Google Employee's Anti-Diversity Manifesto Goes “Internally Viral”

stashix said:

Why?

Click to expand...

Aside from being obviously political?

Look, give me a newspaper or journal. A primary source with a declared journalistic standard.

bbartlett said:

You missed the point entirely.

I suggest you read the memo, think, then come to your own conclusions rather than regurgitating someone else's summary of the document. Your interpretations of what the document contains would seem to indicate that you haven't even read it.

Click to expand...

From the man himself:

"I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes"

He's actually "simply stating" women are inferior at coding because biology. He doesn't have the balls to come out and say that (or stupidly thought blunting the argument would be more convincing) and couches it with "distribution" and "part" but that's dressing on a turd sandwich.

Then there's this:

"For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins"

And this:

"women spend more money than men"

STR said:

Aside from being obviously political?

Click to expand...

I just found it curious that you felt the need to specifically point out you're not clicking on this link while at work. It's not NFSW and you don't seem to mind visiting other websites.

STR said:

Look, give me a newspaper or journal. A primary source with a declared journalistic standard.

Click to expand...

I do agree that it's not exactly a reliable or worthy source.

stashix said:

I just found it curious that you felt the need to specifically point out you're not clicking on this link while at work. It's not NFSW and you don't seem to mind visiting other websites.

Click to expand...

Pron is not the only thing that isn't safe for work. Politics, religion, and anything else that can distract coworkers is not acceptable. It doesn't even matter if you're right or wrong. It doesn't belong in the office. This is something ex-Googler Jimmy should have known, and what got him fired more than anything.

Saw a picture of this guy today, and his archaic views about woman make total sense now. I wouldn't be surprised if he thinks they shouldn't be allowed to drive either.....

Biznatch said:

Saw a picture of this guy today, and his archaic views about woman make total sense now. I wouldn't be surprised if he thinks they shouldn't be allowed to drive either.....

Click to expand...

He doesn't seem attractive, that's for sure. And he may be frustrated and hate women, hard to know. But his views on women are not archaic, or to the extent that they are, some of the old fashioned conventional wisdom has been scientifically validated.

Men and women are different. It's in our chromosomes and DNA and strongly affects our preferences and abilities. Does anyone here deny that?

dbr1 said:

Men and women are different. It's in our chromosomes and DNA and strongly affects our preferences and abilities. Does anyone here deny that?

Click to expand...

What does that have to do with computer science?

Nallexi said:

No wonder the brass is all over it, maybe they're hoping to pay their special operators 27% less!

Click to expand...

Nah, they'd just tell the crew they have to work 27% less. Same difference.

ruffbytes said:

Though it is true, he probably knew that this was a probable outcome of his writing this memo. It would really be the only way to get all the outraged folks to calm down.

Click to expand...

outraged folks is why Google has a discriminatory policy. why is it wrong to counter with outrage?

STR said:

What does that have to do with computer science?

Click to expand...

Male and female brains have structural and functional differences. This affects a range of behaviors and abilities (on average, by group). I personally don't know specifically how this affects computer science ability. But to attribute disparate/unequal outcomes in achievement/ability in computer science or anything else to sexism is ignoring this very important factor. This seems to be the point that the fired engineer was making.

dbr1 said:

Male and female brains have structural and functional differences. This affects a range of behaviors and abilities (on average, by group). I personally don't know specifically how this affects computer science ability. But to attribute disparate/unequal outcomes in achievement/ability in computer science or anything else to sexism is ignoring this very important factor. This seems to be the point that the fired engineer was making.

Click to expand...

That's a long, drawn out way of saying "I have no evidence for any of my (or his) claims".

STR said:

What does that have to do with computer science?

Click to expand...

I have a feeling you know, but you're just looking for a way to argue you're completely flawed viewpoint more with some one-off piece of garbage "science", but here you go:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences#Cognitive_tasks

On average, males excel relative to females at certain spatial tasks. Specifically, males have an advantage in tests that require the mental rotation or manipulation of an object.[47] They tend to outperform females in mathematical reasoning and navigation. In a computer simulation of a maze task, males completed the task faster and with fewer errors than their female counterparts. Additionally, males have displayed higher accuracy in tests of targeted motor skills, such as guiding projectiles.[46] Males are also faster on reaction time and finger tapping tests.[48]

