Are they really though? Or is the media hype machine making it look like they're throwing around "massive amounts" of money? Because I totally know what a block chain is (now that I've read the wikipedia article), and if there are massive amounts of (real) money to be had, let's you and I go get some of it.
Alternate explanation - they say that R, Rust, Typescript and Kotlin are the fastest growing tags on StackOverflow, therefore they must be the most liked. It seems to me that a more likely explanation is that they're newer and more confusing, and more people have questions about them. The traffic for questions about, say, Perl, is starting to taper off because it's been around so long that all of the obvious questions have already been asked and answered, and a lot of the bugs have been worked out of the recent versions.
I gotta say, I'm shocked by this finding. I don't have enough experience with Perl to personally hate it or love it, but if you had given me 10 guesses which programming language would have been the absolute most hated - especially in a list that includes Visual Basic, PHP, Cobol, C#, ColdFusion, Pascal and Java - I don't think Perl would have been any of them.
Evidenced by the order of magnitude more men than women who are in prison. Somehow lots of men being successful is evidence of sexism, but lots of men failing isn't.
You can almost set your watch by it - every time the topic of "women in tech" comes up on any message board, somebody (who makes sure to identify himself as a white man) will come along and say something along the lines of "every woman I've ever worked with was the most brilliant programmer I've ever met, and every incompetent clown I've ever known has been a (white) man". If you based your opinions by just what you read on Slashdot (and reddit and hackernews and quora and...) you'd assume that there's never been an incompetent woman nor a competent (white) man.
That's half the story - the other part of the problem is that it's dangerous not to. You sure as hell don't want to be seen as the one who was supporting their behavior by not condemning them as strongly as the other guy.
Well, I've never seen anybody suggest why "systemic sexism" has been so massively successful in keeping the supposed hordes of "qualified women coders" out of programming, but failed so miserably in keeping them out of sales, marketing, law, medicine, journalism, finance, government and education. Especially when you factor in the fact that anything that even vaguely looks like systemic sexism gets you fired and blackballed immediately with no warning or review and we've been bending over backwards to put anti-systemic-sexism programs in place for at least thirty years, the power of the systemic sexism in tech is really a wonder to behold.
Well, in that case, they should move to those countries so that they'll be better off there? What? What's that you say? Those countries won't take them in? Because they realize that taking in hordes of people who consume and don't produce will spell the downfall of their own free ride? That America is continuing to prop up the rest of the socialist world by continuing to be the only country besides Japan which has people that actually do something?
I'd be more impressed if the opposition's approach wasn't to define "middle-class", and therefore deserving of punitive taxation, as anybody who was making more than $10,000/year.
When you want to learn about serial killers, you ask the fucking serial killers.
On the other hand (to stretch your analogy a bit)... if the serial killer says, "Oh, the best way to understand serial killers is to drive to this address tonight at midnight, but don't tell anybody that you're going there, or bring a phone, and definitely come alone" you should be suspicious.
Well, then, passing this law makes sense - it looks like they're doing something "for workers", but since they can get the data from somewhere else, they just don't have to bother any more.
I was about to respond "thanks, feminism", and then it occurred to me that there's an off chance that somebody could track this account back to my real identity, see that I once made an off-hand attempt to crack a joke about feminism, and fire me for being a non-true-believer so... yep, you're right.
Don't forget the contemptification of education, too. Djikstra observed that there was no Dutch translation for the English word "egghead" - a perjorative term for a smart person. Want to be internetally nuked from orbit? Say that you consider yourself a smart person on an internet forum. There's nobody more hated than "arrogant elitist snobs" in American culture, and as far as I can tell, that refers to anybody with any sort of education. Look how Slashdot reacts when somebody mentions computer science degrees. I'm reading TAOCP right now, which was written in the 60's, and I'm awestruck by how _advanced_ it is - Knuth assumes that you consider calculus and matrix multiplication a triviality, and that you can reason about them intuitively. But he's not trying to deliberately be confusing - it is readable, but you have to pay attention to it. He's just writing for a much more sophisticated audience than exists en masse today - an educated person from the 60's.
On the other hand - in a world where robots can actually do _everything_, why would you need an income at all? Robots can plant food, raise crops, slaughter animals and turn them into hamburgers, build houses, weave textiles... if your basic needs can be met by food, clothing and shelter, and robots can run around providing everybody with all of those, what would you need money for? What could you even use money for? The bigger problem with a "robots do everything" future is that this planet can only sustain so many people, no matter how hard the robots work.
It comes down to an antiquated concept of 'fairness'. They worked and sacrificed and suffered to get what little they've got in life so why shouldn't everybody else?
With fuel to the fire added by people like you who genuinely seem to believe the exact opposite - that anybody who worked or sacrificed or suffered or who has anything right now didn't come by it honestly and deserves to burn in penance for their elitist past.
Slashdot Mirror
"Girls like guys with skills, like nunchaku skills or computer hacking skills"
everyone is throwing massive amounts of money
Are they really though? Or is the media hype machine making it look like they're throwing around "massive amounts" of money? Because I totally know what a block chain is (now that I've read the wikipedia article), and if there are massive amounts of (real) money to be had, let's you and I go get some of it.
How the hell do you have "Blockchain skill"? That doesn't even make sense.
Yeah I sort of suspect that the "least hated" list just correlates with the "least known".
