Did anyone look at the spreadsheets? What the hell are the numbers in them even supposed to be? It says "tax included" thereby implying that they are monetary amounts, but they don't say what unit, and the total for the US in the low usage one for August 2008 is 279.52. 279.52 of what units for what? For one month? Beats me.
"Genetics have nothing to do with behavior. All humans are the same."
How can that be true? Just take the most extreme cases and you will see clearly that you are wrong. Modify the genes of a zygote so that it does not develop legs. Now you will get a human which does not walk where you would have got one that frequently walks. How can never walking be considered the same behaviour as frequently walking? Add an extra chromosome 21 and you will get a human with mental retardation where you would not have. Do you suppose the behaviour will be the same? Remove genes that allow the development a functioning auditory system. Do you really suppose that speaking a language is the same behaviour as signing one?
You might as well argue that breeding dogs or cattle is a frivolous activity, in that doing so will never deliver the behaviour for which the breeder is looking. But those who know dogs for example still describe various temperaments for which the various breeds have preponderances. That is, unless you suppose that, in contrast with other mammals with the same nervous structures whose behaviour is plainly influenced by genetics, there is something so special about humans wherein their behaviour is not influenced by genetics.
The page on TIPS clearly says that it is tied to the Consumer Price Index. Why would you assume that this accurately reflects the purchasing-power fluctuations of the money held by these nuclear power firms as is important to them? It reflects it well for one type of consumer, and that's it (even if a lot of consumers fit that mould). What I mean is, the CPI does not in any way necessarily reflect inflation as it matters to an individual or firm. For example, if a product you spend a significant amount of money on starts costing a lot more because of inflation, yet that item does not factor into the CPI, ceteris paribus, then, just that: The CPI will not reflect inflation as it matters to you.
North Dakota has about 22 tornadoes a year. Kansas has about 200 a year. Then you have to take into account differences in intensities of those tornadoes, I'd imagine.
"Actually, facebook modified their terms recently, such that their rights to materials you upload expire if you choose to terminate your facebook account. I agree that it's still not good to grant them that right at all, even if it's not forever though."
"For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos ("IP content"), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook ("IP License"). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account (except to the extent your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it)."
When you sign up you agree to the terms of service, which clearly says you grant Facebook an unlimited, worldwide licence to use anything you post on Facebook. Unfortunately, no reads it!
I don't really understand your reasoning as to why "mathematics" cannot be plural. Because the source of the word (I would refrain from using "root" as that has another linguistic meaning, in this case probably referring to the root "math-") comes from the greek adjective? Well, for example, the word logic comes from the Greek adjective logikos and it is singular whereas the plural would be logics. So...
Dictionary.com has an interesting tidbit for "mathematic":
mathematic c.1380 as singular, replaced by early 17c. by mathematics (1581), from L. mathematica (pl.), from Gk. mathematike tekhne "mathematical science," fem. sing. of mathematikos (adj.) "relating to mathematics, scientific," from mathema (gen. mathematos) "science, knowledge, mathematical knowledge," related to manthanein "to learn," from PIE base *mn-/*men-/*mon- "to think, have one's mind aroused" (cf. Gk. menthere "to care," Lith. mandras "wide-awake," O.C.S. madru "wise, sage," Goth. mundonsis "to look at," Ger. munter "awake, lively"). Mathematics (pl.) originally denoted the mathematical sciences collectively, including geometry, astronomy, optics. Math is the Amer.Eng. shortening, attested from 1890; the British preference, maths is attested from 1911.
That seems to outline how "maths" could of come to be seen as a plural, where "math" would be singular and short for the singular "mathematic".
Similar to what I raised in another post in this comments section (with a puzzle further down), the question I want to ask you is what constitutes "basic logical thought"?
So you have your logic and then you judge that some people are not logical because their line of reasoning depends on invalid arguments supposedly. What would prevent someone else from having a different logic instead of yours and then proclaiming you as the illogical one?
