Yah, I can only imagine this will be useful in some very very specific situations.
In an oil or gas flame, the heat of combustion generally ignites the incoming fuel. In a forest fire you have an *immense* amount of latent heat even if you were to completely extinguish the flames for a brief moment. Similar reason to why they keep spraying down after a house fire is technically out.
Seems to me this wouldn't be very useful in a groundfire or rootfire, but could be very useful in slowing a firestorm (vortex of flame whirling through the branches). This technique would drive it back down to the ground where they can use chemicals and water to contain it.
Your second suggestion has merit, but you obviously haven't lived in the areas that get a lot of the kind of theft we're talking about. You don't leave a "gift" with a little note saying "a gift for you, the thief wanting to get his fix, love, the homeowner. Come back whenever you want more!" You just make sure that your most replaceable valuables are also the most accessible should someone decide to burgle your home. These guys aren't trying to make a living, they're usually not even thinking clearly. They just want enough to get them to their next high, and will take it from the handiest location when the urge gets unbearable.
A trap will just make them angry. Poison may make someone come back for revenge. Marked cash as the "gift" -- that's an excellent idea; especially as most of these kinds of thing are by someone you know. For an added bonus, use UV fluorescent ink, and have a UV light somewhere in the house -- you can get readable prints, plus you might catch your friend's friend "green handed".
Open-air microwave emissions aren't going to do much to electronics, or all your electronics would already be fried. Only mild induction, and not of his electronics, as the emitters would be pointing out, not in.
Of course, if they DID move any of his electronics, they might go on the fritz due to mild induction. But that would likely cause power failure due to a short, and if most electronics are unplugged, there would be no short. It might be a problem if you brought your phone within bluetooth range to disable it and the microwave frequency messed with the bluetooth frequency though -- that's a point.h
But then again, the entire idea was tongue in cheek in the first place:)
You notice the part about them pretending to be alarm installers to get inside homes. My guess is that if you left the door unlocked, you probably weren't getting some alarm company in for a quote. You probably also didn't have expensive valuables in plain sight from the street, and as you say, you lived in the worst house.
So they did #2 pretty well -- they don't care about locks or alarms, as those can be bypassed easily. They care about the work required for the profit gained. Your house probably looked like the largest risk for the smallest gain. Seems like a pretty good application of #2.
You do realize that you're doing GP's Step 1 there? He was talking about gaining concensus, not about advancing science, but sitll, you did step 1 there.
Pray tell, was I ostracizing, shunning, bullying or threatening someone who disagrees with me? What was the topic I was disagreeing on? Proper methodology for conducting scientific research? Who was I targeting with my disagreement? Everyone who attempts to pass off as scientific fact that which is based on politics and subjective opinion?
Ostracizing? I think with my comment, I was including pretty much the entirety of the scientific and political communities. That seems pretty inclusive. Shunning? I haven't gone out of my way to avoid anyone with this comment. I'm not even arguing that people with flawed arguments shouldn't be directly engaged in scientific debate as others have been recommending (that smacks of religion to me, not science) Bullying? I don't recall standing over any politicians or scientists and demanding their lunch money (take it as a metaphor) Threatening? I don't recall seeing any "or else" in my statements. Reprimanding, yes. I figure most people should be mature enough to take a reprimand without needing a threat to back it up.
He was talking about "consensus" through suppression/repression of dissenters. I was agreeing that this is alive and well, but that often dissenters don't have a logical leg to stand on, but claim everyone is out to get them anyway. I wasn't really talking about advancing science, but rather the politics people play to advance ideologies, and foist them off as advances in science (or dissenting ideas as missteps in science). It doesn't really matter whether the commonly held idea is right or the uncommon idea is right; if people dislike it enough to attack it based on personal feelings/motivations instead of on merits, that's not science. You can never fully separate the two, but you can at least attempt to apply bias correction based on the bias you know is there.
So no, I didn't do step 1 there, on any of the levels.
I hadn't heard the piled-on-a-blanket approach before.
We never did figure out why they went for the blanket instead of pillowcases -- but then when you're dealing with an addict who has missed his fix, you're not dealing with someone who's an especially clear thinker. Having a gun around such people, by the way, is an extremely BAD idea.
And addicts come in all shapes and sizes; we're not just talking about the downtown meth addict here, but also the uptown recreational drug addict or even hard liquor addict or gambling addict. If you've got more than a few friends or relatives, you know a few people with hidden addictions, or at least people with friends that have hidden addictions.
