(The operative part of that reply was "hours after it was amended". Your rant, and 90% of the other replies on this thread, added nothing at all to the conversation besides typical red pill douche-baggery.)
And your reason for posting this pedantic diatribe hours after the original post was corrected to "objectified female bodies" is... What? To revel in a pedantic takedown of a straw man?
If muscular men were dramatically underrepresented in STEM careers, and particularly EE, then I would have a problem with that.
If you really want to pursue this line of thinking, what if a female nurse had posted a hobby page wherein she documented all the ways nurses most often contaminate hospitals or traumatize children, and all the "example" nurses in the pictures were male.
But really, that's not a perfect analogy. Female bodies != male bodies in our culture, particularly in STEM careers. It is at best impolite (and at worst creating a hostile work/study environment) to use these images in a page on a university website.
In fact, all of his non-technical images are of scantily clad or posing women. That's fine in some contexts, but definitely not professional or welcoming to female students.
Honestly, the fact that all his "demo" screens are filled with porn, on a university page, is almost as interesting (in a sociological sense) as the actual clever image multiplexing hack.
I just hope he's only a student, and not in a position of responsibility. (Not that that necessarily makes it OK, but at least it would reflect less on the institution).
edit: ok, not porn, "objectified female bodies". Because that makes it more appropriate?
It's interesting that one of the only Ivy programs which is essentially immune to this gaming of the system is Harvard Business School, which allows only one semi-optional free-form essay ("What else would you like us to know?":(http://www.hbs.edu/mba/admissions/application-process/Pages/...) and requires a follow-up letter to every in-person interview.
The irony of course is that the scions of empires and children of privilege who are being groomed for leadership essentially get a free pass at admissions. (Which has a sort of logic when you consider that they form the backbone of the class power network almost immediately upon graduation).
(As an HBS graduate I have mixed feelings about the overall privilege distribution, but admit to having no plausible suggestions of how to address it.)
My conclusion is that for a multitude of reasons (most of which are well known) having involved investors reduces my chances of success considerably. And all they offer is money.
The happiest moment of my entrepreneurial life was after my second exit, when I realized that I could self-fund/bootstrap my next venture comfortably and never deal with a VC again.
Meddling, conniving & power-drunk busybodies, all of them.
You're assuming that the factors which drive women out of engineering do so independent of ability.
I would hypothesize that this is false, that the most interested and passionate women are least likely to be nudged out. Google should be comparing its ratio to that of their potential pool, which is presumably skewed high. If that's true, they should be expecting to get closer to 50%. (Not exactly 50, but better than the holistic ratio at least.).
Also, they can look at their specific source pools to get a less hypothetical target. Berkeley is ~50/50, for example. (http://www.wired.com/2014/02/berkeley-women/). But retroactively
I can verify that, when inebriated, I am a terrible judge of character, and trust many people I shouldn't (even when my friends try to warn me off)... The number of times I've gone out questing while drunk and ended up in the company of some loser (while wearing sub-optimal gear) is uncomfortably high. The next morning my memory is almost always corrupted. Only by sheer luck have I not yet been fragged in a PvP area (and having rolled female this life, I wouldn't have much chance of defending myself.)
I'd love to see a comparison among the same sample set between Java8 & Scala as the next environment they're likely to use.
Scala has been "the next big thing" for a while now, but I'm just not convinced that the Java ecosystem is looking for a next thing at all.
To be clear: I absolutely agree that we can do better than Java, and though I prefer Clojure, Scala is certainly a step up. I'm just not convinced that the practical realities of its user base are enough to drive that change, which limits my willingness to move my organization in that direction.
You could've just said "yes".
(The operative part of that reply was "hours after it was amended". Your rant, and 90% of the other replies on this thread, added nothing at all to the conversation besides typical red pill douche-baggery.)