If gender female(shkspr.mobi)
shkspr.mobi
If gender female
https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2021/05/if-gender-female/
67 comments
The blog author seems rightfully fed up with years' worth of people obliviously asking them about children when they've chosen to live childfree. It's no surprise that this mistargeted email is received so poorly.
That said, I think it's really imprecise to infer whether someone has a child from their age, sex, and marital status. Regardless of how many 30-year-old married women in SE Railways' database show strong signs of having children (e.g., they regularly book child's fares), the consequence of incorrectly believing a woman has a child when they really don't is potentially really bad. How many infertile couples, recovering stillbirth mothers, or childfree advocates who complain eloquently enough to get to the front page of HN do you want to risk upsetting with this tone-deaf campaign email?
That said, I think it's really imprecise to infer whether someone has a child from their age, sex, and marital status. Regardless of how many 30-year-old married women in SE Railways' database show strong signs of having children (e.g., they regularly book child's fares), the consequence of incorrectly believing a woman has a child when they really don't is potentially really bad. How many infertile couples, recovering stillbirth mothers, or childfree advocates who complain eloquently enough to get to the front page of HN do you want to risk upsetting with this tone-deaf campaign email?
To do anything in most situations risks some degree of offense. I wholly sympathize with parents who are dealing with loss in any of its forms. I wish there was a way they could be shielded from the world for a time. But SE Railways’ email was quite sensible.
If privacy is the concern, there’s plenty to discuss about FB or Google who actually do target people based on personal and private insights. I think that ranting about this email is misplaced at best.
If privacy is the concern, there’s plenty to discuss about FB or Google who actually do target people based on personal and private insights. I think that ranting about this email is misplaced at best.
I think it's sad that anybody spends effort justifying targeting rather than lamenting that companies feel free and justified in sending marketing drivel regularly.
The ratio of useful mail to garbage in my mailbox is approaches 1:100, and email without regularly efforts to prune and filter is even worse.
This should not be okay.
The ratio of useful mail to garbage in my mailbox is approaches 1:100, and email without regularly efforts to prune and filter is even worse.
This should not be okay.
Is the 'married == True' instead of just 'married' is done on purpose to trigger me ?
You can go further with some simple rewriting rules. For instance,
if (condition) { variable = true; }
variable |= condition;
hasChildren |= gender == "female" && married && age >= 30;You're assuming you know which language this made-up code was written for.
Nice, I would add some parenthesis after |= to enhance readability ;)
[deleted]
[deleted]
Nice. :-)
The content of the post is highly speculative.
I don't have a problem with companies sending out emails tailored to customers' demographic profiles. The issue is really the wording, which in this case assumes the customer has children. It could easily be remedied by changing it to "Do you have kids? Make sure they know this."
I don't have a problem with companies sending out emails tailored to customers' demographic profiles. The issue is really the wording, which in this case assumes the customer has children. It could easily be remedied by changing it to "Do you have kids? Make sure they know this."
The issue with targeting advertising is its ability to create problems.
I was going to say: cases like this illustrate how insensitive such advertising can be. While it sounds like she underwent sterilization since she didn't want children, there is also a possibility that the choice was forced upon her for medical reasons or that she didn't undergo a procedure but was sterile. Of course, that would have happened even if the email was sent to everyone rather than targeted.
More realistic issues pop up when the criteria are prejudiced (age, gender, race, etc.) or criteria that may have an implicit prejudice. Using income is more likely to bias towards a particular gender due to well known income disparities. Using postal/zip code is more likely to bias towards a particular race simply because of the amount of segregation we see in housing. While those biases don't guarantee an outcome, historical and contemporary ills in society means they are a problem.
I was going to say: cases like this illustrate how insensitive such advertising can be. While it sounds like she underwent sterilization since she didn't want children, there is also a possibility that the choice was forced upon her for medical reasons or that she didn't undergo a procedure but was sterile. Of course, that would have happened even if the email was sent to everyone rather than targeted.
More realistic issues pop up when the criteria are prejudiced (age, gender, race, etc.) or criteria that may have an implicit prejudice. Using income is more likely to bias towards a particular gender due to well known income disparities. Using postal/zip code is more likely to bias towards a particular race simply because of the amount of segregation we see in housing. While those biases don't guarantee an outcome, historical and contemporary ills in society means they are a problem.
I have a similar anecdotal case of mistargeted marketing, but I wouldn't write a furious blog post about it. Being a bit of a petrolhead and having done regular searches for pictures and information on Aston Martin cars, I see ads from dealerships offering me particular cars with price tags well above what's in my savings account.