You could add a few things to this, like a microwave emitter in the area where your stuff is, that's tied to a motion sensor and can be enabled/disabled by bluetooth proximity -- so it's off when your phone is around, but on otherwhise when it detects motion.
The thing won't be enough to seriously harm anyone, but the closer you get to your stuff, the more metal objects will spark and skin will get hot and itchy. Should be enough of a subconscious warning to keep people away.
Between the lasers and the microwaves, I think most would-be thieves would stay away -- unless they were someone you knew and stole your phone first, of course.
If you have a gun sticker in your window, the crooks won't bother with your electronics, but will head directly for the gun safe (it IS in a safe, right?)
Put a sign on the safe saying intruders will be shot (might as well warn them) and then rig it so that anyone opening the safe (which helpfully has the key taped to the top) will trigger the firearm aimed out the door.
I doubt too many miscreants will be put off by a window decal advising them that you own a glockenspiel.
Wait a minute, he may be on to something. Notice how "Gangsta Rap" is prevalent among thieves, but you've never heard of "Glockenspiel Rap". Perhaps it serves as a really effective deterrent.
Instead of a standard alarm, just play elevator music really loud whenever someone comes in. Glock solos are a bonus.
You're right about leaving a windfall in an easy to find location, but I've got a few stories that go against your main argument.
When I was living in a ground floor suite, someone grabbed a ladder, propped it up against the 2nd floor balcony, and then proceeded to move everything of potential value onto a blanket in the middle of the tenant's living room floor. I interrupted the job by coming home early, so they only made off with what they could carry in their hands -- which happened to be a CD organizational case with the jewel cases loaded and a jar full of pennies.
Unfortunately for them, the tenant had just moved all of their CDs from the cases to a binder, so all they got was the cases and a jar of pennies.
But the point is that you have to be on the third floor or higher and away from the stairwell (I've been in a number of places where there's been forced entry to the apartments beside the stairwells) if you want to avoid being low hanging fruit.
You have a number of types of house thieves. 1) addicts looking for something to pay for their fix. These are by far the most common. Give them something easy to take that appears to be worth more than their next drug fix, while not looking like a good place to return to is a good defense here. 2) professional thieves who case out an area and raid it methodically. They'll often come back to the same place multiple times, giving you time to get your stuff replaced by the insurance companies first (as they know your place will now contain brand new items). Not having expensive stuff easily visible from the street is the best defense here. Oftentimes, these guys pose as security system installers (or sometimes ARE contract installers), or something similar, to get a view inside the houses. 3) people you know somehow, often related to #1. Someone who for some reason has had opportunity to case the inside of your house. Oftentimes, these people steal purely based on opportunity (they know the alarm's off and you have something valuable in place X that they can easily walk off with, right when they need the money). 4) gang related thefts -- often also related to 1, and sometimes 3. This is the biggest "pick your friends" item.
So don't leave your electronics in plain view and don't have a reputation with friends for having really expensive electronics, leave $100-200 worth of replaceable stuff that is just the right size to carry (without allowing to grab for anything more easily) around within easy access of a quick exit, have steel door frames and decent locks, secure your windows decently, and live beside someone who's a better target and in a neighborhood that isn't a good target. The closer you can get to that, the safer you are.
Of course, being an electronics geek, you could make your own perimeter defense system -- I did that for my room when I was a kid; a few optical sensors, contact plates, etc. and a simple electronics kit and I had a very effective "don't touch my stuff" system. It was also useful for protecting against people that might just want to "borrow" or play with it, which is the more realistic threat to electronics than a burglary.
It's like a gold miner talking about how much gold they are going to get out of the mountain without even mentioning the massive amounts of toxic materials he is dumping directly into the town's reservoir.
This is by far the BEST analogy I've seen on this recently.
Step 1: Systematically conduct flawed studies, search for like-minded or easily convinced people to side with you,, and threaten people who disagree with you. Step 2: Attempt to get your flawed and subjective contrary views published as scientifically sound. Step 3: When people decide to reject your articles based on flawed methods, claim conspiracy.
Sadly, both the parent's 3-step plan and this one are used constantly... mostly in politics, but increasingly in "scientific" communities.
As an illustration, you could look at a paper that "proved" that white crows don't exist by taking a bunch of studies counting the black crow population in various areas, a few studies looking for white crows in various areas, and claim that the one study that found white crows in a black crow population was obviously flawed as it didn't line up with all the other studies. The studies were measuring different things in different places, and so shouldn't be expected to line up.
