In the future, software will be able to characterize what you've seen, recognize and label people, places and things you've seen, and organize your day's live recording into easily scan-able and searchable chapters.

*That* will enable true creepiness.

Right now it's unlikely you'll take the time to record your interaction with or your sight of me, and even less unlikely you'll edit it and post it somewhere as an interesting event, and even less unlikely someone else will find it interesting enough to view.

But make the recording, labeling, organizing and posting automatic, and the searching and scanning very easy, and I'm far more likely to be recorded and seen when I don't want to be.

When you hold your cell phone up, rather than looking down at it, I have a clue you may be taking photos or videos. I can turn away or walk away if I don't want to be on your facebook page. But most of the time you aren't doing that. Right?

If you have a camera always facing where you are looking, and everyone knows you have a camera facing where you are looking, then you are always potentially recording people, and you may find it common for people to look away or walk away from you.

Hardly a hipster. I'm pretty geeky myself, and even I think GG is dorky. And it's *your* shallowness that keeps you from seeing it.

GG is dorky because when you are wearing it you are willing to let a piece of non-critical technology come between you and your interaction with real-life people. It tells people that that gadget is more important to you than unobstructed vision and uninterrupted attention.

When you wear a bluetooth headset as you go about your day, you are telling people that your phone is more important than the use of that ear, or your uninterrupted attention.

That is, they tell people gadgets are more important to you than people.

That is dorky.

Someday there will be a less obstructive, less intrusive, less unfashionable way of doing the things those gadgets do, and there will be ways to discretely use them when needed and render them both inoperable and invisible when not needed. In the meantime it's probably useful that people who are more interested in gadgets than in people provide a market to develop these devices, but right now they are not invisible or nonintrusive enough for normal, social people to not be put off by their presence.

I've never seen that for sites that deal with sensitive information, like payment info. If someone manages to get one of my web forum passwords, what gain is there in exploiting it? It's an argument for not reusing passwords, but not a call for much alarm.

Dorky

It's more a problem in places where getting a gun is more difficult than it is in the USA.

Last I read the ratio of autistic males to females was 4:1, which is still far less than the ratio of male to female tech workers in some fields, like IT. Also, the autistic ratio is probably over-stated, because there are social pressures to (1) give girls non-institutional social coaching, more so than boys, since social awkwardness is better tolerated in boys, and this allows coached girls to get by without institutional help and they are therefore less often diagnosed autistic, and (2) give boys institutional help in life and coping skills, since lack of success is less tolerated in boys, so they are more likely to be diagnosed.

Autism certainly plays a role in who works in the tech industry, but even autistic women are under-represented.

Judging from the local "fandom" community, which of course is anecdotal, there are lots of geeky women. Most of them aren't in tech, either.

Go to the top of the thread.

Karma inferno. Burn, baby, burn!

That's a simplistic, cliche and tired explanation.

When I got into the field in the 80's there were more women and and there was less social dysfunction. A question more interesting that the cliche "women don't like tech", or the misogynist "women don't do difficult thinking", is "what happened in the 90's to make technical fields so hostile and so uniform?"

I'd suggest the internet happened, and gave a leaning toward social dysfunction a place to reinforce itself. Self-selection.

No, the problem is know-it all, under-socialized people who think their simplistic explanations are genius, and who think women "don't like intense thinking", and who moderate as troll anyone who calls out their misogyny.

People like this are intolerable for women to work with.

I sure hope you're not a doctor. Or a mechanic. Or an engineer. Or in IT. Or any field that requires solving problems for that matter.

Oh, no, someone thinks you and your like are under-socialized, misogynist, delusional dumbasses. However will you deal with that? That's right, you'll make a determination of my job-worthiness from two sentences I wrote.

Aren't you clever!

*You* are why women don't want to work in IT.

No, the problem is know-it all, under-socialized people who think their simplistic explanations are genius, and who think women "don't like intense thinking", and who moderate as troll anyone who calls out their misogyny.

People like this are intolerable for women to work with.

I sure hope you're not a doctor. Or a mechanic. Or an engineer. Or in IT. Or any field that requires solving problems for that matter.

Oh, no, someone thinks you and your like are under-socialized, misogynist, delusional dumbasses. However will you deal with that? That's right, you'll make a determination of my job-worthiness from two sentences I wrote.

Aren't you clever!

*You* are why women don't want to work in IT.

No, the problem is that engineering has people like you in it. What woman wants to deal with that?

It appears you have 11 months professional experience since graduating in 2003, and the rest is personal projects. Part of being able to get interviews, and turn them into job offers, is being able to realistically describe what you've done. "I'm too good even for the term rockstar" isn't reflected in your resume.

You've got about eight years of time to account for. Do your two bitly links realistically account for three of those years? Do you even have a name for the 2006-2009 project that supposedly accounts for four more? Did any of your independent experience result in a completed project? Anything marketable? Did you solve any problems for anyone? Was any of it purposefully designed? Did anyone earn any money? Did you work with anyone? Did you have to follow anyone else's spec, take direction from anyone, accept suggestions from users, work with someone else's code?

"I can write a game of my own design for an audience of me" isn't terribly impressive experience. You'll have to show you've worked with and for other people, and that what you've created is useful for someone other than yourself.