Hillary ticks off many of those boxes too. Difference is she's already had the opportunity to show what she does with power, and how she gets away with being corrupt. Once upon a time HN would've been aghast at her authoritarian streak. And she uses sexism as a platform to promote female chauvinism.
Maybe Trump isn't Hitler, maybe Rome is simply on fire, and there are no suitable candidates.
Randi Harper is... Wait for it... an anti harassment activist who runs an "abuse prevention initiative". Who got kicked out of the FreeBSD community for being abusive.
Meanwhile Shanley Kane is a prominent Women in Tech advocate and founder of diversity magazine Model View Culture who got famous trolling twitter and having meltdowns when people called her out on it. She also wrote her cofounder Amelia Greenhall out of the site's history, and picked a fight with Gittip founder Chad Whitacre when people called her out on her dubious money making schemes.
Do as I say, not as I do, it's built into the entire "harassment" narrative that's been pushed the last few years.
It's all politicized, manufactured drama. It's not about real harassment at all. It's about self serving narcissists and power.
I seem to recall a similar inappropriate joke being called out. Something about dongles.
Man, I hope when the big one hits, San Francisco falls into the sea, so all these guys can finally fulfil their fantasy of saving a m'lady like Leo Dicaprio in Titanic.
Criticizing a woman, even calling her a bitch, is not misogyny. Misogyny is hating women because they are women. What OP described is just heckling.
And what OP did is white knighting, i.e. a man defending a woman, because she's a woman, in order to appear virtuous. Like posting about it on HackerNews.
There are people who understand they are writing for an audience, and then there are people who operate under the mistaken idea they are inherently interesting. The latter mindset seems prevalent in the "women who X" media circuit this post advertises. This is incidentally why many are so averse to it.
For the love of God, stop using arithmetic to demonstrate functional concepts. It makes your technique look contrived and unnecessary, and fails to illustrate how to actually use it to simplify real async operations.
Funny, "Dog-whistle" is the loudest dog-whistle I know, for strawmanning. "We all know what you really mean, wink wink, nod nod, and therefor you are a bigot / racist / etc."
I don't recall ever seeing a Slack ad. I just noticed more and more things starting to set up Slacks for their own purposes. The same tired "marketing" argument was used to try and explain Apple's success mid 2000s. It was equally wrong there, as evidenced by how everyone copied all of Apple's choices in touch UI and device form factors.
Most of all, all of this just works by installing one app.
I really don't understand why, years down the line, people still insist marketing is more important than stuff that actually works well. Except denial.
I wonder how much of this regrexit sentiment is actually present and how much of it is just isolated incidents being held up as if they are representative. By the same media that predicted the outcome entirely wrong.
"Misogyny": warning people about false accusations.
"Homophobia": talking about pedophilia in the Catholic Church.
"Xenophobia": discussing human biodiversity and empirical facts about populations.
Do you think people still take these blanket condemnations seriously? They just make everyone else go and look, and see how much bullshit you're peddling.
Education isn't gender blind, girls are doing vastly better than boys, have been for ages, and women earn 2/3rds of all college degrees in the west. It's still not enough. Because until a field is 50% women, it is seen as evidence of discrimination, no matter the choices women make, or the endless programs and job fairs aimed uniquely at women in STEM.
Women: want to enjoy tech? Stop believing this claptrap that you are a victim. The day you define yourself as a techie, instead of a "woman in tech," is the day you actually gain "equality."
Not to mention, the gender stereotypes mostly come from other women, especially the ones with gender studies degrees.
You, like many others, miss the most important part of DongleGate. She shamed the supposed dongle-joke offender on Twitter with their picture, which was unambiguously against the Code of Conduct, for it bans harassing photography. She did not only fail to see the hypocrisy, her actions were deemed heroic and she compared herself to Joan of Arc.
This was a clear sign to anyone paying attention that Codes of Conduct were never about policing behavior objectively, but instead were to be wielded as a weapon to shame and attack particular groups of people based on a political ideology of victimhood.
With regards to mobile app pricing, the elephant in the room is that mobile devices are for people who don't have a need for a general purpose computer, and hence, nobody expects to be able to do real work with it. The mobile app market is built to serve the need for distraction.
Or even more cheekily: if your job is one that can be done entirely on a tablet (rather than using a tablet as a supporting tool/appliance), it's probably not real work.
They've repeated this for years, right up until it was revealed women have more issues with motion sickness in VR, which is the hot new thing. Result: the oculus is designed to be sexist.
I like it too, because it's the first explanation of QM I've heard that isn't just about minuscule systems floating in a void.
I did the double slit experiment in uni, and it involved a real screen and a real divider with real slits, made out of 10^n atoms. Feynman's line integrals say that particles explore all possible paths. This would seem to include possibly interacting with all those atoms that are nearby. Yet we pretended none of that mattered and could just talk about the photons.
QIT seems entirely unsurprising to me. Especially the idea about measurement and two opposite interference patterns.
This also isn't the first time I've heard software guys take to it. I think it's because programmers deal with much larger scale than most occupations. We do not delegate to junior aides, we construct our own robot aides, and then deploy them on a massive scale.
It always surprises me when mathematicians and physicists are crappy programmers who fail at making basic complex systems work. If you can't handle complexity, how can you handle the universe?
Luckily we all know the diversity crowd is exceedingly generous when interpreting the words of people they disagree with, always giving others the benefit of doubt. Like ModelViewCulture and their ilk. No snap judgements and emotional outbursts at all, no sir!
Maybe Trump isn't Hitler, maybe Rome is simply on fire, and there are no suitable candidates.