heard that story countless times before. A government conspiracy bombing, still unproven, now that's a more creative story, and much more interesting.
You might say that the fake news isn't valuable, and that I shouldn't care about it, but honestly, I don't care about the real news either. I'm not going to do anything when there's a bombing 1'000 miles away. I'm not going to do anything when there's a bombing 100 miles away. Quite frankly, if there's a bombing down the street, I'll simply drive around the block to get to work. I'm not an emergency responder, so until the bomb is on my street, there really isn't any difference between real-news and fake-news in terms of my actions.
So if the news isn't going to affect me anyway, I might as well read the interesting version, because it's a better read.
This is exactly how women in high positions screw things up for women everywhere.
STEM doesn't need more women learning STEM.
STEM needs more women actually succeeding in STEM.
The problem has never been that women have trouble with STEM.
The problem has always been that women don't stay in STEM.
Does anyone here think that Ivanka will suddenly become an engineer next year? She certainly could, but she won't.
And if she starts to learn, and effectively "quits", do you think her daughter will decide to continue on a path that mom quit?
This is simply going to be yet another high-profile example where two women enter STEM, and both quit.
That's not helpful -- not to anyone.
If you want to change reality, it always requires the very same thing: sacrifice. If Ivanka wants to get more women into STEM, she can easily give up her other dreams, and go into STEM herself.
And if "actresses" want to be considered "actors", all they need to do is refuse to accept the "best actress" award, three years in a row. That's it.
...not working for uber you can't. my argument is that there is less and less of that comfortable middle-ground in gig-jobs. that's my argument. it's blue-collar shift work, without the reliable hours and without the benefits.
I've been one for three decades now. Self-employed is, and always has been, a recipe for way more work. The benefit, of course, is way more control; you're expected to translate that control into less work over time -- either by shifting the type of work, or by proceduralizing the efforts involved.
A gig, as is being discussed, doesn't provide any control benefits. A lyft driver can't outsource the driving, can't build the better car, and can't make better routes. Similarly, most of the other gigs are already fully proceduralized, and hence are already so commodity-based, that there is no legitimate benefits for improvement. This results in the up-front huge efforts similar to any self-employment, but without any opportunity to reap the benefits of that extra work.
Secondly, and this is probably the bigger deal, most of these gig-workers aren't entrepreneurs. Instead, they are would-be-factory-workers, lured by more-and-flexible hours, unable to see what they've lost as a result. Typical wage-earners usually work full weeks, for reasonable pay, with reasonable hours and reasonable benefits, but dream of "more hours" and "more flexibility". These gigs offer both of those, but don't translate into "more money".
But that's always been the farce of "the american dream". You can come to america, and you have every opportunity to make-it-big. You can be the next mcjagger. Of course, so can everyone else, so you aren't at all likely to be. What percentage of garage-bands become the rolling stones? You're much more likely to fizzle -- on the order of a 100 to 1. Think about it. 300 million americans, 1% make it big, 297 million don't -- and 200 million don't even come close, with 100 million failing miserably.
When challenging a much more advanced force, where head-to-head is a guaranteed loss, asymmetric fighting tactics almost always point to cheap attacks causing large financial cost on the part of your advanced adversary.
Cue the traffickers. A photo of a lure in a hotel room? The same hotel room? Not a green-screen photo of a different hotel room? So, for the cost of photoshop, a trafficker can not only elude the fbi, but also send them to a different hotel room, far far away?!
Great job.
No. Far from it.
So if the chicken, in the lab, never eats anything, then explain to me exactly what nutrients I'm getting when I eat your tasty cellular sponge? Today, I select my chicken based on what it ate. Grain or corn, peas or carrots.
And it "takes" gallons of water to produce a pound of beef? What, cows don't piss any of it back? Water cycles. It isn't "taken".
Actually, I'll correct that statement. Water is indeed "taken" when the laboratory uses it, and taints it with biochemicals that don't get consumed by nature.
So, enjoy your lab that destroys water, oh, and land, to produce sponges that taste good but have zero nutritional value. You got half-way there with your factory-farms -- along with your diabetes, mad cows, tainted everything, bland, boring, tastless meat -- enjoy the rest of the ride.
I'll be over here, talking to my local farmers, and eating animals that I can certify myself.
So here's the problem, of course not mentioned in the article. The Patriot Missle is doing a heck of a lot more than just destroying the flying drone.
A butterfly net can take down a tiny drone -- but it can't destroy the explosives being carried by the drone. It can't resist a well-thrusted drone either.
How big of an explosion does it take to destroy a mysterious flying object in a safe manner? No clue.
The Patriot missle was designed in an era where the only way to have something fly a long distance to a specific target was for it to be an expensive device. So, an expensive defense made sense.
Now, not so much.