Shall I complain that the algorithm is not aware of the number in my savings account, and is also not aware of the fact that I have a 3-year old child which cannot possibly be put in a 2-seat Vantage?
Shall I complain that the algorithm is not aware of the number in my savings account, and is also not aware of the fact that I have a 3-year old child which cannot possibly be put in a 2-seat Vantage?
In the case of the article, it sounds like the author is opposed to profiling and targeting. There are many reasons for that. Personally, I find it exploitative. In the case of the article, it was pointing out prejudiced assumptions. Reading the article, I could infer cases where that prejudice could have a very negative impact.
I'm going to be blunt here: there are circumstances under which women desire yet cannot bear their own children. It is a heavy burden that they may carry through much of their adult life. It can have a much deeper impact than being unable to afford some creature comfort or being unable to seat a child in a luxury car. Perhaps it can be argued that the number in a savings account can have an equally heavy burden, say for someone who has had everything taken away from them. I'm not the one to make that argument since I place the value of the person above that of dollar.
That being said, I am not particularly fond of direct advertising. Not only is it intrusive, but most forms of direct advertising involve making some sort of decision regarding who to advertise to. Even choosing people within a particular postal/zip code is going to result in bias, even if it is an unintentional consequence of structural problems within our society. Couple that with the intent of direct advertising having a larger impact, you end up with the negative consequences having a larger impact.
I'm going to be blunt here: there are circumstances under which women desire yet cannot bear their own children. It is a heavy burden that they may carry through much of their adult life. It can have a much deeper impact than being unable to afford some creature comfort or being unable to seat a child in a luxury car. Perhaps it can be argued that the number in a savings account can have an equally heavy burden, say for someone who has had everything taken away from them. I'm not the one to make that argument since I place the value of the person above that of dollar.
That being said, I am not particularly fond of direct advertising. Not only is it intrusive, but most forms of direct advertising involve making some sort of decision regarding who to advertise to. Even choosing people within a particular postal/zip code is going to result in bias, even if it is an unintentional consequence of structural problems within our society. Couple that with the intent of direct advertising having a larger impact, you end up with the negative consequences having a larger impact.
Do you see the irony of complaining loudly about a complaint? Do you really think it’s worse to “write a furious blog post” than the insults you hurled at the OP in your other comment in this thread?
Or even "Make sure you know this for the child in your life" so you can cover nieces and nephews.
I am women and often check "male" in combos to avoid weird assumptions about me.
Is playing devil's advocate really necessary here? How many times do women have to complain about these assumptions being constantly made will it take before people believe them that there is a systemic problem of these types of assumptions?
> Here are a few tips if you want to avoid getting microtargetted like this
Why should I care if I occasionally get a mistargetted email?
Why should I care if I occasionally get a mistargetted email?
Meh, no one cares when pitched a garden appliance yet lives in an appartment, or car insurance when they don't own a car.
In that case it's just shrug this company's marketing campaign is shitty.
I guess this hits some sense of identity that needs to be blasted from the rooftops, and we need to know how wrong this all is...
In that case it's just shrug this company's marketing campaign is shitty.
I guess this hits some sense of identity that needs to be blasted from the rooftops, and we need to know how wrong this all is...
> I guess this hits some sense of identity that needs to be blasted from the rooftops, and we need to know how wrong this all is...
Bingo: https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2019/11/do-you-have-kids-thankfully...
Bingo: https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2019/11/do-you-have-kids-thankfully...
Never let a reason to get outraged go to waste.
You mean like the people who decided to flag this submission? The complaint about the email is very reasonable. Addressing someone by their first name – as if you knew them personally – and also incorrectly assuming they have children is outright rude.
My time and attention are finite, and every stupid email I didn't ask for depletes a finite resource.
Leaving aside the reason spelled out in the article at hand--an ad assuming children while recovering from surgery to ensure no children ever--I think we should all be less okay with uninvited spam emails.
Leaving aside the reason spelled out in the article at hand--an ad assuming children while recovering from surgery to ensure no children ever--I think we should all be less okay with uninvited spam emails.
Also, the population segment that matches all three conditions will be far from 'micro'.
> if you want to
If you don't, then don't worry yourself about it.
If you don't, then don't worry yourself about it.
Why would I want to then. Or why would anyone want to. Or why is it of any importance. There's a pretty clear intent behind that question.
