She was shut down in the middle of the AMA - In the middle of a fucking sentence, FCOL - see here. I kinda doubt it had anything to do with her job performance.

GG wanted ethics in gaming - when they got it they shut up. That's about all that's needed to show that they didn't give a flying tootsie roll about women in gaming.

Try weeks. Months, in the case of some (studios, apparently - they didn't want to alienate 90% of their purchasers). Lots of money was lost that was never made back. The media has since so spectacularly backed down from that "gamers are dead" message that none of them want to go near it again. They updated their policies, clarified their affiliate links, etc.

Looks to me and the rest of the world that GG's stated objectives were achieved. After all, that's what GG asked for. They got it. The media won't touch that message again. It doesn't matter how much was or wasn't spent on diversity, that wasn't GG's bone of contention. What GG complained about was fixed, hence there is no reason anymore for a GG movement to complain.

They're too damn afraid to write another "gamers are dead" article. GG got exactly what they asked for - "stop fucking with gamers!" - so why should the movement do anything more. That, by the way, is the rational response - when you get what you asked for you shut the hell up.

If those gaming-media-industry-experts really think they've come out on top all they have to do is write another "gamers are dead" article. Hell, you still see it now - when the creationists come out of the woodwork with "SEXISM" you see plenty of response along the lines of "do you have any evidence?"

That's rich. You *do* realise that the woman being fired is being fired because, ironically, she lets too much free speech stay up. You're actually sitting at a desk somewhere pouring outrage into your keyboard because someone, somewhere, refuses to follow your ideologically-determined morals.

You (and the rest) have more in common with the Westboro Baptists than with Voltaire. BTW, this is not something you should be proud of.

(PS. You weren't the only one around in the days of BBS's and dialup from C64's - I don't seem to remember anyone preaching their morals to me, the way you and your ilk use your fredom of speech to preach your morals to everyone else).

Yes. From your link - " he had spent much of his life battling alcoholism, drug abuse and depression". So, yeah, he may have been depressed and poor when he died, but he was battling depression all along even when he was worth 75 million pounds. There were many times in his life when he was both rich and depressed.

I was perhaps not being clear; let me retry: "After a few months of stay-at-home I was looking forward to working fewer hours each week, because even 60 hours incl. overtime a week is still less than staying at home with a small child."

FWIW, I'm a firm believer that I top out at 40 hours/week, and would very very rarely work extra hours.

Good luck coming up with an AI that can understand nuances of human culture when they're having trouble distinguishing between humans, seals and gorillas. You're literally asking the impossible here - that the algorithm be sufficiently advanced no the first go.

He is trying to get her to do something she (apparently) doesn't want to do - "she is just not very passionate about coding or IT in general", but because that "something" aligns with your ideological and political interests you whine about abuse. What *is* borderline abusive is the fact that he is probably going to get her to do something she doesn't appear to have an interest in doing.

If you want your messages to be logically consistent with themselves you should rather be pointing out that artificially limiting her choices is sexist. You won't though. Your ideology is more important to you than fairness to women.

If people stop having kids, have fewer kids, etc, then you must also expect to have no healthcare, no food and no life. The ones having kids today are ensuring that you'll have a doctor on call when you are older.

I've spent time at home with my kid when he was born. To be perfectly honest if she was in any way at all attending to the kid, cleaning/cooking as well as making sure that the child was properly stimulated, carefully watched, reasonably socialised, etc then she'd be dying to get back to work. The fact that she isn't so passionate about leaving the house say's that she was probably getting a lot of "me time' in those three years.

Hell, after a few months of stay-at-home, I was looking forward to working only 60-hour weeks. The fact that she appears to be wary of 40-hour weeks tells me that she is/was/ working significantly fewer hours than those as a stay-at-home mom. OP should clarify.

Wrong. You'll get screwed even worse if you're having a kid outside of marriage.

You don't want kids? Just as bad - you'll be considered married in CoP if you simply live with her for a long time[1]

Marriage with iron-clad prenup and no kids is currently the least screwed-over option for men. Take it.

[1]Length depends on jurisdiction

Robin Williams was in the upper 99.99999% of individuals in terms of financial well-being. He still got depressed.

I suspect that the death penalty is different from incarceration however - in that I truly believe it doesn't have much deterrent effect at all.
In areas where you have gang violence and the like - why be scared of execution your chances of being killed is so high to begin with that if anything sitting on death row increases your life expectancy.
For the suburb case there are basically three common motives for murder.
Crimes of passion: by definition these cannot be deterred, a crime of passion is an emotional act done in the moment, it doesn't include any rational thought - if it had, it wouldn't be a crime of passion, so since there is no rational consideration, there is no deterrence for it.
Crimes of insanity: again, a crazy person isn't thinking rationally, since their acts are not rationally considered, no rational consideration can deter them.
Crimes of greed: the guy who murders out of greed did make a rational decision - but he also believes he will get away with it (nobody murders out of greed if he expects to get caught) - so the punishment isn't a deterrent as he strongly expects never to experience it.

It's unlikely the death penalty has any deterrent effect whatsoever. I'm still not sure incarceration does - though like I said in the original post, it obviously reduces your odds of committing the crime again if only by making it impossible for a while.
Comparing crime rates across countries is never a very useful comparison (just look at every gun control debate) as there are simply too many factors (socio-economic, environmental etc.) which influence crime rates but are not being factored in for, but a more useful comparison is to look at countries where the death penalty was banned - and see how crime rates before and after compared.
The answer in every country I know about is - immediately before and after they were the same, over the longer term crime rates declined, but only by the same rate they were declining before.
So the conclusion appears to be that banning the death penalty had no impact whatsoever on crime rates anywhere it's been done.

Interestingly - here in South Africa the death penalty was banned in 1994. At the time South Africa had the highest crime rate in the world (a murder every 17 seconds). It declined rapidly over the next few years, but this is likely because so much of that crime was political in nature and the politcal environment had changed. Since 2000 there has been a steady decline (while the crime rate is still unacceptably high we are nowhere near the top of the list anymore) - yet calls to reinstate the death penalty remain incredibly popular among the population, one of the few things South Africans of all races actually agree on.
Personally I'm opposed to it, but I find it interesting that it's such a popular concept despite the fact that it very obviously had no impact on crime rates at all - yet it's deterrent effect is the most commonly cited reason for bringing it back. Which proves, I suppose, that what we consider "common sense" will trump facts and evidence every time.

If that is the methodology then indeed it would be the lowest - since they have the longest sentences, and so the the biggest gap where you can't repeat the crime, also that long gap in it must reduce the risk of going back to it (if only because it breaks your networks).

I strongly suspect that if you count "number of times the crime was likely committed before you were caught the first time" that for rape it is near the top - the rate of rapes occurring versus the amount of actual rapists suggest this almost has to be the case.

Murder is interesting as it's usually a very high profile crime with a lot of media attention - so police tend to have a lot of motivation to get the guy, this may reduce the number of times you can get away with it before you are caught. But even then it varies by who the victim is.
The likelihood of getting away with killing a white girl is simply much lower than if you kill a black man - society just cares less in the latter case, and so the police does as well.