The problem is women no smart like us men.

So you don't think the government should step in if the big guys are abusing their monopoly? You don't think the voters in a municipality should be allowed to decide for themselves if they want the government to establish broadband services for their own use? I know it's a popular meme to presume that governments are nothing but incompetent but the reality is that sometimes the government is the best way to get something done. If the existing ISPs find it not worthwhile to serve a population I see no credible argument why the local government couldn't fill that role if the taxpayers want them to. Might not be economically ideal but sometimes perfect is the enemy of good enough.

Out of curiosity, why? It's a pretty tough way to make a buck. The margins in being an ISP are pretty thin unless you are able to obtain some form of monopoly. If there is any competition the margins plummet but costs don't. Huge fixed costs, lots of customer service, maintenance, etc. Maybe it's your passion but I've started a number of businesses and that is a seriously difficult business to get into. I can introduce you to several people who have actually tried to start an ISP and failed in spite of being well funded.

Best solution: Have all 100,000 claimants file in small claims court instead.

But I bet if you ask UPS they'll tell you that.

I think this is the only place where men brag about how short theirs is... ;)

I'm not so sure about this. I agree about the arrogance but I think a more accurate statement might be that software engineers too often fail to recognize when they encounter the boundaries of their knowledge. I think they bump into those limits all the time and go merrily on their way past them. We've all seen software that was clearly developed by someone who clearly never actually had to use it to do the job it was designed for. I was staring at a piece of accounting software today that clearly was designed by someone who has never actually worked as an accountant. Either work flow was not a primary consideration or the programmer badly misunderstood how accountants go about their daily business. As you say, the consequences of their decisions are so far removed from their incentives and feedback that they have no real appreciation of how their work affects others.

> I had no idea that people still thought that being a woman made it impossible to be physically strong,

Not impossible. Just more difficult. Women are built differently. That's an objective fact you cannot escape from. That will cause the best male athletes to be better than the best female ones.

Although SKILL may alter the situation for sports where that can be a factor.

> I mean, face it, men are just more willing to be the trolls and make life miserable for each other. Women see that and avoid the whole issue altogether.

Are you kidding? Women love politics and backstabbing. In fact, they are much better at it than men are. They just like to pretend that they are better. If anything, all of this committee nonsense sounds like the sort of thing fueled by women rather than something they would flee from.

The argument is that a concerted push to end sexism *just for women* is itself sexist.

Yes, it is. But for any given instance of sexism against women, some making a push to end it will be motivated only to end sexism against women, and some will be motivated to end all sexism. Thus one cannot determine merely from participation in, or advocacy for, a specific attempt to end an instance of misogynist sexism, whether one is merely misandrist or is truly in favor of equality.

You apparently have never bothered to click the "more information" link. It is a pretty good approximation of useless unless you click several layers deep and shouldn't be necessary in the first place. A short description of what the patch actually is intended to do would not kill Microsoft. I shouldn't have to go hunting for that information if I want it. Yes I know how to find out what the patch is for but Microsoft has made it needlessly hard.

Put bluntly, I shouldn't have to click ANY links to see a summary of what a patch is supposed to do.

How many women fly fish? Not many. Guess how much sexism there is keeping women from fly fishing? Zero.

You post about how it's important to provide evidence for a hypothesis, then spit out a hypothesis about sexism with zero evidence for it. That's so remarkably thick-headed I have to think that maybe you're engaged in some sort of meta-troll? If not, then let me point out that a minute with the search engine of your choice can help prevent you saying stupid things:

Angling and Sexism

SEXISM in FISHING ADVERTISING, SHOWS & MAGAZINES

Wanton Sexism in Fly Fishing (What is Going On?)

Bait Shop Sexism

Easily avoided. Just stop selling a product with a known failure.

Why not let women do what they want instead of trying to force them in to places that aren't necessarily their thing?

I see no "force" here. I see no objectification here. You are using hotbutton keywords that have no relevance.

If a certain group of people don't feel invited to your thing, it's entirely appropriate to re-write your invitation. If your infrastructure isn't supportive of a certain demographic, it's entirely appropriate to remediate that.

OTOH, if (at TFA suggests) you've got a demographic that's socialized to avoid conflict, and you've got a project that inherently involves conflict between different POV, you've got a problem.