No. The point of it is a dig against those who like to treat women as a single homogeneous group with identical thoughts and opinions. Given that man and woman have different etymologies (really) it's a fairly daft idea.

So why is there such a disparity between Google & Yahoo's female proportions? Seriously, none of this shit passes the smell test. Women don't want to do this. Black people don't like doing that. It's utter bullshit from top to bottom. It's not nice to admit there is a massive fucking problem here but the first step really is admitting it.

I am saying the problem is complex and requires some study before one can even have an informed understanding, much less have a strong opinion on it.

Does your company actually track applicants through to hiring to actually prove that women don't apply? Or is this something you just tell yourself to make y'all feel better?

If you say the most qualified get jobs, and the jobs are going to men, then the women most be less qualified. No? All I am asking is for you to back that statement up: either show women are underqualified/less motivated. The alternative is that job allocation is actually not 100% meritocratic.

Given that the Yahoos of this world have the pick of the graduate pool (and they don't just hire CS graduates) I'd say that might not be the only thing going on here.

Can you provide some evidence that the wimmin and minorities are neither motivated nor qualified?

Gosh, I wish I had years of training in multi-jurisdictional legal practice in order to be able to make such bold and sweeping statements.

I'm British. We don't subsidise as heavily as heavily as some European countries and we have much more mixed funding, but I'm still not keen on cultural subsidy. Not least because it picks winners and losers - traditional music? Screw you, here's a few million quid for opera. Broad based subsidy via tax law is one thing but throwing millions at 17th century art music sticks in my craw.

Sorry, but I really struggle with the idea that government should be in the business of funding culture. And moreover, this is about introducing new productions, not slimming down old ones.

This is not a case of dispensing with the musicians to make money, this is about staging opera in a time and place where there is no way you could afford to produce a full scale production. And it's not like the avant garde of opera isn't already neck deep in digital production anyway; the ENO has produced stuff like Sunken Garden which integrated orchestra and digital music throughout, and done it brilliantly (from a technical point of view; the show itself was dross).

Doesn't really matter whether it's a day or two weeks. It's still supply way in excess of normal demand. Yes, if they dripped them out over the course of a year or longer it would have minimal market impact but the government -rightly - doesn't want to get involved in these things. They want them off their hands, period.

Yes, but exchanges only turn over on the order of 15,000 bitcoin per day. It's very doubtful whether you could successfully put through 29,000 once word got about there was a massive seller in the marketplace.

One very important point to make is that just because we consider ourselves to be the top of the tree of life doesn't mean that that's so in any meaningful sense. This planet's amoebas are far more successful than we are by number of individuals, biomass, etc. Frankly there seems to be very little selective pressure to evolve intelligence and the fact that we did so may have been something of an outlier. Perhaps life is common but brains are not.

One of the easiest ways to make a job suck is to have rotten co-workers. And Wall Street is not where you go for job security, is it?