How would you decide which logic is the better one? A gut feeling that the rules of your logic are better than another's?
The puzzle I raised in my other post was the paradoxical unicorn. There exists something such that if it is a unicorn than all things are unicorns. According to classical logic for example this condition is true because it is logically true, due to how classical logic treats material conditions. But according to intuitionistic logic the condition would not be true. So which logic is better? Classical or intuitionistic? Yours or somebody else's?
Do you disagree that all deaths caused by criminal negligence are accidental? Do you disagree that Megan Meier's death was a suicide? Do you disagree that no suicides are accidental?
Or do you think the argument is invalid? The argument which I take to be: No C is an A. Every B is an A. x is a B. Therefore, x is not a C.
I do not see how the cause and effect is obvious. As far as I know the case, Lori Drew's interactions with Megan Meier involved uploading writing onto a server directed toward Megan Meier which Megan Meier downloaded and read. So I take it that the writing had to be the instrument by which Lori caused Megan to commit suicide. Let us just say that the causal chain is obvious up to there. So, Megan read what Lori wrote, but then how was Megan caused to commit suicide by the writing? That is where the cause and effect stops being obvious to me.
Having read some of the writing her neurons fire in a certain way and then that causes her to hang herself? Against her will or not? It all seems kind of mysterious to me. I have this feeling that somewhere in the line there may still be a choice of some sort that Megan had despite what the neurons were caused to do by the perception of the writing. That makes it all the more mysterious to me.
Was Megan Meier's death a suicide? I would answer yes because that is what all the news reports say. Are any suicides accidental deaths? I would answer no because I believe intentionality is an essential part of a death being a suicide. Are all deaths caused by criminal negligence accidental? I would answer yes, because if they were not accidental then they would be intentional, and then the guilty individual or individuals would rather be guilty of murder and not negligence.
But now I think I've ran into the problem for your idea that Meier's death was caused by criminal negligence. Given that her death was a suicide, and given that no suicides are accidental, we can conclude that her death was not accidental. But it also seems that all deaths caused by criminal negligence are accidental. So, based on that, if her death was caused by criminal negligence, then her death was accidental. But her death was not accidental, so it seems safe to conclude that her death was not caused by criminal negligence.
That, my good sir, is precisely the problem with the omnibus. Every time I've ridden the omnibus there is someone so offensive on board I'm about to...can't even finish this sentence I'm so angry at them still. They have their headphones in, but I can hear their "hip hop" music. If I can hear it, how loud are they listening to it? Last time I was on there was some girl trying to speak French to her boyfriend or some over creature over her cellular telephone. She kept on saying "je t'aime" with the worst accent I've ever heard; it sounded like "shuttem".
I get messy with the bicycle instead generally. Only take the bus when I'm with someone else and that's their mode of transport. Weirdos.
If you could clean the trash out then the bus would be down-right pleasant. But ay, there's the rub: If you could clean the trash out the whole world would be down-right pleasant, you'd be lord and saviour, and it's never going to happen. Yes, that last bit is anacoluthon as well.
"Of course you can. Rule #1: Follow the intent, not the letter, And then make the intent as clear as humanly possible."
So then how do you determine the intent? From some piece of writing different from the law? Then why not just use that piece of writing as the law and follow it? Or do you determine the intent from the law itself? Then you are just following the letter of the law!
For example, you have a law which states that "One may not drive without his seatbelt safely fastened." Then you have a second piece of writing different from the law saying "When we said that one may not drive without his seatbelt safely fastened, we meant that one may not drive without a seatbelt safely fastened around himself. That is, not having a seatbelt is not an excuse." In this case, why not just use the latter piece of writing as the law? In fact, if it is what judges use to determine what the law actually is, then de facto it is the law!
But say there was no secondary writing. There was only the law and no other sources. Then how could you not but follow the letter of the law unless you just did not follow the law full stop? How could you infer some intent of the law different than what would be inferred from it? That's just a logical impossibility. If you are saying that the meaning of "One may not drive without his seatbelt safely fastened" is different than what the meaning of "One may not drive without his seatbelt safely fastened" is, then you are saying that the meaning of the sentence is different from the meaning of the sentence! That A is at once both A and not A. That's ridiculous.
