this is the most petty thing. I mean... wow. maybe care less about what other people are into? if the food you're eating doesn't taste great that's entirely on you, there are so many great food options today! I'm supposed to be upset people like to snap their meals and restaurants are working harder on presentation or mood lighting? oh no! the horrors.
No my position is a tad more complicated than that.
My position is that of course people should voice concern over actual discrimination based on gender. But this rant on social interactions in which there is no evidence presented and just big claims that this happens a lot is simply what is is, big claims.
I claim that this don't happen as often as some people suggests, a claim that is just as valid as the authors. My position is that this hurts women in tech and diversity as a whole.
Baseless arguments like the authors contributes to the toxic environment we have today where everything you do is wrong. Just take that conference Github was supposed to have. They picked all candidates from without knowing gender or anything about the authors (blind review) [1] and when it was discovered every presenter picked was a male, the conference was cancelled because meritocracy is appearantly not ok if only men were selected even if their talks were deemed superior [2].
This is just one demonstration about the extreme views that is hurting equality. Another is Brit Ruby 2013 which was cancelled for the same reasons basically: https://gist.github.com/seanhandley/4106776
And it is just the absolute top of the mountain, there are so many stupid things going on in the name of equality and diversity it's unbelievable.
If we are not supposed to care about genders, why do we care if there is more women in tech at all?
your position is the same as I stated but you have rationale behind it. I get that. the issue I have is still the same though, you're projecting your experience onto others and expecting an argument where none is being made.
as a woman in cryptocurrency, this isn't a valuable resource because it proves our work environment sucks. it's speaking to others like me who already know our work environment sucks and signals to each other so we can at least create spaces where not everything is terrible. don't think there's a problem? cool. it's not a universal experience, just common which is why you hear about it all the time. we're not looking for your help except to do your part or get out of the way.
I'm honestly taken back every time I read opinions like yours since you don't experience this, think these are claims that need evidence, and want to shut down debate over something that doesn't impact you. I can only assume you're somehow threatened but I struggle to see how. men feeling threatened by women talking about their spaces is very strange but maybe that's because you think we're saying something about you when we complain about how we're treated.
> your position is the same as I stated but you have rationale behind it. I get that.
But it is not. Which I just explained why. The difference is that the things I complain about is specific examples with data to back it up. The author and other people similar just throw out random shit that is as provable as a religious experience.
> it's speaking to others like me who already know our work environment sucks
Great attitude there buddy.
> think these are claims that need evidence
I provided evidence for the examples I brought up, the rest is just as the authors anecdotal with no evidence. This is my whole point.
> I can only assume you're somehow threatened but I struggle to see how. men feeling threatened by women talking about their spaces is very strange
Why do people always resort to this jargon? I am not "threatened" I just do not like discrimination based on gender and I believe that is happening more towards men than women in tech today. It is happening in the name of diversity and equality.
> I just do not like discrimination based on gender
if you feel that way then maybe don't drop into a conversation women started to tell them their likely misinterpreting situations and need to provide better evidence before you'll take their claims seriously. maybe don't go point-by-point refuting their experiences as conjecture then center discrimination concerns against men. maybe don't engage others who, like you, don't like discrimination based on gender with the opening line:
> People today get upset about fucking everything.
The converse of that is exactly what these blog posts are - constant wide-ranging criticisms based on a few anecdotes, usually wrangled together from others who write similar blog posts.
I love it. so she wants to get in the way of people helping others in a risky situation but that it could cause loss of life is "not even remotely true"? it's great how we always represent ourselves in these absolutes and extremes now even though the reality is always more in the middle somewhere.
that should say "first graphical" because at the time it was pitched as the first 3D online MUD. They had to stress that internet was required because at the time even networked games didn't require internet.
I was in the beta. playing and hacking that game changed my life. it's always been a tragedy so many people didn't experience it before Asherons Call, Underlight, and EverQuest came along.
as someone who's been involved since the beginning, the only thing $100 means is there are enough people invested that the real work can begin where developers and teams can take the time to learn how to build for it without worrying it'll disappear tomorrow. that assurance counts for something, but beyond that do -not- consider this a "production ready" platform. There will be failure. There will be losses. treat this as a place to experiment and dabble in the future but don't strive for world domination, let success build naturally. fuck the hype.
if we're going to simplify language then call it what it is: a program. the only reason they're called contracts is because they were theorized within the context of future financial instruments, smart contract is a historical artifact for a kind of automated thing that might have one day appeared in many forms, but now we know. calling them programs would have been more immediately accessible to programmers which is clearly where the weight is shifting, contract should have been reserved for the DSL lawyers use to write programs. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
speaking for myself it's not ever the offense I take issue with it's the ubiquity of popular offense. that every space must be a space wherein offensive speech is permitted including spaces created to cater to other genuine concerns such as recovery from debilitating trauma. churches have been a safe space for certain kinds of thought for centuries, some churches even creating a safe space within their safe space where a person can confess to any sin without suffering the adverse social affects.
it's on this point that I think people lose their minds. the vulnerable see a world completely set against them and have no ability to create an island for themselves so they over react and become militant with time as popular social movements continually fail to understand them. I see wrong on both ends for different reasons but in a hyper connected world where everything is happening all the time, the marginalized by definition must lose out. the freedom to offend is not the only attribute worth protecting, despite how very serious our history teaches us otherwise. the world isn't just becoming smaller, it's becoming flat, and that is another dimension worth pushing against.
there are no easy positions to take here. there are no obvious answers. defending free speech is obvious and good and I'm in favor of erring on the side of caution but the longer people take a principled stand on offense and dismiss the motivations of the people pushing against it, the further this situation will deteriorate.
