I haven't used it, but the whole thing feels like it's being adopted en-masse by a large number of distributions when it is still essentially a new program and new way of doing things. Sure, experimental stuff is nice, but it should be experimental. Try it out for a few years before rolling it out to everyone. It feels like "boots fast" is being used to nullify all objections to it.

However there is a large and growing group that deeply believes there is a social war going on, that there is an outright attack on beliefs by the cultural elite. These groups become more insular over time, and they're getting support from politicians, and politicians are getting support for them. It's the primary reason why things like climate change is getting wrapped up in politics. So when groups of students protest these talks it actually encourages the faithful, presents evidence that the us versus them struggle is ongoing, that universities are becoming unredeemably liberal, and that home schooling is the best way to avoid tainting your children.

Treat it as a learning experience, since it is a university. Show up, listen and learn what these people think, and if possible debate them. Automatically starting with the name calling and insults just promotes the us-versus-them mentality which is fueling these movements.

This is true, but I think we still have a couple of decades before we can get there. All we have today are a few cars that can follow preset directions based on highly detailed maps. These current autos aren't even going to be personal autos since they will be unable to take you into your garage or find a parking spot at the local grocery store, they're oriented towards being a shuttle service.

Best bet will be a hybrid, self driving only on freeways or major roads, human driven elsewhere. (but then some idiot will take over on the freeway because it's going too slow, get an accident, then blame it on the AI)

Read the summary, if not the article. It is talking about a _declining_ rate of enrollment. Why were there so many more women in CS when I was a student, and why has it greatly shrunk over time? Has socialization changed so much, have we actually gotten more sexist over the last thirty years?

The whole topic is about the declining rate of enrollment, not a steady state. If those boxes were accurately describing reality then they do not describe a genetic basis and instead a socializing factor that can be fixed. Assuming you want it fixed, I certainly want to see many more women in STEM and CS to balance out the frat boy attitude I see in too many places. Are you defending the status quo or just presenting a neutral observation?

I wish students would research this, but take note of the very large number of undecided majors.

If girls start losing interest in STEM, then should we not try to discover why? Saying that they should be allowed to skip it implies that the status quo is ok, and I disagree thinking we need _more_ women in STEM not fewer.

As a male, I protect my own time, and I never let my weekends vanish and totally reject any 60-80 hour week as a standard (if it happens it is entirely self-imposed).

Men also take paternity leaves. I have seen this, many companies allow this, as well as many countries. Without this then the company is being anti-family (or family only for management maybe).

Not sure how management works everywhere, but in every one of my jobs that managers were also developers or engineers. I've never worked for a management-only manager. This includes women managers who were developers.

As a male, I don't put up with abuse either. I may keep quiet about it but update the resume and go job hunting on the sly.

I've also worked on medical technology and the ratio of women goes way up than the dreadfully dull dull world of communications and networking.

And yes you have described the stereotype correctly, while seeming to imply that it matters and that it's genetic rather than cultural and that it is large enough to make a difference. Again this ignores the problem that women did have higher CS enrollment numbers in the past.

Sounds suspiciously like things people said in the past: women don't have the clear logical minds necessary to vote, women are caring and compassionate and are thus better suited to be nurses than doctors, women have no place on the battlefield (I agree there, and extend that to say men don't have a place there either).

A better question might be: do we need more women in CS or fewer? Right now we're skewing things towards discouraging women in CS.

I have a clue here, there are massive clues that it is not at all about ethics in journalism. If you think that's what it is about and everyone should just shut up, then you're missing the story.

I've never seen an NFC terminal. If it's industry standard where are they?

Or just elect politicians willing to overturn the civil forfeiture. However the general public has been led to believe that this is only done for drug dealers and politicians don't want to appear soft on crime. It's basically about getting the voters informed. if you do that you won't need the guns.

And what's more secure, customer doing nothing, or a customer taking positive action to spend money?

And a chip is more secure than NFC, which most smart people turned off on their phones within an hour of buying them.

And Apple is simple?

I don't understand what the story is really complaining about. All of Apple Pay is opt-in, there's no way to "block" it only ways to enable it.

For people to young to know how things work, stores did not all accept credit cards when they were first introduced either, and for decades afterwords many stores would only accept one type or another. Even today a lot of stores refuse to take Discover. So what's the big deal about not signing up with Apple?