I find this kind of stuff fascinating, but lack the CS and/or mathematics background to understand the discussion beyond the basics. I think I grasp the concepts outlined in the graphic novel linked elsewhere in these comments, but the whitepaper is too deep for me.
Any pointers for someone looking to gain an amateur understanding of this, or is this a topic of sufficient complexity that it precludes an amateur understanding?
The colors used for the map on the homepage are basically indistinguishable to colorblind folks like myself (the trusted vs. untrusted colors, specifically), just FYI.
Just an FYI, but your choice of series colors for your graph are very difficult to differentiate as a colorblind person. Might consider changing one of the colors.
It's a combination of a proxy, a DNS server, a ipfw rule, and a resolver file. All that is needed to allow you to capture port 80 traffic without running your application server with sudo every time.
A fantastic example of horrible information visualization. Those bar charts are almost useless. The colors don't seem to correspond to anything, the ranking is apparently random, and the x-axis scale varies wildly, making cross-country comparisons an exercise in mental arithmetic.
I came here to say exactly that. They make a point of using the same colors in each chart (mostly), giving the illusion of some correspondence, but the colors mean something different for each chart. For example, "Difficult" and "Agreeable" are the same color in the first two charts.
I'm confused. The author seems to advocate for civil, rational, open-minded discussion, and follows it by advocating that the industry effectively exile someone whose views he disagrees with.
The included quote is not a personal attack on any individual. Yes, its strongly worded - more than I would personally like. But its not a wild rant saying women are an inferior race. The quote doesn't even suggest women shouldn't be in tech - it simply suggests an explanation for the gender imbalance (however accurate that explanation may be).
Why not attack that explanation instead? Leave no doubt in anyone's mind that he is painfully wrong - not by public shaming and ostracizing, but through the rational argument the author seems to so eagerly want.
The article questioned the honour and motivations of men who stand up for women's rights, calling them: ‘dickless wonders’, posers, ‘bland, craven hacks’, ‘docile, cringing cowards’, ‘buffoons’, ‘spineless’, ‘ostentatiously beta’, either ‘weak and stupid’ or ‘horny’, and ‘lazy, spineless weasel[s]’.
Only in a hypermale industry can someone bitterly accuse you of missing a phallus for standing up for women's rights, and people will still say, "What's sexist about that?"
> But its not a wild rant saying women are an inferior race.
"For this is the technology industry: there are more men in it because the male mind is, in general, better primed with the sorts of skills the industry values; men are simply better suited to most technology jobs. Women therefore tend to work in roles that require finesse and communicative skills, where they pop up in this world at all."
"Impressive women who can stand their ground alongside men – and there are plenty of them – succeed not in spite of a supposedly oppressive male atmosphere but because of it."
"The best women don’t want your pity and the mediocre ones don’t matter anyway."
Only in a backwards male-dominated culture do we lack the basic reading comprehension to see the sexism in this.
So, original article's thesis seems to be: "It is a colossal waste of time to tweet about demographics during a presentation where something else is being discussed."
The article then goes on to substantiate this thesis, using claims and rhetoric that aren't, in my opinion, worth the packets they're printed on.
However, the thesis--valid or not--is a decent point for discussion.
Zack did not raise to the occasion, and instead rallied about tarring and feathering the author (and other people in the community with similar views. He suggested that the companies purge themselves of any affiliation with the article's original author, and without even specifying why this was valid.
Simply put, this is crude demagoguery. I'll confront it head on: Why in the world would you categorically cut ties with anyone whose opinions on an unrelated matter you don't agree with?
By your logic, Haber should be stricken from the history books.
Haha - I actually ended up visiting Future Advisor ... across the hall from Engine Yard. The door to the office was shut, so I didn't get a chance to say hi :/
Any pointers for someone looking to gain an amateur understanding of this, or is this a topic of sufficient complexity that it precludes an amateur understanding?