On average, females excel relative to males on tests that measure recollection. They have an advantage on processing speed involving letters,digits and rapid naming tasks.[48] Females tend to have better object location memory and verbal memory.[49] They also perform better at verbal learning.[50] Females have better performance at matching items and precision tasks, such as placing pegs into designated holes. In maze and path completion tasks, males learn the goal route in fewer trials than females, but females remember more of the landmarks presented. This shows that females use landmarks in everyday situations to orient themselves more than males. Females are better at remembering whether objects had switched places or not

Click to expand...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hope-relationships/201402/brain-differences-between-genders

Male brains utilize nearly seven times more gray matter for activity while female brains utilize nearly ten times more white matter. What does this mean?
Gray matter areas of the brain are localized. They are information- and action-processing centers in specific splotches in a specific area of the brain.
White matter is the networking grid that connects the brain’s gray matter and other processing centers with one another.
The gray-white matter difference may explain why, in adulthood, females are great multi-taskers, while men excel in highly task-focused projects.

Click to expand...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-mens-brains-are-wired-differently-than-women/

The research, which involved imaging the brains of nearly 1,000 adolescents, found that male brains had more connections within hemispheres, whereas female brains were more connected between hemispheres. The results, which apply to the population as a whole and not individuals, suggest that male brains may be optimized for motor skills, and female brains may be optimized for combining analytical and intuitive thinking.

Click to expand...

TLDR: Women have better memories, Men are better problem solvers. Computer Science is more about problem solving than memorization.

Cancelled:
Gender role conversations not allowed unless: you are a woman or you are a man, who admits you are the problem.

lilbabycat said:

I have a feeling you know, but you're just looking for a way to argue you're completely flawed viewpoint more with some one-off piece of garbage "science", but here you go:

Click to expand...

Honestly, I was expecting a bunch of random Wikipedia quotes that don't actually address the issue directly. That's what I got. Digging into the actual cited articles (many of which are behind walls) reveals several rebuttals that claim your sources are reflecting cultural biases...which is the bane of anyone researching this subject.

Which is why the consensus opinion is that social effects swamp any biological differences.

STR said:

That's a long, drawn out way of saying "I have no evidence for any of my (or his) claims".

Click to expand...

So it affects everything, but that everything cannot translate to having any effect on the real world?

Nallexi said:

So it affects everything, but that everything cannot translate to having any effect on the real world?

Click to expand...

You're just trying to move the goal posts from having to prove "women are inferior coders" to "men and women are different". As a reminder, the topic of the thread is the former. The latter is utterly irrelevant unless you can explicitly tie it to the former.

STR said:

You're right, but I'm just going to insult you and say you're wrong, while also confirming what you suspected about me passing off anything you wrote as while offering nothing to back up my own statement

Click to expand...

Color me shocked. I suppose those "wiki" articles are no good because they disagree with you (this time). I'll make sure to shit on them if you ever use them for your own arguments.

You could probably link a story like this, citing exceptions to the rule, how its discrimination to blame or some other excuse, with the endless attempts to draw women towards the field, how they spent so much time/effort into the task.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-the-engineering-and-science-gender-gap/

But with an article like that, you might choose to ignore the end of:

They've done just that at Harvey Mudd with a computer course designed with women in mind.

"We have all kinds of students who arrive saying, "I hate computers." But they have to take a computer science course in the first semester. And halfway through the semester I'll be asking them, "What do you think, what's your favorite course?" And probably 90% say, "CS5. I hate computers, I hate computing, but oh my God, that's the greatest course ever."

Stanford University and University of California, Berkeley have also redesigned computer courses to make them more appealing to women.

Still, Bielefeldt said, after years of trying different things, they still struggle to draw more women into these male-dominated sciences.

"The important thing to note is how long we've been at this," Bielefeldt said. "The fact that we've made no tangible forward progress despite working on this for a long time is puzzling and depressing... and again, we're not sure what the secret is."

Click to expand...

But with your line of thinking, I suppose those colleges will never figure out what the "secret" is, because it certainly couldn't be fundamental biological differences between the sexes.

Could that be, in part, due to the fact that the females have been kept out of problem solving since civilizations started coming together. While not all keep females in the "kitchen", historically/stereotypical females maybe have not had the chances to compete. You just say biological differences, which I understand will make some differences, but have we not affected the biological timeline?

lilbabycat said:

Color me shocked. I suppose those "wiki" articles are no good because they disagree with you (this time). I'll make sure to shit on them if you ever use them for your own arguments.

Click to expand...

Not my fault you didn't dig into your own citation. I assumed we've all been to college and went through that class that told us Wiki articles, by themselves, are not entirely reliable sources.

