The answer is an obvious yes. Especially on HN where supposedly we are a technology related site. I suspect the first thing most of us do is to google or ddg github and the computer scientist's name ( male or female ).
The better question is if Katie was a man, would BBC or the media single him out for this level of attention. If Katie was a man would the media be trying to make him the face of this scientific enterprise. If Katie was a man, would that story be pushed to the top of HN and be heavily censored to push a particular narrative.
Toyota, along with most Japanese car manufacturers, are betting big on hydrogen cars. They still invest in electric cars, but their main focus is on hydrogen-fueled cars. So I doubt they'll be buying TSLA.
Here is a good article on the direction of the japanese car industry.
I've come to the conclusion that everything in "news" has an agenda. You follow it long enough and it's simply obvious.
The way journalism works isn't that they want to find objective facts and truth and go where it leads them. Rather they start with an agenda and then seek out the facts.
The epitome of modern journalism is the Rolling Stone "Rape on Campus" farce.
There, the journalist had the premise of "mass rape on college campus" and sought out made-up "facts" to defend her premise.
Also, women in traditional fashion or social media ( instagram, etc ) get harrassment ( mostly from other women ) as well. And yet, women flock to these industries and platforms. "Harrassment" doesn't seem to deter women from things they actually want.
She's everywhere for the same reason Elizabeth Holmes was everywhere a few years ago. The media wants to push a certain agenda. You are being downvoted because some "people" misread your comment and thought you were questioning the agenda when in actuality, you clearly weren't. Actually, your comment is really in support of her rather than detracting from her, but "people" can't read nuance.
She really should have been at the conference given her contributions, but she wasn't. Maybe it was a scheduling conflict? Who knows.
So now Trump has both assange and manning in prison?
Funny how the entire media has been soft on Trump on this matter. You would think "journalists" at CNN, MSNBC, NYTimes, WaPo, etc would be going crazy over Trump's attack on free press, leakers and people holding power to account. Who has done more to try and hold power to account than assange and manning?
Wonder what the economist is going to write? After all he won their "New Media Award" in 2008 along with Amnesty International UK Media Awards and a few Free Speech awards.
It's insane that in the wealthiest country in the world, young people have to be indebted in order find a job. It's a modern day form of indentured servitude. It just shows how old the HN demographics are by the amount of overt support for this kind of program.
Why should anyone love their job? You should love your family and friends, not your job.
I guess it'll be ideal if you could enjoy your job, but it's insane to love it. Besides, most people have a job to survive and eventually retire ( not have job ).
I wonder when and where the idea of loving your job came about.
Why are you using the internet or living in the first world then? Instead of talking a good game, why not do something yourself? If you really believed the nonsense you are saying.
Ah, the "unavoidable collapse". I used to think like you because I consumed so bullshit from the news/media. I can't remember how many times "the world was ending". Super bacteria, acidic ocean, peak oil ( remember that one ), supervolcanoes, bees gone, butterflies gone, etc.
Listen, if things were truly getting as bad the propaganda claims, all the rich people's assets would be seized, nobody would be allowed to fly, own yachts and all global shipping would be stopped. If the fearmongering were true, but obviously it is not since the same people fearmongering about climate change are also pushing for more global trade, more consumption and more pollution/environmental destruction.
Do you know what is the biggest source of environmental carnage and climate change? Globalism. Do you know what the fearmongers want more of? Globalism. So maybe the world isn't going to end as they'd like you to believe. Maybe the fearmongering is about something else?
They are formidable platforms for sure, but you aren't claiming any territory with 1600 marines against a major country with millions of troops like china.
1600 marines could hold territory against a bunch of ill-equipped and unorganized terrorists or insurgents. But 1600 marines ain't holding territory against any major state military.
Just like congress likes pensions, government healthcare and yearly raises ( voted on by congress conveniently enough ) for themselves but not for ordinary folks.
It's strange how the elites want the best for themselves but not for the masses.
Money for me, none for thee. Rules for thee, none for me. It's good to be king.
As with everything, there will be winners and losers. If predictions hold, the northern hemisphere is going to be the big winner as the northern hemisphere ( primarily siberia, alaska and much of canada ) hold significant amount of inaccessible land that will become available. But just as importantly ( or even more importantly ), if the arctic passage along siberia and the northwest passage opens up, it will be an immense boon to the world economy and trade as it will shorten shipping by 30% or even more. And of course the resources ( oil, minerals, etc ) locked in the arctic will become accessible.
