I'm not going to disagree, but I think that it _is_ true that the hostile environments can extend back far enough to initially dissuade people from going into certain fields.
Possibly, yes. But then you should first examine where that is happening, and then try to fix it. However, the author of the article is simply looking at the percentages.
Far too many parents of girls don't push them to learn STEM subjects thinking there is no need for it.
I am showing my daughter all the options, and she's choosing not to go into STEM. If she's happy with her choice, why should I push her into something that she doesn't like ?
The variability of male scores is greater than that of females
There's a good reason for this. In nature, the males are usually competing for the females. As an average male, you aren't very likely to win that competition. You need to excel. That's why men are bigger risk takers. If you take a risk, and you win, you are much more likely to be a successful competitor. When you lose, you aren't that much worse off.
For the females, it's okay to be average. There will still be plenty of male interest.
Sounds difficult. A large of the course is going to be boring grunt work to build all the foundations. The interesting and practical applications usually come at the end. If you're not interested in the basic work, you'll never make it to the practical applications.
Hostile environments are a problem, and we should do whatever we can to have those fixed. Having different interests and preferences in men/women for a certain education or a certain job is not a problem.
but perhaps law classes on water usage rights would be helpful.
I doubt that a few extra classes like this will have much impact on female participation. When I decided to study computer science, I did that because I was interested in computers. I didn't even know exactly what classes I was getting until I was already enrolled. I think it's similar for most people.
There are different jobs with different characteristics. Some people like math, others enjoy pruning trees in the park. Some jobs involve dealing with people, other jobs involve dealing with mechanical objects. These jobs have different appeal to different people. The average interests of men differs from women. For instance, a larger percentage of men prefers to deal with mechanical objects, and a larger percentage of women prefer a job that involves social contact with other people. Naturally, these preferences will be reflected in the job ratios.
Things aren't "fixed", but on average, you're going to see differences. To me, that sounds a lot better than having each job appeal equally to every person in the country.
Copper indium gallium selenium good luck with that.
Pointless argument without numbers. Are you claiming that a solar panel requires significant amounts of those materials ? And pointing out that the Chinese are not producing in a sustainable and clean way does not contradict my statement that it can be done cleanly, if you're willing to pay a little bit more. Obviously, the Chinese haven't been very interested in paying a little bit more. This is changing, now that rich people are starting to suffer from pollution.
How long do you think we will have the resources to build solar panels ?
Practically forever. The basic materials such as silicon are among the most abundant in the earth's surface. The rarer elements are only used in small amounts. And it's perfectly possible to make solar panels without causing pollution, if you don't mind paying a little bit more.
It's better because it's far more efficient. The overall efficiency from electricity to power to the wheels using synthetic diesel is probably less than 1%, based on results from other groups that are doing similar things. Pure electric is more than 80% efficient.
Not surprising, actually. Our brains are easily fooled by expectations. Frédérick Brochet once served white wine with red food colouring to wine experts, and they all described it as red wine.
Yes, there is a positive correlation between drinking diet sodas and being overweight.
And part of that correlation is due to the fact that there's a correlation between being overweight and having type 2 diabetes, and switching to diet sodas is an easy first step to help control T2D.
Most of the energy comes out as (waste) heat, so no, it doesn't violate the 2nd law. It may make it impractical, but that has nothing to do with the energy in the bonds, but rather with the efficiency of the process.
A better plan would be to develop a smart charging car that can adjust its charging rate depending on the amount of excess electricity generation. And when there's a shortage, the car can sell some charge back to the grid.
good luck getting an electric car with a 400+ mile range and recharging in a few minutes
Good luck scaling up the production from 160 liters to 160 million liters per day.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not going to disagree, but I think that it _is_ true that the hostile environments can extend back far enough to initially dissuade people from going into certain fields.
Possibly, yes. But then you should first examine where that is happening, and then try to fix it. However, the author of the article is simply looking at the percentages.
Far too many parents of girls don't push them to learn STEM subjects thinking there is no need for it.
I am showing my daughter all the options, and she's choosing not to go into STEM. If she's happy with her choice, why should I push her into something that she doesn't like ?
Where do you get that the goal is to get a 50/50 gender-balance? You read 50/50 and assumed that was the goal.
Then what is the goal ? Apparently, 14/86 is a reason for "despair", according to the article.
I gave Legos to both my daughter and son. They both played with them, but my daughter made little people, and my son made cars.