But with your line of thinking, I suppose those colleges will never figure out what the "secret" is, because it certainly couldn't be fundamental biological differences between the sexes.

Click to expand...

The only thing that articles says is that they haven't found a sample that beats the null hypothesis. If, and only when, they find something that makes a difference can we test why. Given that neither colleges or their students exist in a vacuum, it's going to be hard to pin it down to "brains be different".

But that's your cross to bear since you're the one making the claim.

STR said:

That's a long, drawn out way of saying "I have no evidence for any of my (or his) claims".

Click to expand...

Wrong take, detective.

Use some basic logic.

Exhibit A.

dbr1 said:

Wrong take, detective.

Use some basic logic.

1. Male and female brains are different. There are significant proven cognitive and behavioral differences.

2. Males and females have different preferences for fields of study and work. They achieve at different levels on tests and in performance in these fields.

From here, he concludes (and I concur)

3. Differences in these outcomes are likely due at least partly to these hard wired differences, and this should be considered before we attribute them completely to sexism and cultural bias.
​

Exhibit A.

Click to expand...

Prove that those results are a "hardwired" difference and not a social constructed one. I mean, congrats, you've pointed out the achievement gap, which is the easy part. The problem is that brains and math classrooms don't exist in a vacuum. You have to account for any number of social factors before you're left with only biology.

STR said:

Prove that those results are a "hardwired" difference and not a social construct.

Click to expand...

From the source of that graph:

http://www.aei.org/publication/2016...gh-school-boys-are-better-at-math-than-girls/

Although I question his mathematic ability considering he can't count past 5.

4. For 2016 SAT test-takers, high school girls had superior overall academic high school records compared to boys: females represented 56% of the students in the top 10 percent of their graduating classes (Table 11), 60% of the students graduating with an A+ grade point average were female (Table 12), and high school girls graduated with a higher overall average GPA of 3.45 compared to a 3.30 average GPA for their male counterparts (Table 12).

5. High school girls were over-represented in advanced AP/Honors math classes (55%) compared to boys (45%), and also in advanced AP/Honors science classes by 56% to 44% (Tables 14 and 15).

5. For those high school students taking four years of high school mathematics, girls were over-represented (53%) compared to boys (47%), and more of the students studying natural sciences for four years were female students (55%) than male (45%), see Table 15.

Further, compared to boys, high school girls get better grades on average, and are far more likely to graduate in the top 10% of their high school classes, and are much more likely than boys to attend and graduate from college and go on to graduate schools. By all objective measures, girls have essentially all of the necessary ingredients that should result in greater representation in STEM fields like engineering and computer science except perhaps for one: a huge, statistically significant and persistent 30-point gender gap on the SAT math test in favor of boys that has persisted for more than 40 years. If there are some inherent gender differences for mathematical ability, as the huge and persistent gender differences for the math SAT test suggests, closing the STEM gender degree and job gaps may be a futile attempt in socially engineering an unnatural and unachievable outcome.

Click to expand...

STR said:

Prove that those results are a "hardwired" difference and not a social construct.

Click to expand...

Similar cognitive/behavioral changes occur in other primates and animals. Does sexism or cultural bias occur throughout the animal kingdom?

Sex Differences in Wild Chimpanzee Behavior Emerge during Infancy


Turning the tables, you show me evidence of just one human tribe/culture/society anywhere in the world where the women score better on math tests.

dbr1 said:

Similar cognitive/behavioral changes occur in other primates and animals.

Click to expand...

Chimps are not people. "Behavior differences" is not "computer science".

STR said:

You're just trying to move the goal posts from having to prove "women are inferior coders" to "men and women are different". As a reminder, the topic of the thread is the former. The latter is utterly irrelevant unless you can explicitly tie it to the former.

Click to expand...

Outrage at having greater or lesser numbers of X group is dependent on there being no actual difference, just racism/sexism/ageism or whatever. It makes some people very uncomfortable that things like hormones and how your body is set up can have real effects, but that doesn't mean anyone is a Nazi. It just lends some credit to the idea that nobody should be unduly alarmed by less than perfectly proportional representation in a field.

Nallexi said:

Outrage at having greater or lesser numbers of X group is dependent on there being no actual difference, just racism/sexism/ageism or whatever. It makes some people very uncomfortable that things like hormones and how your body is set up can have real effects, but that doesn't mean anyone is a Nazi. It just lends some credit to the idea that nobody should be unduly alarmed by less than perfectly proportional representation in a field.

Click to expand...