And whether the paper gets published or not, the methodology is flawed and white crows still exist.
I think this is a bit oversimplified... I'd like to expand it to reflect what the referee stated....
When the overwhelming majority of experts in any field are leaning in one direction, to claim that they're incorrect without rigorous application of the scientific method but instead just making vague claims of overlap and inconsistency regarding the models you don't support and stating that the results don't line up with your preferred model, is not legitimate science. Legitimate politics, yes.
Science works by taking the accepted model and proving where it fails by quantitative and qualitative analysis. The method he was using in his paper is closer to using the Bible to prove that the world is flat when the prevailing theory is that it is a somewhat squished and misshapen globe.
Mind you, the world MAY be flat, but to prove that, you'd have to show where the prevailing models fall down, and show how your own model stands up where those others fail. Qualitative AND quantitative, people. He seemed to be flip-flopping between the two from the report.
Stomach ulcers are caused by bacteria; stress is often caused by the ulcers. If they're feeding them antacids, they could be making the problem worse. Of course, the bacteria thrive in a highly acidic environment, and we mammals tend to concentrate the acid in our stomachs when stressed, so there's a tricky relationship there.
But they'd do better to feed them a targeted antibiotic I'd think. Won't help the stress, but it would help the ulcers.
As for the noise stress, a lot of that noise that stresses out aquatic mammals is in ranges not heard by the human ear -- we do a reasonable job at keeping those levels somewhat reasonable, but humans are horrible polluters in the higher and lower frequencies.
Breed specifications are the other reason. German Shepherds used to look like that. Now they look like this.
I think I know what you're trying to say, but the only thing I get from those photos is that German Shepherds are now multicoloured instead of black and white. While hip placement and angle is something that's degenerated over time, the second image on the "old" page could be of the dog on the "new" page just standing slightly differently.
Then again, it would be interesting to study what happens if we have a pod of Orcas living in one location where the pod leader has to get up early every day and swim an hour in to the aquarium, where she sits in a tank all day counting people.
Maybe in the evening it could swim home to its pod for a quick meal, and then go jump in the endless pool?
my guess is that it'll result in more married men with underpaid wives working for Amazon.
Luckily IT is a profession where you can usually afford to have only a single household income so my guess is alot of wives would choose to not work vs taking a low paying job just to have a job.
So we're really talking about the onset of a population boom here....
I don't think most admins are worried about losing their job, I think they are worried about cloud services going down or disappearing and having nothing they can do about it, let alone information security and other factors.
I suspect this isn't so bad for American men as the OP lets on. Consider the effect of H1Bs on these numbers... I live in Seattle; all the large tech companies here (and even a lot of the smaller ones) hire a disproportionate number of H1B holders, most from India. Most Indians aren't after American women, they either come here with a wife already, or their family back in India arranges a marriage, they fly home for a few weeks and come back married.
I know plenty of single girls, and I've never had a problem finding a date. It does require leaving work at work and going out to places where other single people congregate, and it helps to not be a total jackass, but I don't think we're really anywhere near as unbalanced as this would lead one to believe.
I think you missed the point -- the ratio is projected to get around 30% worse in the near future. Same number of women, 30% more jackasses.
So.... just to throw this out there. Why the presumption that Amazon's new hires will be 75% male?
Because most women wouldn't put up with the working environment?
That's the real issue, even beyond women being conditioned (naturally or socially) to not value this kind of activity -- women tend to place more value on working environment.
As a result, you get places like NYC having a huge gender imbalance the other direction (good social scene, good food, etc.) -- actually, most urban centers tend to gender imbalance slightly to the feminine side -- and centers that are focused on manual labor or IT tend to gender imbalance to the masculine side.
One odd bit is that I thought these imbalances usually leveled out at around 20% -- so an extra 10% beyond the norm could result in interesting dynamics (my guess is that it'll result in more married men with underpaid wives working for Amazon).
Slashdot Mirror
Yah, I can only imagine this will be useful in some very very specific situations.
In an oil or gas flame, the heat of combustion generally ignites the incoming fuel. In a forest fire you have an *immense* amount of latent heat even if you were to completely extinguish the flames for a brief moment. Similar reason to why they keep spraying down after a house fire is technically out.
Seems to me this wouldn't be very useful in a groundfire or rootfire, but could be very useful in slowing a firestorm (vortex of flame whirling through the branches). This technique would drive it back down to the ground where they can use chemicals and water to contain it.