As the other poster said, your situation is ridiculous. Why are you passing someone when you need to speed in order to do it?
On top of that, how would accelerating toward the oncoming traffic be known to you to be safer than falling back? Can you judge speeds with your eyeballs of oncoming traffic that well in a split second when the action is required? That's impossible. You wouldn't be able to tell whether he's travelling 130km/h or 80km/h, both would just look like "approaching fast" given your speed. But that is the info that you would need to ascertain whether either falling back or going forward is the best course of action.
But even if there was a situation in which falling back wasn't an option, then how is this any more unsafe than driving a car that has less power? By your logic, you're only safe driving something as powerful as a Lamborghini because you could put yourself into a situation in which accelerating from 100km/h to 160km/h in 4.5 seconds would be the safest thing to do.
And this all misses the beginning point anyway: Why would you ever pass when you would put yourself and others in such danger in the first place?
"Outside of a few models of high-end video cameras, FireWire isn't seen much these days."
How about audio applications? If you want an audio interface for your laptop, you're almost always better off buying a Firewire model than a USB one; but also for many desktop applications Firewire can fit the bill over PCI/PCI-E. Plenty of the audio gear companies (M-Audio, RME, MOTU, Tascam) of course are still putting out new models using Firewire now and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
"However, all I was intending to do is show that stereotypes can have an influence on our behaviour.... Thus, my goal here was simply to get the men posting to understand that stereotypes can be damaging."
Fair enough. And based on the amount of response to your post I'd say you succeeded.
"Some women are OK, but most don't like to be condescended, and even get upset when they perceive the remotest hint of condescension. Feminist types are only the most rabid and vocal of those, but they are far from monopolizing those feelings."
You've only half the story. That is just how they act part of the time. The other part, when their attitude flips, they act the other way and say that you not taking charge enough and that you should be a strong guide for them because "I'm so confused right now." How much they have one attitude or the other determines their overall type but almost no woman is purely one type all the time but instead there is prevarication.
This changing behaviour is obviously at least partially driven by changes in hormones, and frequently it is not consciously done at all, although it is usually at least partially consciously done (that is, they are aware that they are prevaricating and may even be able to stop it) and sometimes it is a very deliberate contrivance. Regardless of mode of action, it serves the advantage of women because it is another way to disorient men who are left trying to figure out what the proper behaviour is to continue sexual relations. In feminine societies this behaviour is normalized and men are supposed to "deal with it." In masculine societies this behaviour is almost entirely ineffectual because women are very solidly paired with their mates and so the men cannot be easily disoriented because the sexual relations are well understood as either there or not there.
I'd have to agree with others that your argument does not hold up. Your argument must be by analogy, with the form of the analogues being: There being a stereotype of persons of type x being or doing (or, alternatively, not-being or not doing) y makes a person of type x not-being or not-doing (or, alternatively, being or doing) y uncomfortable. What you want to establish is: There being a stereotype of women not-being tech-savvy makes a woman being tech-savvy uncomfortable. The analogue that you used to support this conclusion is: There being a stereotype of men not-wearing pink makes a man wearing pink uncomfortable.
What I take to be a surefire way of arguing against an analogy is to show other, independent ways in which the two analogues are not similar. I think this can be done in this case on at least two counts.