Alternate explanation - they say that R, Rust, Typescript and Kotlin are the fastest growing tags on StackOverflow, therefore they must be the most liked. It seems to me that a more likely explanation is that they're newer and more confusing, and more people have questions about them. The traffic for questions about, say, Perl, is starting to taper off because it's been around so long that all of the obvious questions have already been asked and answered, and a lot of the bugs have been worked out of the recent versions.
I gotta say, I'm shocked by this finding. I don't have enough experience with Perl to personally hate it or love it, but if you had given me 10 guesses which programming language would have been the absolute most hated - especially in a list that includes Visual Basic, PHP, Cobol, C#, ColdFusion, Pascal and Java - I don't think Perl would have been any of them.
You could always, you know, just... not use LinkedIn.
Evidenced by the order of magnitude more men than women who are in prison. Somehow lots of men being successful is evidence of sexism, but lots of men failing isn't.
You can almost set your watch by it - every time the topic of "women in tech" comes up on any message board, somebody (who makes sure to identify himself as a white man) will come along and say something along the lines of "every woman I've ever worked with was the most brilliant programmer I've ever met, and every incompetent clown I've ever known has been a (white) man". If you based your opinions by just what you read on Slashdot (and reddit and hackernews and quora and...) you'd assume that there's never been an incompetent woman nor a competent (white) man.
The problem is that it's easy to rush to judgment
That's half the story - the other part of the problem is that it's dangerous not to. You sure as hell don't want to be seen as the one who was supporting their behavior by not condemning them as strongly as the other guy.
Well, I've never seen anybody suggest why "systemic sexism" has been so massively successful in keeping the supposed hordes of "qualified women coders" out of programming, but failed so miserably in keeping them out of sales, marketing, law, medicine, journalism, finance, government and education. Especially when you factor in the fact that anything that even vaguely looks like systemic sexism gets you fired and blackballed immediately with no warning or review and we've been bending over backwards to put anti-systemic-sexism programs in place for at least thirty years, the power of the systemic sexism in tech is really a wonder to behold.
You are brilliant.
You joke, but he actually came pretty close to winning the Democratic presidential nomination last year.
Well, in that case, they should move to those countries so that they'll be better off there? What? What's that you say? Those countries won't take them in? Because they realize that taking in hordes of people who consume and don't produce will spell the downfall of their own free ride? That America is continuing to prop up the rest of the socialist world by continuing to be the only country besides Japan which has people that actually do something?
I'd be more impressed if the opposition's approach wasn't to define "middle-class", and therefore deserving of punitive taxation, as anybody who was making more than $10,000/year.
They are trying to get more entrants into the field
And lobby for an increase in the H1B visa cap.
When you want to learn about serial killers, you ask the fucking serial killers.
On the other hand (to stretch your analogy a bit)... if the serial killer says, "Oh, the best way to understand serial killers is to drive to this address tonight at midnight, but don't tell anybody that you're going there, or bring a phone, and definitely come alone" you should be suspicious.
Or, they're saying that they can't access these devices to lull criminals into a false sense of complacency.
Actually if you're going to do it, go all out: change your status from "enrolled" to "graduated" and see if you get away with it.
Well, then, passing this law makes sense - it looks like they're doing something "for workers", but since they can get the data from somewhere else, they just don't have to bother any more.
I was about to respond "thanks, feminism", and then it occurred to me that there's an off chance that somebody could track this account back to my real identity, see that I once made an off-hand attempt to crack a joke about feminism, and fire me for being a non-true-believer so... yep, you're right.
Now we just need to automate the coke-snorters and we'll be all set.
simplification/retardification of education
Don't forget the contemptification of education, too. Djikstra observed that there was no Dutch translation for the English word "egghead" - a perjorative term for a smart person. Want to be internetally nuked from orbit? Say that you consider yourself a smart person on an internet forum. There's nobody more hated than "arrogant elitist snobs" in American culture, and as far as I can tell, that refers to anybody with any sort of education. Look how Slashdot reacts when somebody mentions computer science degrees. I'm reading TAOCP right now, which was written in the 60's, and I'm awestruck by how _advanced_ it is - Knuth assumes that you consider calculus and matrix multiplication a triviality, and that you can reason about them intuitively. But he's not trying to deliberately be confusing - it is readable, but you have to pay attention to it. He's just writing for a much more sophisticated audience than exists en masse today - an educated person from the 60's.
I'm pretty sure the "upper echelons of financial firms" don't give a rat's ass about their staff
Well, remember, you're only "upper echelon" anything if you have a lot of peons reporting to you. So in that respect, yes, they do.
On the other hand - in a world where robots can actually do _everything_, why would you need an income at all? Robots can plant food, raise crops, slaughter animals and turn them into hamburgers, build houses, weave textiles... if your basic needs can be met by food, clothing and shelter, and robots can run around providing everybody with all of those, what would you need money for? What could you even use money for? The bigger problem with a "robots do everything" future is that this planet can only sustain so many people, no matter how hard the robots work.
It comes down to an antiquated concept of 'fairness'. They worked and sacrificed and suffered to get what little they've got in life so why shouldn't everybody else?
With fuel to the fire added by people like you who genuinely seem to believe the exact opposite - that anybody who worked or sacrificed or suffered or who has anything right now didn't come by it honestly and deserves to burn in penance for their elitist past.