Your second suggestion has merit, but you obviously haven't lived in the areas that get a lot of the kind of theft we're talking about. You don't leave a "gift" with a little note saying "a gift for you, the thief wanting to get his fix, love, the homeowner. Come back whenever you want more!" You just make sure that your most replaceable valuables are also the most accessible should someone decide to burgle your home. These guys aren't trying to make a living, they're usually not even thinking clearly. They just want enough to get them to their next high, and will take it from the handiest location when the urge gets unbearable.
A trap will just make them angry. Poison may make someone come back for revenge. Marked cash as the "gift" -- that's an excellent idea; especially as most of these kinds of thing are by someone you know. For an added bonus, use UV fluorescent ink, and have a UV light somewhere in the house -- you can get readable prints, plus you might catch your friend's friend "green handed".
Open-air microwave emissions aren't going to do much to electronics, or all your electronics would already be fried. Only mild induction, and not of his electronics, as the emitters would be pointing out, not in.
Of course, if they DID move any of his electronics, they might go on the fritz due to mild induction. But that would likely cause power failure due to a short, and if most electronics are unplugged, there would be no short. It might be a problem if you brought your phone within bluetooth range to disable it and the microwave frequency messed with the bluetooth frequency though -- that's a point.h
But then again, the entire idea was tongue in cheek in the first place :)
You notice the part about them pretending to be alarm installers to get inside homes. My guess is that if you left the door unlocked, you probably weren't getting some alarm company in for a quote. You probably also didn't have expensive valuables in plain sight from the street, and as you say, you lived in the worst house.
So they did #2 pretty well -- they don't care about locks or alarms, as those can be bypassed easily. They care about the work required for the profit gained. Your house probably looked like the largest risk for the smallest gain. Seems like a pretty good application of #2.
You do realize that you're doing GP's Step 1 there? He was talking about gaining concensus, not about advancing science, but sitll, you did step 1 there.
Pray tell, was I ostracizing, shunning, bullying or threatening someone who disagrees with me? What was the topic I was disagreeing on? Proper methodology for conducting scientific research? Who was I targeting with my disagreement? Everyone who attempts to pass off as scientific fact that which is based on politics and subjective opinion?
Ostracizing? I think with my comment, I was including pretty much the entirety of the scientific and political communities. That seems pretty inclusive.
Shunning? I haven't gone out of my way to avoid anyone with this comment. I'm not even arguing that people with flawed arguments shouldn't be directly engaged in scientific debate as others have been recommending (that smacks of religion to me, not science)
Bullying? I don't recall standing over any politicians or scientists and demanding their lunch money (take it as a metaphor)
Threatening? I don't recall seeing any "or else" in my statements. Reprimanding, yes. I figure most people should be mature enough to take a reprimand without needing a threat to back it up.
He was talking about "consensus" through suppression/repression of dissenters. I was agreeing that this is alive and well, but that often dissenters don't have a logical leg to stand on, but claim everyone is out to get them anyway. I wasn't really talking about advancing science, but rather the politics people play to advance ideologies, and foist them off as advances in science (or dissenting ideas as missteps in science). It doesn't really matter whether the commonly held idea is right or the uncommon idea is right; if people dislike it enough to attack it based on personal feelings/motivations instead of on merits, that's not science. You can never fully separate the two, but you can at least attempt to apply bias correction based on the bias you know is there.
So no, I didn't do step 1 there, on any of the levels.
I hadn't heard the piled-on-a-blanket approach before.
We never did figure out why they went for the blanket instead of pillowcases -- but then when you're dealing with an addict who has missed his fix, you're not dealing with someone who's an especially clear thinker. Having a gun around such people, by the way, is an extremely BAD idea.
And addicts come in all shapes and sizes; we're not just talking about the downtown meth addict here, but also the uptown recreational drug addict or even hard liquor addict or gambling addict. If you've got more than a few friends or relatives, you know a few people with hidden addictions, or at least people with friends that have hidden addictions.
You could add a few things to this, like a microwave emitter in the area where your stuff is, that's tied to a motion sensor and can be enabled/disabled by bluetooth proximity -- so it's off when your phone is around, but on otherwhise when it detects motion.
The thing won't be enough to seriously harm anyone, but the closer you get to your stuff, the more metal objects will spark and skin will get hot and itchy. Should be enough of a subconscious warning to keep people away.
Between the lasers and the microwaves, I think most would-be thieves would stay away -- unless they were someone you knew and stole your phone first, of course.