First, there may well be differences between stereotypes for men and stereotypes for women. It's a stereotype that women wear skirts or dresses and that men do not. You see this in the almost universal marks for men's and women's washrooms and dressing-rooms. A men's is marked with a somewhat human-like figure, and a women's is marked with basically the same human figure with the addition of a dress or skirt/a>. Obviously it depends where you are, but this is true for stereotypes in general. A man wearing a skirt or a dress will be made to feel uncomfortable just as if he wore pink. Even if he wears something which happens to have a similar form as a skirt, like a kilt for example, he will be made to feel uncomfortable. But a woman not-wearing a skirt or a dress is not made to feel uncomfortable; a woman seems to get by fine wearing jeans and a t-shirt nowadays. This is true for wearing pink as well. A woman not wearing pink or even never wearing pink is not made to feel uncomfortable; a woman seems to get by fine wearing navy-blues or browns. So it seems that just because there are stereotypes, which when men go against them they are made to feel uncomfortable, does not mean that when women go against stereotypes that they are made to feel uncomfortable. Maybe this is a stereotype in itself.
Further, for the particular case of a guy wearing a pink and a woman being tech-savvy. Again, as others have mentioned, it depends on where you are. I think it obvious that at least at the Google-plex for example a woman being tech-savvy would never be questioned or confronted about it there, or a guy walking around the campus of a sophisticated university for example would never be questioned or confronted about it there. But go to the places where a guy would be questioned or confronted about wearing pink. It seems to me that in those places there is usually something that goes along with it. Outside on the street he would be confronted about it from the regular hot-head homophobe types. These guys will actually try to fight him for no other reason than wearing a pink shirt and after being confronted about it not bowing in the proper show of shame and respect to those with the thug-mentality. So there is a genuine risk of being assaulted for wearing a pink shirt in any street scene where a guy wearing pink would actually be considered weird. Or maybe he would be questioned about it by equally homophobic co-workers at work. In that case, he risks not being assaulted, but losing standing at work. He may well be disparaged as "strange" or "socially awkward" amongst co-workers. But where would these things occur for women being tech-savvy? Sure, those bound by stereotypes may be surprised by a tech-savvy woman and question her about it or make some ignorant remarks, but when would they disparage her at her work or assault her on the street for it? I do not see that happening. On this count then just because a man feels uncomfortable about wearing pink does not help to establish that a woman being tech-savvy will be made to feel uncomfortable.
Slashdot Mirror
Did anyone look at the spreadsheets? What the hell are the numbers in them even supposed to be? It says "tax included" thereby implying that they are monetary amounts, but they don't say what unit, and the total for the US in the low usage one for August 2008 is 279.52. 279.52 of what units for what? For one month? Beats me.
Does anyone know what the numbers actually are?
"Genetics have nothing to do with behavior. All humans are the same."
How can that be true? Just take the most extreme cases and you will see clearly that you are wrong. Modify the genes of a zygote so that it does not develop legs. Now you will get a human which does not walk where you would have got one that frequently walks. How can never walking be considered the same behaviour as frequently walking? Add an extra chromosome 21 and you will get a human with mental retardation where you would not have. Do you suppose the behaviour will be the same? Remove genes that allow the development a functioning auditory system. Do you really suppose that speaking a language is the same behaviour as signing one?
You might as well argue that breeding dogs or cattle is a frivolous activity, in that doing so will never deliver the behaviour for which the breeder is looking. But those who know dogs for example still describe various temperaments for which the various breeds have preponderances. That is, unless you suppose that, in contrast with other mammals with the same nervous structures whose behaviour is plainly influenced by genetics, there is something so special about humans wherein their behaviour is not influenced by genetics.
The page on TIPS clearly says that it is tied to the Consumer Price Index. Why would you assume that this accurately reflects the purchasing-power fluctuations of the money held by these nuclear power firms as is important to them? It reflects it well for one type of consumer, and that's it (even if a lot of consumers fit that mould). What I mean is, the CPI does not in any way necessarily reflect inflation as it matters to an individual or firm. For example, if a product you spend a significant amount of money on starts costing a lot more because of inflation, yet that item does not factor into the CPI, ceteris paribus, then, just that: The CPI will not reflect inflation as it matters to you.
Budweiser: The beer of driving.
Apple has picked up one from the playbook of the Bush Administration.
North Dakota has about 22 tornadoes a year. Kansas has about 200 a year. Then you have to take into account differences in intensities of those tornadoes, I'd imagine.