People like to be outraged and outrage generation makes for good clickbait.
The only reason I’m interacting on this post is because I feel a mild sort of outrage about the author’s mild outrage. And I feel like a bit of a sucker because of that.
The only reason I’m interacting on this post is because I feel a mild sort of outrage about the author’s mild outrage. And I feel like a bit of a sucker because of that.
I do want to avoid those. Not sure why you have such an issue with other people avoiding those, getting advice to avoid those and giving others advice how to avoid them.
I don't have an issue. In fact, I have over 200 filters for my own email. But it's still interesting why since it underpins the whole post and isn't really explained.
It actually is. You just have to stop assuming it is about convincing you to care or about you in general.
It is for people like them and about people like them.
It is for people like them and about people like them.
Presumably the intent behind my reply wasn't clear - you can make up your own mind about it.
or earn yourself a doctorate
Or just lie. Several apps think I have been knighted...
Or just lie. Several apps think I have been knighted...
Why stop there?
Respectfully,
Emperor code_scrapping III
Leader of the Free Code Monkeys
Debugger of print statements
Divider of Sets, Walker of Lists, Mapper of Dictionaries
May his hash always be unique,
and infinite his TTL.
Respectfully,
Emperor code_scrapping III
Leader of the Free Code Monkeys
Debugger of print statements
Divider of Sets, Walker of Lists, Mapper of Dictionaries
May his hash always be unique,
and infinite his TTL.
One fun section of wikipedia is the list of US state honorary titles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_Colonel#See_also
Fun Fact: KFC's Colonel Sanders wasn't commissioned as a military title. He was a 'Kentucky Colonel', one of these honorary titles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_Colonel#See_also
Fun Fact: KFC's Colonel Sanders wasn't commissioned as a military title. He was a 'Kentucky Colonel', one of these honorary titles.
>Consider using a gender neutral title like Mx – or earn yourself a doctorate.
Haha, yeah, I think if they'd go as far to assume all women there (or all women past 30) have kids it would be pretty easy to assume any Doctor is a man.
Also slight nitpick of the title: if(gender == "female" && married && age >= 30) would work just as well. But the use of strings for the gender field is excellent practice! Not only for non-binary gender(s) but also for "unknown" and any other edge cases.
Haha, yeah, I think if they'd go as far to assume all women there (or all women past 30) have kids it would be pretty easy to assume any Doctor is a man.
Also slight nitpick of the title: if(gender == "female" && married && age >= 30) would work just as well. But the use of strings for the gender field is excellent practice! Not only for non-binary gender(s) but also for "unknown" and any other edge cases.
> Yeah, I think if they'd go as far to assume all women there (or all women past 30) have kids it would be pretty easy to assume any Doctor is a man.
Sadly true.
> But the use of strings for the gender field is excellent practice! Not only for non-binary gender(s) but also for "unknown" and any other edge cases.
I can see this option more popular nowadays due to the gender discussion, but how did they manage unknown back in the day if they used a boolean for this (I assume something like isMale or isFemale)?
Sadly true.
> But the use of strings for the gender field is excellent practice! Not only for non-binary gender(s) but also for "unknown" and any other edge cases.
I can see this option more popular nowadays due to the gender discussion, but how did they manage unknown back in the day if they used a boolean for this (I assume something like isMale or isFemale)?
In SQL it may be a NULL value, which has a weird logic but one that makes perfect sense here.
Otherwise, it can be represented as two booleans, one that tells if the gender is specified, and another one for the gender itself. Or it can be a 3 value enum, which is my preferred solution, even if we don't consider non-binary genders.
We should always consider the case when a field has no value. And I hope those who stored gender as a boolean did. Because what if you don't have that information? You can put a default (ex: male), but what if later, in another database, that person is explicitly female and you want to merge. You now have a conflict where you shouldn't.
Otherwise, it can be represented as two booleans, one that tells if the gender is specified, and another one for the gender itself. Or it can be a 3 value enum, which is my preferred solution, even if we don't consider non-binary genders.
We should always consider the case when a field has no value. And I hope those who stored gender as a boolean did. Because what if you don't have that information? You can put a default (ex: male), but what if later, in another database, that person is explicitly female and you want to merge. You now have a conflict where you shouldn't.