Much like the man-with-baseball-bat-on-the-sidewalk, you can't stop a random person from flying a cheap drone onto the white house lawn. It's just not possible. Similarly, you can't stop that tiny cheap drone from carrying a major explosive -- like a marathon pressure-cooker.
And, on top of all of that, you aren't going to fire a patriot missle at a drone hovering over the white house lawn. Welcome to border vs domestic defense.
When water rains down on a mountain top, drips over a few miles of mountain rock and moss, floods fields in which tomato plants grow, then I know why the tomatoes are nutritious -- plants are really good at eating soil, and in that case, they'll pick up all of the minerals and dead animals on those rocks.
When cows spend all day, every day, eating and chewing grass, then I know why the beef is nutritious -- the cow uses three stomachs and a few million chews to extract the nutrition in the grass.
I'm not eating beef and tomatoes for the taste. I'm not doing it for the texture either. I'm doing it for the nutrition. That's what the taste really signifies. I'm doing it for the energy to live -- and the calm to digest -- that a nice beefsteak and beefsteak tomato can provide.
So when you grow it in a lab, what kind of nutrition does it have? If you're telling me that the lab takes vitamins, grinds them up, and then spends all of this effort to make the vitamins taste like steak, then I'm not interested. I can just eat the vitamins and save everyone the trouble.
If I'm not eating dead nature, then I fail to see what I'm actually getting from this "food".
My house has a front door, with a dead-bolt, that can be easily picked in a matter of minutes. But the window next to the door can be smashed in seconds. My car has locks and an alarm, neither of which stop the locksmith from opening it with an airbag. My windshield wipers can easily be removed. Nothing stops anyone from key-ing my car, throwing eggs at my house, or toilet paper in my tree.
I've left a ten-dollar bill under my wiper for two years.
On-coming traffic, at 250kph collisions, is separated by a yellow line of paint.
I don't wear a helmet when I walk the dog, anyone could swing a baseball bat at my head, and kill me in an instant.
I don't even know how I would stop someone from dropping a handful of dandelion seeds onto my green lawn.
Really, I don't care about my phone, nor anything in it. Between, insurance, accountability, and having chosen a safe place to live, I don't expect anyone is actually worried that their life and family would be disrupted by anything in their phone.
"except for markets that deal with illegal things"
you mean like consumer cars being used as commercial vehicles, full time drivers considered contractors, and cars sold direct to the consumers.
one complaint, maybe two. not two years. you can leave, and then sue. you don't need to work there for three years, take the money, and then complain.
also, if everyone leaves, isn't that the worst thing that can happen to the company? and if it's just you, and no one else is upset, then let the baby have it's bottle. you're just not a good fit for the group, for whatever reason.
who ever guaranteed that you'd get a job, and that it would be there, forever?
but really, i don't care who you are. if you don't like the way that others treat you, then stop working for other people. people suck, all people. you either find the people who suck the way that you like your sucking, or you start your own company and suck however you damned well please.
another woman complaining about a bad company at which she's chosen to remain. Yes, HR will always protect the company, that's why the company pays for an HR department. If you don't like what's going on, and if you don't like how you're treated, and if you don't like the amount that you're being paid, then you get to do the one thing that every man gets to do -- you get to threaten to quit. That's called negotiating to get what you want. And most of the time, you get to leave. That's exactly what it takes to get what you want.
You don't get to complain, in this case, three years later!
My company isn't like that. My industry isn't like that. Yet, you've stayed in a company that has mistreated you from the start.
Start your own company. That's what I did when I wasn't happy.
Yeah, so we add this stuff, and that means you won't waste this other stuff.
a) I trust the new stuff is cheaper than the ketchup itself -- and by cheaper, I mean cradle-to-grave with the machine, the material, the shipping of the material, and the invention efforts too.
b) I really don't care about the last half-penny of ketchup in the three-dollar bottle.
c) water works when cooking with ketchup
d) time works, and looks cool
e) this was never anyone's problem!
"Given a list of inputs and outputs for each code fragment", "can turn your descriptions into working code in seconds,"
Yeah, if I had either of those, I'd already be done. "descriptions" are pseudo code, and inputs-and-outputs are already pretty damned close to almost every business-logic algorithm.
Now, if you can tell me what the client actually wants, figure out how their business runs and what they actually need, then maybe you can spend a week figuring out the inputs, outputs, and code descriptions. Then whether I spend five minutes typing perl, or five minutes using microsoft's tool to find snippets, welcome to the very last 1% of the job.
Much like 3D printers, this only changes the tools. I could have always built a chair from wood with power tools really easily, given a diagram. The hard part was figuring out how I wanted the chair to look, and doing all of the finishing. The 3D printer doesn't do any of that. This snippet-finder doesn't do any of that.
So, to summarize, if by "coder" you meant "translates-pseudo-code-into-java", then congrats on your blue-collar career in a white-collar industry.