That presumes the goal is "perfectly proportional representation" (which I don't think anyone here has advocated) instead of "stop discouraging perfectly capable people from entering fields they would otherwise succeed in" as well as "don't hassle them until they leave the field out of disgust".

STR said:

Chimps are not people. "Behavior differences" is not "computer science".

Click to expand...

Exactly, chimps are not people. They do not have 'sexism' in the way we understand it, and yet similar functional neurobehavioral differences between the sexes exist.

Essentially, you would like me or someone else to get into the lab and find the 'coding gene' and determine beyond any doubt that it makes someone a better programmer, and that women are lacking in this gene. Short of that you refuse to acknowledge the ample evidence that men and women's brains are anatomically and physiologically different and these differences are well correlated with brain performance in certain areas that might quite likely explain math and yes coding performance.

This is not a superiority/inferiority issue. Women are known to be better at language among other things.

But you didn't respond to my question: show me one cultural group anywhere in the world where women perform better at math then men. Is every single human tribe sexually biased against women?

STR said:

But that's your cross to bear since you're the one making the claim.

Click to expand...

So what claim are you making? That because we don't know for sure, we must conclude its sexism/discrimination? If you're just trying to get us to "think about the social effects of blah blah blah and how behaving this or that...", don't bother. We've had the argument and we don't see anything getting better with the past several decades of those arguments being addressed. Really, you sound exactly like the people that are stereotypically described as "the far left". Anti-intellectual while claiming intellectual superiority, in hopes that equality can be achieved simply by willing it into existence. That might not be what you are, but you're really doing a good job of coming off as that. And as reality shows, you appear to be completely wrong, just as many a campus that deny reality have found themselves to be wrong, despite years of efforts to go against it.

So please, clarify exactly what point you're coming to get us to agree to, by denying the hard science that is out there. Its seems as though if you really want me to embrace the "society is sexist" approach, and to that I could argue that its a sexist society that favors men because men are the one that created it, along with 99% of everything else. I could argue that we are as advanced and organized as we are today, typing on a computer today, living till 80+ years today because of the successes of men, and that women will always be inferior to men because we've been breeding ourselves that way for thousands of years. I could argue that. And really all I could say in response to your "well we should change that, we should push for equality, its unfair"; I say "Nah, i'd rather us keep progressing as a society in exchange for inequality between the sexes, seems like a fair trade-off" and move on with my life.

STR said:

"stop discouraging perfectly capable people from entering fields they would otherwise succeed in"

Click to expand...

You mean, like specifically not hiring somebody because they have the wrong set of genitals?

lilbabycat said:

So what claim are you making? That because we don't know for sure, we must conclude its sexism/discrimination?

Click to expand...

I'm asking you to tell me how your theories on biology can explain a CS field that is ~90% male. I'm not even asking for (nor would I expect) 1:1 or even 2:1. dbr1 posted a big chart of SAT math scores with a whopping 6% difference between the sexes. Even if I took that as a given, I'd expect something on the order of a 6% disparity (more or less) in employment. That's not what we see.

Nallexi said:

You mean, like specifically not hiring somebody because they have the wrong set of genitals?

Click to expand...

Yes?

STR said:

I'm asking you to tell me how your theories on biology can explain a CS field that is ~90% male. I'm not even asking for (nor would I expect) 1:1 or even 2:1. dbr1 posted a big chart of SAT math scores with a whopping 6% difference between the sexes. Even if I took that as a given, I'd expect something on the order of a 6% disparity (more or less) in employment. That's not what we see.

Click to expand...

You're right, it's not just differences in ability that affect the proportion of women in quantitative science specialties, it's preference and...maternal instinct.

Explaining the Complicated Women + Math Formula

and there's this tidbit:

STR said:

I'm asking you to tell me how your theories on biology can explain a CS field that is ~90% male.

Click to expand...

The various studies shown/linked, have shown that (to simplify into a single sentence and not a dissertation) that "men's brains are wired for the skills that favor computer science". You can choose to accept this evidence which points towards a not 100% but very convincing conclusion, or you can claim its due to something else. So far you have chosen to pass off ALL of what has been presented at best to question their validity and moreso with snide remarks passively trying to trying insult our intelligence, while providing ZERO to support your own claims. So I guess just piss off cuz this is like arguing with a woman at this point.

lilbabycat said:

The various studies shown/linked, have shown that (to simplify into a single sentence and not a dissertation) that "men's brains are wired for the skills that favor computer science". You can choose to accept this evidence which points towards a not 100% but very convincing conclusion, or you can claim its due to something else.

Click to expand...