For a third gender option of "unknown" you could extend the Boolean with FileNotFound, it's a classic trick really.
https://thedailywtf.com/articles/what_is_truth_0x3f_
https://thedailywtf.com/articles/what_is_truth_0x3f_
As a slight nitpick to your slight nitpick, non-zero numbers, non-empty strings, non-void pointers, non-empty arrays and more are known to evaluate to TRUE in boolean contexts. So, values of 12L, "empty", &gender and [null] for the `married` variable would break your condition but not the original one.
[deleted]
if(gender == "male" && married && age >= 32)
would likely work too.
would likely work too.
I fail to see how this is "dreadful", as some commenters there put it. On the other hand, at least it shows they still don't know something about their customers, which is good.
> I fail to see how this is "dreadful", as some commenters there put it.
The author is apparently part of a "childfree community" that collectively has a huge chip on their shoulder.
The author is apparently part of a "childfree community" that collectively has a huge chip on their shoulder.
Sure. So why was the article complaining about it?
I mean I guess it's kind of a joke thing but it fails for me because even though it's one person trying to make sport of a presumably huge company it still seems like he's punching down which adds a degree of difficulty to any joke.
I mean I guess it's kind of a joke thing but it fails for me because even though it's one person trying to make sport of a presumably huge company it still seems like he's punching down which adds a degree of difficulty to any joke.
I'm not sure I understand the complaint. He doesn't like that SE Railways isn't aware that he has no children so his response is going to be to give them less information?
I think the logic is that if they have no information at all, they'll stop trying to send targeted advertising.
What is the most likely alternative to targeted ads? No ads or untargeted ads?
I think it is the latter, which would only mean receiving even more irrelevant emails.
I think it is the latter, which would only mean receiving even more irrelevant emails.
Yes, of course it's goign to be untargeted ads. I guess the author would rather have irrelevant emails than emails that make wrong assumptions about their life choices.
I'm suspicious of the code presented in the title.
- It looks like JavaScript, so the explicit weak comparison against a boolean is unnecessary
- I believe and& will be a parse error
- I don't think you'll want to assign a value to the age variable in the condition
- It looks like JavaScript, so the explicit weak comparison against a boolean is unnecessary
- I believe and& will be a parse error
- I don't think you'll want to assign a value to the age variable in the condition
The "and&" is "&&" in the linked article, and the "=age" is ">=age" in the linked article.
But it's not real code, so making assumptions about the semantic is pointless.
But it's not real code, so making assumptions about the semantic is pointless.
Actually, it is "&& age >= 30", I guess there is some HTML messup somewhere.
Good points, and I would make it a member function `hasChildren() { ... }`
Cancel culture pioneer right here, folks. Cry me a river.
If you have strong convictions about not having children, why would you be offended by an email which targets a large audience which in general the majority would.
Being offended here is a personal choice, it's a message about children traveling safely on trains. Yes, you may not fall into that group but that doesn't mean you're a victim unless you want to act like one.
Being offended here is a personal choice, it's a message about children traveling safely on trains. Yes, you may not fall into that group but that doesn't mean you're a victim unless you want to act like one.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"...
What is actually the point you want to express ?
It seems to me the OP is questionning generic assumptions, and I don't get how the meme relates to the situation.
It seems to me the OP is questionning generic assumptions, and I don't get how the meme relates to the situation.
Seems like a storm in a teacup, really.
The email is poor because it is worded as if they knew for a fact that the recipient had children whereas clearly they don't.
On the other hand, I'm sure that statistically the hypothesis that married women aged 30+ have children is probably correct by a good margin (although we don't know how they targeted so this is speculative by the author). Of course this is only a statistical likelihood and like always in such case you should proceed with caution if you decide to make an inference (which I don't have a problem with).
For instance they could have targeted who to send the email to but used an informational and neutral wording not to give any impression.
Pretty minor annoyance, though.
The email is poor because it is worded as if they knew for a fact that the recipient had children whereas clearly they don't.
On the other hand, I'm sure that statistically the hypothesis that married women aged 30+ have children is probably correct by a good margin (although we don't know how they targeted so this is speculative by the author). Of course this is only a statistical likelihood and like always in such case you should proceed with caution if you decide to make an inference (which I don't have a problem with).
For instance they could have targeted who to send the email to but used an informational and neutral wording not to give any impression.
Pretty minor annoyance, though.
bluetomcat(1)
They sent a mistargeted email. Wow.
A fair number of people who meet the known characteristics of your wife have children, thus it seems reasonable to send them a PSA pertaining to kids. It looks like a sensible email and it’s not a judgment or anything. I think the email could have been better qualified. But this whole things just smacks of hypersensitivity to perceived micro aggressions.