"Actually, facebook modified their terms recently, such that their rights to materials you upload expire if you choose to terminate your facebook account. I agree that it's still not good to grant them that right at all, even if it's not forever though."
Not exactly:
"For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos ("IP content"), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook ("IP License"). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account (except to the extent your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it)."
Of whom does "others" consist? I don't know.
Read the terms of service.
When you sign up you agree to the terms of service, which clearly says you grant Facebook an unlimited, worldwide licence to use anything you post on Facebook. Unfortunately, no reads it!
I don't really understand your reasoning as to why "mathematics" cannot be plural. Because the source of the word (I would refrain from using "root" as that has another linguistic meaning, in this case probably referring to the root "math-") comes from the greek adjective? Well, for example, the word logic comes from the Greek adjective logikos and it is singular whereas the plural would be logics. So...
Dictionary.com has an interesting tidbit for "mathematic":
That seems to outline how "maths" could of come to be seen as a plural, where "math" would be singular and short for the singular "mathematic".
Similar to what I raised in another post in this comments section (with a puzzle further down), the question I want to ask you is what constitutes "basic logical thought"?
So you have your logic and then you judge that some people are not logical because their line of reasoning depends on invalid arguments supposedly. What would prevent someone else from having a different logic instead of yours and then proclaiming you as the illogical one?
How would you decide which logic is the better one? A gut feeling that the rules of your logic are better than another's?
The puzzle I raised in my other post was the paradoxical unicorn. There exists something such that if it is a unicorn than all things are unicorns. According to classical logic for example this condition is true because it is logically true, due to how classical logic treats material conditions. But according to intuitionistic logic the condition would not be true. So which logic is better? Classical or intuitionistic? Yours or somebody else's?
Try this one on for size, "smart people":
There exists something such that if it is a unicorn then all things are unicorns.
∃x(Ux -> ∀yUy)
Is that sentence true? Pull out your truth tables...well I'll give you the classical one for the condition:
Antecedent Consequent Condition
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T
Rather: No B is an A. Every C is an A.
Do you disagree that all deaths caused by criminal negligence are accidental?
Do you disagree that Megan Meier's death was a suicide?
Do you disagree that no suicides are accidental?
Or do you think the argument is invalid? The argument which I take to be: No C is an A. Every B is an A. x is a B. Therefore, x is not a C.
None of that seems to be semantic quibble.
I do not see how the cause and effect is obvious. As far as I know the case, Lori Drew's interactions with Megan Meier involved uploading writing onto a server directed toward Megan Meier which Megan Meier downloaded and read. So I take it that the writing had to be the instrument by which Lori caused Megan to commit suicide. Let us just say that the causal chain is obvious up to there. So, Megan read what Lori wrote, but then how was Megan caused to commit suicide by the writing? That is where the cause and effect stops being obvious to me.
Having read some of the writing her neurons fire in a certain way and then that causes her to hang herself? Against her will or not? It all seems kind of mysterious to me. I have this feeling that somewhere in the line there may still be a choice of some sort that Megan had despite what the neurons were caused to do by the perception of the writing. That makes it all the more mysterious to me.
Was Megan Meier's death a suicide? I would answer yes because that is what all the news reports say.
Are any suicides accidental deaths? I would answer no because I believe intentionality is an essential part of a death being a suicide.
Are all deaths caused by criminal negligence accidental? I would answer yes, because if they were not accidental then they would be intentional, and then the guilty individual or individuals would rather be guilty of murder and not negligence.
But now I think I've ran into the problem for your idea that Meier's death was caused by criminal negligence. Given that her death was a suicide, and given that no suicides are accidental, we can conclude that her death was not accidental. But it also seems that all deaths caused by criminal negligence are accidental. So, based on that, if her death was caused by criminal negligence, then her death was accidental. But her death was not accidental, so it seems safe to conclude that her death was not caused by criminal negligence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VO2_max?