I'm the one siding with the null hypothesis, but nice try trying to shift the burden of proof.

STR said:

I'm the one siding with the null hypothesis, but nice try trying to shift the burden of proof.

Click to expand...

What data supports a null hypothesis. Be specific. With pictures, tables, figures. You seem incapable of providing anything of weight. You can look up countless and even try to cherry pick some data, but they'll all have the something along the lines of "higher performance on reasoning and spatial tests.", like in this one, which looks at the data from several studies. http://uam.es/personal_pdi/psicologia/fjabad/cv/articulos/intelligence/negligible.pdf. Overall equal IQ, but significant differences in certain areas of intelligence, that are directly associated with computer science performance. But maybe all these studies are wrong too?

Further, a null hypothesis would should that there is no difference between men and women, which you have to concede is impossible, as we wouldn't be having this discussion if that were a fact. So the question is really how much of a difference is there and how much of an effect does it have on the computer science field. All the data shows a significant amount, you are currently arguing none (by way of null hypothesis), which is wrong. 100% certain to be incorrect.

dbr1 said:

He doesn't seem attractive, that's for sure. And he may be frustrated and hate women, hard to know. But his views on women are not archaic, or to the extent that they are, some of the old fashioned conventional wisdom has been scientifically validated.

Men and women are different. It's in our chromosomes and DNA and strongly affects our preferences and abilities. Does anyone here deny that?

Click to expand...

I mean it looks like he comes from a country where this is ingrained in the culture from childhood....

Anyone who has even interacted with men and women KNOWS that there are differences between the TWO genders in the way that they think, the way they act, their motivations behind what drives them, etc. There are ingrained differences due to physiology that exist regardless of societal influences. The arguments that men and women are different solely due to societal influences (nurture) vs. physiology (nature) is nonsensical and a complete waste of time.

dbr1 said:

Female and male brains are different, ergo different behaviors, different strengths, weaknesses, abilities.

An issue whose time has come: Sex/gender influences on nervous system function

"Neuroscience today is at a crossroads. Do we continue the status quo and ignore sex as a biological variable, or do we acknowledge that sex influences the brain at all levels and address the major gaps in knowledge?" asked Dr Eric M Prager, Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Neuroscience Research. "The work published in this issue unequivocally concludes that sex matters and that researchers can no longer allow for the over-reliance on male animals and cells, which obscure key differences that might influence clinical studies."​

Two minds
The cognitive differences between men and women

The neuroscience literature shows that the human brain is a sex-typed organ with distinct anatomical differences in neural structures and accompanying physiological differences in function, says UC-Irvine professor of neurobiology and behavior Larry Cahill, PhD.​

That males and females have hard-wired cognitive and behavioral differences is very hard for some people to believe or accept. For those who do believe this science, it is career threatening for many to talk about. But the science is right there in front of us, and until this type of research is banned or otherwise suppressed, more and more evidence is likely to accumulate.

​

Click to expand...

As I am more along the lines that talent comes from many places, I propose this instance:


There is a interesting write-up in popular mechanics also

http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a24429/hidden-figures-real-story-nasa-women-computers/

Hmmmmm.
Woman, engineers, mathematicans, black and capable. Seems like that "people" are a capable as they wanna be. Intelligence doesnt have a gender or color.

Today, opportunity is the deciding factor (hopefully). Endeavours arent as gender specific as it used to be. It should be about giving folks a chance to prove themselves. Small numbers of house husbands doesnt translate to all men are househusbands. The A-bomb and WW2 needed everyone to come together to win and create. All genders were important to these missions. What happened?

In a similar vein to Hidden Figures my wife just talked me into watching the Imitation Game, which showcased Joan Clarke's involvement with cracking Enigma with Alan Turing.

I do find it interesting that people keep misusing the arguments put forth in the citations they don't seem to understand. First of all, I'm confused why people continue to conflate mathematic aptitude with computer science. I would argue that computer programming is more dependent on language skills and logic, which is what people keep claiming women are allegedly biologically predisposed towards, than pure math.

It's been so many years since I earned my CS degree that I can't remember if my philosophy classes were required or electives, but I wasn't the only one in them that weren't liberal arts majors for the formal logic structuring they provided and members of my cohort found them useful. Reading through a myriad of responses in this thread, it seems that few of you actually took formal logic courses, which is shameful of the programs that might have awarded you degrees in computer science presuming you are actually formally trained in your field.