The variability of male scores is greater than that of females
There's a good reason for this. In nature, the males are usually competing for the females. As an average male, you aren't very likely to win that competition. You need to excel. That's why men are bigger risk takers. If you take a risk, and you win, you are much more likely to be a successful competitor. When you lose, you aren't that much worse off.
For the females, it's okay to be average. There will still be plenty of male interest.
I guess that most people have enough salt in their diet that this isn't a problem.
If people don't want to drink sugar or corn syrup, there are plenty of alternatives available.
So why the consternation over adding some programs in applied engineering?
What are you going to take out to make room ?
Sounds difficult. A large of the course is going to be boring grunt work to build all the foundations. The interesting and practical applications usually come at the end. If you're not interested in the basic work, you'll never make it to the practical applications.
Hostile environments are a problem, and we should do whatever we can to have those fixed. Having different interests and preferences in men/women for a certain education or a certain job is not a problem.
but perhaps law classes on water usage rights would be helpful.
I doubt that a few extra classes like this will have much impact on female participation. When I decided to study computer science, I did that because I was interested in computers. I didn't even know exactly what classes I was getting until I was already enrolled. I think it's similar for most people.
The idea of changing the course content is presented as a "solution" to the "problem" of low female participation in the engineering workforce.
That means if you'd actually want to implement this "solution" then it would involve changing the contents of the other engineering courses as well.
There are different jobs with different characteristics. Some people like math, others enjoy pruning trees in the park. Some jobs involve dealing with people, other jobs involve dealing with mechanical objects. These jobs have different appeal to different people. The average interests of men differs from women. For instance, a larger percentage of men prefers to deal with mechanical objects, and a larger percentage of women prefer a job that involves social contact with other people. Naturally, these preferences will be reflected in the job ratios.
Things aren't "fixed", but on average, you're going to see differences. To me, that sounds a lot better than having each job appeal equally to every person in the country.
To create a more varying and interesting world.
Wouldn't the fact that different jobs have different amounts of male/female interests be a sign of variation ?
Copper indium gallium selenium good luck with that.
Pointless argument without numbers. Are you claiming that a solar panel requires significant amounts of those materials ?
And pointing out that the Chinese are not producing in a sustainable and clean way does not contradict my statement that it can be done cleanly, if you're willing to pay a little bit more. Obviously, the Chinese haven't been very interested in paying a little bit more. This is changing, now that rich people are starting to suffer from pollution.
How long do you think we will have the resources to build solar panels ?
Practically forever. The basic materials such as silicon are among the most abundant in the earth's surface. The rarer elements are only used in small amounts.
And it's perfectly possible to make solar panels without causing pollution, if you don't mind paying a little bit more.
It's better because it's far more efficient. The overall efficiency from electricity to power to the wheels using synthetic diesel is probably less than 1%, based on results from other groups that are doing similar things. Pure electric is more than 80% efficient.
What is the LED version of the vehicle? A replacement for a dead dino burner, but not a pure battery car that has to be recharged.
The perfect replacement is an EV with a better battery (or supercapacitor).
Not surprising, actually. Our brains are easily fooled by expectations. Frédérick Brochet once served white wine with red food colouring to wine experts, and they all described it as red wine.
Except weight is determined by how many calories you intake, vs. how many calories you expend. Gut bacteria may be an important issue,
Gut bacteria have an effect on how many calories you take in, so they help determine weight.
Yes, there is a positive correlation between drinking diet sodas and being overweight.
And part of that correlation is due to the fact that there's a correlation between being overweight and having type 2 diabetes, and switching to diet sodas is an easy first step to help control T2D.
Most of the energy comes out as (waste) heat, so no, it doesn't violate the 2nd law. It may make it impractical, but that has nothing to do with the energy in the bonds, but rather with the efficiency of the process.
Another solution could be a robotic charger built into the ground. Just park your car over it, and press a button.
A better plan would be to develop a smart charging car that can adjust its charging rate depending on the amount of excess electricity generation. And when there's a shortage, the car can sell some charge back to the grid.
good luck getting an electric car with a 400+ mile range and recharging in a few minutes
Good luck scaling up the production from 160 liters to 160 million liters per day.
It sounds too good to be true, what's the catch? Is CO2 extraction horribly expensive?
Overall efficiency is much lower than using the electricity directly, or even for charging the battery of an electric car.