What is more amazing is that it struck a 14-year-old German. I didn't think these things existed anymore; I thought all Germans were over 40 by now.
That, my good sir, is precisely the problem with the omnibus. Every time I've ridden the omnibus there is someone so offensive on board I'm about to...can't even finish this sentence I'm so angry at them still. They have their headphones in, but I can hear their "hip hop" music. If I can hear it, how loud are they listening to it? Last time I was on there was some girl trying to speak French to her boyfriend or some over creature over her cellular telephone. She kept on saying "je t'aime" with the worst accent I've ever heard; it sounded like "shuttem".
I get messy with the bicycle instead generally. Only take the bus when I'm with someone else and that's their mode of transport. Weirdos.
If you could clean the trash out then the bus would be down-right pleasant. But ay, there's the rub: If you could clean the trash out the whole world would be down-right pleasant, you'd be lord and saviour, and it's never going to happen. Yes, that last bit is anacoluthon as well.
"Of course you can. Rule #1: Follow the intent, not the letter, And then make the intent as clear as humanly possible."
So then how do you determine the intent? From some piece of writing different from the law? Then why not just use that piece of writing as the law and follow it? Or do you determine the intent from the law itself? Then you are just following the letter of the law!
For example, you have a law which states that "One may not drive without his seatbelt safely fastened." Then you have a second piece of writing different from the law saying "When we said that one may not drive without his seatbelt safely fastened, we meant that one may not drive without a seatbelt safely fastened around himself. That is, not having a seatbelt is not an excuse." In this case, why not just use the latter piece of writing as the law? In fact, if it is what judges use to determine what the law actually is, then de facto it is the law!
But say there was no secondary writing. There was only the law and no other sources. Then how could you not but follow the letter of the law unless you just did not follow the law full stop? How could you infer some intent of the law different than what would be inferred from it? That's just a logical impossibility. If you are saying that the meaning of "One may not drive without his seatbelt safely fastened" is different than what the meaning of "One may not drive without his seatbelt safely fastened" is, then you are saying that the meaning of the sentence is different from the meaning of the sentence! That A is at once both A and not A. That's ridiculous.
There's other ideas of friendship that don't demand one be willing to sacrifice so much so as to go to hell for others. Here's one from Aristotle.
As the other poster said, your situation is ridiculous. Why are you passing someone when you need to speed in order to do it?
On top of that, how would accelerating toward the oncoming traffic be known to you to be safer than falling back? Can you judge speeds with your eyeballs of oncoming traffic that well in a split second when the action is required? That's impossible. You wouldn't be able to tell whether he's travelling 130km/h or 80km/h, both would just look like "approaching fast" given your speed. But that is the info that you would need to ascertain whether either falling back or going forward is the best course of action.
But even if there was a situation in which falling back wasn't an option, then how is this any more unsafe than driving a car that has less power? By your logic, you're only safe driving something as powerful as a Lamborghini because you could put yourself into a situation in which accelerating from 100km/h to 160km/h in 4.5 seconds would be the safest thing to do.
And this all misses the beginning point anyway: Why would you ever pass when you would put yourself and others in such danger in the first place?
"Outside of a few models of high-end video cameras, FireWire isn't seen much these days."
How about audio applications? If you want an audio interface for your laptop, you're almost always better off buying a Firewire model than a USB one; but also for many desktop applications Firewire can fit the bill over PCI/PCI-E. Plenty of the audio gear companies (M-Audio, RME, MOTU, Tascam) of course are still putting out new models using Firewire now and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
"However, all I was intending to do is show that stereotypes can have an influence on our behaviour. ... Thus, my goal here was simply to get the men posting to understand that stereotypes can be damaging."
Fair enough. And based on the amount of response to your post I'd say you succeeded.
"Some women are OK, but most don't like to be condescended, and even get upset when they perceive the remotest hint of condescension. Feminist types are only the most rabid and vocal of those, but they are far from monopolizing those feelings."