I find it interesting because my wife talked me into watching the Imitation Game and was like telling me it was some WW2 movie, etc. But as soon as it started Alan Turing was introduced and I was like, wait a minute, I know this guy but I know him as the father of modern computer science and AI. The movie didn't go into much of his background but it did show him soliciting encryptionists via puzzle solving (crosswords) and firing inept mathematicians. Turing was a mathematician but his pioneering work was funneled through research in logic and philosophy. His dissertation was on Gobel's Theorem, who was himself a mathematician/philosopher. I don't know how accurate the movie was historically, but it portrayed Clarke as a better problem solver than Turing was and the crux of the issue echoed the debate that took place around the major Google memos--that being the fact that despite Turing's obvious skillset it wouldn't matter much if he couldn't pull a team together coherently. It was historically accurate that he and Clarke were very close, close enough for him to propose to her before revealing he was homosexual in any case. Regardless, this false bifurcation between the "real" or "hard" sciences and "social" sciences doesn't seem to play out when applied to the history of computer science or the pioneers of the field.

Even if you want to disregard my analysis of the history of this field, the trend of modern computing is certainly not supportive that men would be better at it than women. Assuming for the sake of argument that your claims women are better at analyzing human interaction, faces, and empathy, that would tend to argue they'd be far better at modern and future computer sciences than men given that the math portion of the problems this field faces are already by and large solved. The vast majority of computing, e-space that is, is taking place in social space. Facial recognition, VR, and AI along with a myriad of ethical concerns are as much about the social implications as they are about raw computational models. Autonomous driving, as one example, has already figured out the math portion of multiple cars colliding but the holdup is how vehicles interact with one another and their environments.

And I haven't even addressed the most humorous irony of you guys citing men with psychology degrees talking about biological differences that would, if true, imply they themselves were subpar performers in a less than science field...

Maybe the reason there aren't many women programming is that it just doesn't appeal to them. I went to school to be a programmer and the idea of sitting in an office for 8+ hours a day 40+ hours a week for 10 years before my hands were shot just didn't appeal to me either. Really the answer just couldn't be that simple could it? I'm all for hiring the right person for the job. Sometimes we don't know what the manager is looking for. Maybe they weren't looking for a programmer, but someone who could figure out a problem outside of the code.

I've worked in a lot of different industries and in some there are more women than men (education) and more men the women (IT). Some of the brightest women I have worked with were in IT, some were my bosses and actually understood what I was saying when I went to them with a problem, some didn't. Same goes with male bosses, some got it, some didn't.

We have gender bias in a lot of fields. Male teachers are a rarity around here anyway. They normally teach PE and coach football or some other sportsball. Seems like there isn't a great deal of interest in males and education.

My point is there are differences of what is an attractive / rewarding career. Men and women (in my uneducated, limited observed experience) want different things and computer science just doesn't appeal to women as a whole, and you can't force that on people because of your political leanings or idea that everyone should be equal. It's a great idea in theory but in all honesty it just falls flat in practice, like socialism.

mope54 said:

In a similar vein to Hidden Figures my wife just talked me into watching the Imitation Game, which showcased Joan Clarke's involvement with cracking Enigma with Alan Turing

Click to expand...

mope54 said:

But as soon as it started Alan Turing was introduced and I was like, wait a minute, I know this guy but I know him as the father of modern computer science and AI

Click to expand...

Funny how I was never interested in the Imitation game until now. I at times dont even find out what the title of a movie is about because of the title. On my "to view list" now.

I like the "Alan turing story" because of the fact that it disproves many pre concieved notions. Horrible how he was treated once his sexual orientation came out but those were the times. The fact that he figured out so many things about where computers could go and evolve to is facinating.

The computer science equivalent to "Tesla" (the man not the car).
Another hidden genius!

Its also interesting that these ideas and foundations were assisted by the war effort. Teflon, silicones, space food, the internet and personal computers all have military spending assisting their incubation.Of course more, but cool that peaceful things have come out of military spending.

Now, this thing about bullying via texting..........

Oh welll. Where people go, there they are.

STR said:

Aside from being obviously political?

Look, give me a newspaper or journal. A primary source with a declared journalistic standard.



From the man himself:

"I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes"

He's actually "simply stating" women are inferior at coding because biology. He doesn't have the balls to come out and say that (or stupidly thought blunting the argument would be more convincing) and couches it with "distribution" and "part" but that's dressing on a turd sandwich.

Then there's this:

"For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins"

And this:

"women spend more money than men"

Click to expand...

What major news outlet has journalistic standards these days? The are a few with a right wing agenda, and a great many more with a left wing agenda.