Actually, I see a plan forming here.
If you have a gun sticker in your window, the crooks won't bother with your electronics, but will head directly for the gun safe (it IS in a safe, right?)
Put a sign on the safe saying intruders will be shot (might as well warn them) and then rig it so that anyone opening the safe (which helpfully has the key taped to the top) will trigger the firearm aimed out the door.
For all intensive purposes, crapulence is a mute point, and you should of known better than to wreck havoc on his choice of terms.
Your going to have, a tough road to tow. The kind of grammar scene on todays DVD's is enough to make you loose your cookies.
Don't call bitches, broads, they hate that.
Having a lack of an opposable thumb, bitches wouldn't be able to answer the phone; that probably accounts for the hate.
But I don't think you can limit that advice to broads -- this applies to everyone.
Wait a minute, he may be on to something. Notice how "Gangsta Rap" is prevalent among thieves, but you've never heard of "Glockenspiel Rap". Perhaps it serves as a really effective deterrent.
Instead of a standard alarm, just play elevator music really loud whenever someone comes in. Glock solos are a bonus.
You're right about leaving a windfall in an easy to find location, but I've got a few stories that go against your main argument.
When I was living in a ground floor suite, someone grabbed a ladder, propped it up against the 2nd floor balcony, and then proceeded to move everything of potential value onto a blanket in the middle of the tenant's living room floor. I interrupted the job by coming home early, so they only made off with what they could carry in their hands -- which happened to be a CD organizational case with the jewel cases loaded and a jar full of pennies.
Unfortunately for them, the tenant had just moved all of their CDs from the cases to a binder, so all they got was the cases and a jar of pennies.
But the point is that you have to be on the third floor or higher and away from the stairwell (I've been in a number of places where there's been forced entry to the apartments beside the stairwells) if you want to avoid being low hanging fruit.
You have a number of types of house thieves.
1) addicts looking for something to pay for their fix. These are by far the most common. Give them something easy to take that appears to be worth more than their next drug fix, while not looking like a good place to return to is a good defense here.
2) professional thieves who case out an area and raid it methodically. They'll often come back to the same place multiple times, giving you time to get your stuff replaced by the insurance companies first (as they know your place will now contain brand new items). Not having expensive stuff easily visible from the street is the best defense here. Oftentimes, these guys pose as security system installers (or sometimes ARE contract installers), or something similar, to get a view inside the houses.
3) people you know somehow, often related to #1. Someone who for some reason has had opportunity to case the inside of your house. Oftentimes, these people steal purely based on opportunity (they know the alarm's off and you have something valuable in place X that they can easily walk off with, right when they need the money).
4) gang related thefts -- often also related to 1, and sometimes 3. This is the biggest "pick your friends" item.
So don't leave your electronics in plain view and don't have a reputation with friends for having really expensive electronics, leave $100-200 worth of replaceable stuff that is just the right size to carry (without allowing to grab for anything more easily) around within easy access of a quick exit, have steel door frames and decent locks, secure your windows decently, and live beside someone who's a better target and in a neighborhood that isn't a good target. The closer you can get to that, the safer you are.
Of course, being an electronics geek, you could make your own perimeter defense system -- I did that for my room when I was a kid; a few optical sensors, contact plates, etc. and a simple electronics kit and I had a very effective "don't touch my stuff" system. It was also useful for protecting against people that might just want to "borrow" or play with it, which is the more realistic threat to electronics than a burglary.
It's like a gold miner talking about how much gold they are going to get out of the mountain without even mentioning the massive amounts of toxic materials he is dumping directly into the town's reservoir.
This is by far the BEST analogy I've seen on this recently.
Step 1: Systematically conduct flawed studies, search for like-minded or easily convinced people to side with you,, and threaten people who disagree with you.
Step 2: Attempt to get your flawed and subjective contrary views published as scientifically sound.
Step 3: When people decide to reject your articles based on flawed methods, claim conspiracy.
Sadly, both the parent's 3-step plan and this one are used constantly... mostly in politics, but increasingly in "scientific" communities.
As an illustration, you could look at a paper that "proved" that white crows don't exist by taking a bunch of studies counting the black crow population in various areas, a few studies looking for white crows in various areas, and claim that the one study that found white crows in a black crow population was obviously flawed as it didn't line up with all the other studies. The studies were measuring different things in different places, and so shouldn't be expected to line up.
And whether the paper gets published or not, the methodology is flawed and white crows still exist.