You've only half the story. That is just how they act part of the time. The other part, when their attitude flips, they act the other way and say that you not taking charge enough and that you should be a strong guide for them because "I'm so confused right now." How much they have one attitude or the other determines their overall type but almost no woman is purely one type all the time but instead there is prevarication.
This changing behaviour is obviously at least partially driven by changes in hormones, and frequently it is not consciously done at all, although it is usually at least partially consciously done (that is, they are aware that they are prevaricating and may even be able to stop it) and sometimes it is a very deliberate contrivance. Regardless of mode of action, it serves the advantage of women because it is another way to disorient men who are left trying to figure out what the proper behaviour is to continue sexual relations. In feminine societies this behaviour is normalized and men are supposed to "deal with it." In masculine societies this behaviour is almost entirely ineffectual because women are very solidly paired with their mates and so the men cannot be easily disoriented because the sexual relations are well understood as either there or not there.
I'd have to agree with others that your argument does not hold up. Your argument must be by analogy, with the form of the analogues being: There being a stereotype of persons of type x being or doing (or, alternatively, not-being or not doing) y makes a person of type x not-being or not-doing (or, alternatively, being or doing) y uncomfortable. What you want to establish is: There being a stereotype of women not-being tech-savvy makes a woman being tech-savvy uncomfortable. The analogue that you used to support this conclusion is: There being a stereotype of men not-wearing pink makes a man wearing pink uncomfortable.
What I take to be a surefire way of arguing against an analogy is to show other, independent ways in which the two analogues are not similar. I think this can be done in this case on at least two counts.
First, there may well be differences between stereotypes for men and stereotypes for women. It's a stereotype that women wear skirts or dresses and that men do not. You see this in the almost universal marks for men's and women's washrooms and dressing-rooms. A men's is marked with a somewhat human-like figure, and a women's is marked with basically the same human figure with the addition of a dress or skirt/a>. Obviously it depends where you are, but this is true for stereotypes in general. A man wearing a skirt or a dress will be made to feel uncomfortable just as if he wore pink. Even if he wears something which happens to have a similar form as a skirt, like a kilt for example, he will be made to feel uncomfortable. But a woman not-wearing a skirt or a dress is not made to feel uncomfortable; a woman seems to get by fine wearing jeans and a t-shirt nowadays. This is true for wearing pink as well. A woman not wearing pink or even never wearing pink is not made to feel uncomfortable; a woman seems to get by fine wearing navy-blues or browns. So it seems that just because there are stereotypes, which when men go against them they are made to feel uncomfortable, does not mean that when women go against stereotypes that they are made to feel uncomfortable. Maybe this is a stereotype in itself.
Further, for the particular case of a guy wearing a pink and a woman being tech-savvy. Again, as others have mentioned, it depends on where you are. I think it obvious that at least at the Google-plex for example a woman being tech-savvy would never be questioned or confronted about it there, or a guy walking around the campus of a sophisticated university for example would never be questioned or confronted about it there. But go to the places where a guy would be questioned or confronted about wearing pink. It seems to me that in those places there is usually something that goes along with it. Outside on the street he would be confronted about it from the regular hot-head homophobe types. These guys will actually try to fight him for no other reason than wearing a pink shirt and after being confronted about it not bowing in the proper show of shame and respect to those with the thug-mentality. So there is a genuine risk of being assaulted for wearing a pink shirt in any street scene where a guy wearing pink would actually be considered weird. Or maybe he would be questioned about it by equally homophobic co-workers at work. In that case, he risks not being assaulted, but losing standing at work. He may well be disparaged as "strange" or "socially awkward" amongst co-workers. But where would these things occur for women being tech-savvy? Sure, those bound by stereotypes may be surprised by a tech-savvy woman and question her about it or make some ignorant remarks, but when would they disparage her at her work or assault her on the street for it? I do not see that happening. On this count then just because a man feels uncomfortable about wearing pink does not help to establish that a woman being tech-savvy will be made to feel uncomfortable.