Don't believe the propaganda or hype online about the world ending. There will be disruption but there will also be opportunity. The media loves to hype "end of world" nonsense for clicks. In my relatively short period of time, I've lived through so many "end of world" media hypes that it is hard to take them seriously anymore.
Countries, banks, businesses, etc aren't planning for the end, they are fighting over new opportunities in the coming decades.
You have to look at it from a statistical point of view. The homosexual population is insignificantly small in a statistical sense. A small percentage increase in homosexuality in either sex isn't going to skew the data much. Also, even if there are more lesbians, it doesn't necessarily mean they are having more sex. "Lesbian bed death" exists for a reason. We know that lesbians don't have as much sex as other sexual groupings. And though more women are willing to try lesbianism than men are willing to be gay, it's also true that more lesbians leave lesbianism and marry men than gay men leave homosexuality and marry women. But in any case, the numbers of gay and lesbians are so small that it really doesn't affect the overall trend we are seeing.
Sex, food and shelter are necessary conditions for an "awesome life" for most people. You could argue they aren't sufficient and you need more ( like spirituality, community, etc ), but it's disingenuous to dismiss it as an unnecessary condition that you could distract yourself with hobbies.
Response to (sridca):
Yes, I'm well aware of the difference between need and desire.
But you can't have an "awesome life" if your major desires ( food, shelter and sex ) aren't met.
Also, I said sex is a necessary condition for most people to live an "awesome life", not all people. You misread that part. And by most people, I mean everyone barring the exceptional minority with physical or genetic ailments.
Can you live without sex? Sure. Can you live an "awesome life" without sex. I highly doubt it. But people are willing to rationalize anything I guess.
Food, sex and shelter are pretty much our biological imperatives. Not sure how you can live an "awesome life" without your basic natural desires being met.
But if you are happy living a sexless life, then all the best to you. This is a difference of opinion that we are just going to live with.
The UK does it and the media spins it as "penalizing social media for harmful online content". China does it and the same media spins it as "oppressing, tyrannizing and controlling the people".
Just like when germany passed censorship laws, the media praised it and russia copied the german censorship laws and the media spun it as "tyrant oppressing and controlling the russian people".
So is romeo and juliet going to be banned suicide because it "encourages" suicide? What about suicide/euthanasia documentaries which support doctor-assisted end of life programs?
What about books like ( bible, koran, mein kampf, etc ) that encourages violence? Is project gutenberg going to be shut down? What about all the media companies who supported wars in iraq, libya and the middle east? Are they going to be shut down? Are they going to be shut down for encouraging violence?
We have government agencies that spread fake news and disinformation. Is that going to be banned? What about PR firms whose business is spreading fake news and disinformation?
And what is children accessing inappropriate material? A christian or muslim parent thinks that lgbt material is inappropriate. Does that mean we have to scrub the internet of lgbt material? An atheist might be religious material as inappropriate for children. Do we ban religious material from the internet?
Whenever politicians use "children" as an excuse to justify more laws and regulations, it's rarely about protecting children. These people don't care about children. They care about power and control.
Once agin, the UK is at the forefront of censorship.
In the early 2000s, extreme violence was indexed on search engines. You just had to actively search for it.
The fact that you had to "deep dive" shows that you have to actively search for it so there goes your argument for more regulation.
Also, there is a difference between regulating and banning. Why are you conflating regulation with censorship? Those are two different things.
And why is showing real violence "far from healthy"? One of the reasons why I didn't join the military was seeing what actual violence. I think it is healthy to show what is really happening.
Maybe if we showed everyone the truth rather than PR packaged fake propaganda, we'd be less inclined to support wars ( territorial, drug, etc ).
If your logic is applied, then everything from porn to rap music to movies and literature needs to be banned.
Why do you and a few members of the british government decide what people can or cannot see based solely on your subjective opinions?
Jason Schreier has never worked as developer or in the gaming industry. It's insane how so many people give these people so much credence and attention. The guy literally doesn't know what he is a talking about. Also 3d artists and game testers/QA/etc are transferable skills just like programmers.
I thought everyone knew this already. And its been true for decades. When I was a CS major, everyone told me not to go into game development because you worked the most for the least amount of pay.
Not sure why why this is so high up here. I'd think that the HN community would already know this by now. If not, there are plenty of game developer testimony all over social media and the internet.
Welcome to NYC. There is construction every other block. And that's not even considering things like the 2nd Ave line construction which creates noise pollution for years on end. Is this news because wealthy people are affected?
I wonder how things would be if NYC allowed construction once every 3 years?
The real question is when is buzzfeednews going to close their facebook account?
https://www.facebook.com/BuzzFeedNews