I think this is a bit oversimplified... I'd like to expand it to reflect what the referee stated....
When the overwhelming majority of experts in any field are leaning in one direction, to claim that they're incorrect without rigorous application of the scientific method but instead just making vague claims of overlap and inconsistency regarding the models you don't support and stating that the results don't line up with your preferred model, is not legitimate science. Legitimate politics, yes.
Science works by taking the accepted model and proving where it fails by quantitative and qualitative analysis. The method he was using in his paper is closer to using the Bible to prove that the world is flat when the prevailing theory is that it is a somewhat squished and misshapen globe.
Mind you, the world MAY be flat, but to prove that, you'd have to show where the prevailing models fall down, and show how your own model stands up where those others fail. Qualitative AND quantitative, people. He seemed to be flip-flopping between the two from the report.
Troll? For straightening out the metaphor?
Odd moderating today (or at least moderators that didn't get the point).
Stomach ulcers are caused by bacteria; stress is often caused by the ulcers. If they're feeding them antacids, they could be making the problem worse.
Of course, the bacteria thrive in a highly acidic environment, and we mammals tend to concentrate the acid in our stomachs when stressed, so there's a tricky relationship there.
But they'd do better to feed them a targeted antibiotic I'd think. Won't help the stress, but it would help the ulcers.
As for the noise stress, a lot of that noise that stresses out aquatic mammals is in ranges not heard by the human ear -- we do a reasonable job at keeping those levels somewhat reasonable, but humans are horrible polluters in the higher and lower frequencies.
Breed specifications are the other reason. German Shepherds used to look like that. Now they look like this.
I think I know what you're trying to say, but the only thing I get from those photos is that German Shepherds are now multicoloured instead of black and white. While hip placement and angle is something that's degenerated over time, the second image on the "old" page could be of the dog on the "new" page just standing slightly differently.
Then again, it would be interesting to study what happens if we have a pod of Orcas living in one location where the pod leader has to get up early every day and swim an hour in to the aquarium, where she sits in a tank all day counting people.
Maybe in the evening it could swim home to its pod for a quick meal, and then go jump in the endless pool?
my guess is that it'll result in more married men with underpaid wives working for Amazon.
Luckily IT is a profession where you can usually afford to have only a single household income so my guess is
alot of wives would choose to not work vs taking a low paying job just to have a job.
So we're really talking about the onset of a population boom here....
And if half of that 9% are H1Bs, it's really "9% more jackasses, of which 4.5% are potentially serious competition."
Let's assume that those 4.5% aren't all single.
The headline then becomes "Women have to deal with a 3% increase in jackasses in the Seattle singles scene."
Sounds about right.
I don't think most admins are worried about losing their job, I think they are worried about cloud services going down or disappearing and having nothing they can do about it, let alone information security and other factors.
or, to put it another way: Adobe CC offline again.
Or we could go with the one about the NSA and cloud services, etc.
I suspect this isn't so bad for American men as the OP lets on. Consider the effect of H1Bs on these numbers... I live in Seattle; all the large tech companies here (and even a lot of the smaller ones) hire a disproportionate number of H1B holders, most from India. Most Indians aren't after American women, they either come here with a wife already, or their family back in India arranges a marriage, they fly home for a few weeks and come back married.
I know plenty of single girls, and I've never had a problem finding a date. It does require leaving work at work and going out to places where other single people congregate, and it helps to not be a total jackass, but I don't think we're really anywhere near as unbalanced as this would lead one to believe.
I think you missed the point -- the ratio is projected to get around 30% worse in the near future. Same number of women, 30% more jackasses.
So.... just to throw this out there. Why the presumption that Amazon's new hires will be 75% male?
Because most women wouldn't put up with the working environment?
That's the real issue, even beyond women being conditioned (naturally or socially) to not value this kind of activity -- women tend to place more value on working environment.
As a result, you get places like NYC having a huge gender imbalance the other direction (good social scene, good food, etc.) -- actually, most urban centers tend to gender imbalance slightly to the feminine side -- and centers that are focused on manual labor or IT tend to gender imbalance to the masculine side.
One odd bit is that I thought these imbalances usually leveled out at around 20% -- so an extra 10% beyond the norm could result in interesting dynamics (my guess is that it'll result in more married men with underpaid wives working for Amazon).
On the plus side, the money this brings in will allow the ISPs to back off their threat to stop innovating!
Unfortunately, they already spent that money on lobbying the FCC. So they still can't innovate without a government grant.