I think the survey was 1. Male 2. Female 3. Do not want to disclose. 90-94% said they were male, and of the remaining 6-10%, half said they were female. The other half preferred not to say. But that does mean between 3-5% actually did identify as female.
If that is so, then it is incorrect to infer the sex of those who preferred not to disclose it.
The 90/10 number is male:not-male, so the number is accurate as far as the reporting goes. But considering it's no big secret that many women check the "male" box (to keep the Nice Shoes Brigade away), so I'm skeptical that that 90% is actually 90% in reality.
It isn't about getting a 50/50 balance of male/female competitors. It is about women who say they want to compete but are put off by the attitude of other competitors towards them due to their gender.
Except that's *not* what the articles say - one is just rehashing the other, which is simply a "hey, we threw a survey and this is what we got back". Which not only is self-reporting bias, but it's not even talking to the same question. All it says is that on this *one* event from this *one* site, they had a 90/10 split. Which doesn't check for such things as "what's the usual demographic for your site", "what's the demographics on other comparable sites", or "what's the demographics on sites that have more than 200 people", or "how many women checked the 'male' box because they didn't trust the survey-takers"
That's before we get to the elephant - are we talking about skewed numbers in viewership (which is what TFA is), or skewed numbers in participation? It's entirely possible for the participation to be skewed one direction while the audience is skewed in another.
But most importantly, that article makes a bigger case for racial discrimination, simply by which interviews they picked. And I'd love to hear how anyone is going to fix that, short of requiring token minorities in all groups so that interested parties have someone who look like them in the room. (Which frankly strikes me as far more insulting that simply being the first one through the door.)
To be absolutely clear it isn't about getting a 50/50 ratio. That's just something trolls use to discredit attempts to remove barriers in the way of women who do want to take part. Same with jobs, it isn't about an equal number, it is about women saying they want to do those jobs but are put off by various things.
I'll bite - if 50/50 (or the close-enough number that represents actual demographcs) isn't the goal, then what *is* the acceptable ratio?
Also: I'd love to know why we're complaining about e-sports, but not any of the other long-standing professional sports that don't accept women. Where are the female MLB players, for instance? We had one woman in the NHL, but where are the rest?
Is there any sort of moral imperative that women must consist of 50% of all occupations? Even the niche dumb ones?
Here is a US page showing high concentration *female* jobs. Where's the cries for more men in teaching and nursing?
Now, show me women who are trying to get into e-sports and can't, and then we can talk.
If you have a boss that measures productivity solely by "what hours they're at the office" instead of "what was accomplished", then the guy who makes sure his punches are accurate is meeting the productivity goals as defined. If the boss defined the goals incorrectly, that's management's problem.
A job pays what the product of the job is worth. No more.
Bull. A job pays the minimum an employer can get away with paying. Whether that minimum is set by market conditions, greed, or their moral compass, no-one pays more than they think they "should". That's why there's a minimum wage.
If you raise the minimum wage to above what the job's productivity is worth, the job's wage doesn't magically increase. The job simply ceases to exist. All those no-skill jobs kids in high school get to make some spending cash? Gone. All those entry-level jobs for people who learned a lot of book knowledge but don't yet have practical experience? Gone. All those unskilled assembly line jobs? Exported to third world countries or replaced by robots.
Again, bull. There's never going to be a lack of demand for food-servers and store clerks. And those are jobs that don't export easily. What we're already seeing happen is the opposite - employers pushing for "temporary foreign workers", importing folks who *will* work for those cheap-ass rates and can be deported at the first sign of trouble.
I'm sure there are lots of low-wage jobs where employers aren't paying what the job is actually worth. But don't be so blinded by your zeal to curtail those abuses that you demolish a large fraction of the functional economy in the process. The taxpayers aren't just subsidizing certain employers' payroll. They're also subsidizing the inability or unwillingness of certain employees to find/work a more productive job. This is why funding and providing educational opportunities (both for children and adults) is a much better approach to solving this than raising the minimum wage. True economic growth comes from increasing each individual's productivity. The goal should be to allow people to move from less productive jobs to more productive jobs; not shifting money from more productive jobs to less productive jobs to make those less productive jobs more appealing.
if (trafficSource != VerzionOnDemand && trafficSource != Netflix) {
degradePerformance();
}
*obviously it's more complicated than the pseudo code above
Probably not that more complicated, though - when you consider that my cable company already offers me a choice of *nine* different plans, ranging from 10-250 Mbps down, and 512Kbps - 15Mbps up, it's pretty clear that I'm already being throttled. It'd be pretty trivial (to the point that I would be amazed if they weren't doing it already) to add a bit of code that ups the speed to their Favored Partners.
I miss the good old days, where companies had to compete on speed (I remember dial-ups hyping that all their lines were 56K!)
To the GP - think of it this way: the boss is *saying* you make $X per year, and then gives you 10% as a bonus at the end of the year as a "good job".
The boss was *actually* always planning to hand out that 10% - they budget it as salary (effectively). They just make a big production out of giving it to you to make you feel special. (Or alternately, if they need to spruce up their margins in December, they can "have a bad year" and cut back that number).
Of course everybody wants more money. The point is -- and this is what important for employer -- are you willing to work harder for it?
More honest point - can your employer get someone else to do it for cheaper? Or can they get *you* to do it for cheaper.
The only truth I've seen from that statement is that generally people don't jump ship just for money. Something *else* gets their back up, they start looking around, and then they find out that they could make better money elsewhere. But if I had a dollar for every time a co-worker stopped by for lunch and said their new job was "better hours, better pay, and less bullshit", I wouldn't need to work either.
> Releasing something under GPL says "I did it for free, and you can use it and tweak it, but you can't make money off my work." Exact citation from the GPL required. (But not expected, as you pulled that out of your arse.) I've worked for half a dozen companies that have made money selling work done under the GPL.
It was my understanding of the difference between GPL and BSD. (So, about as much as an asspull as everyone else's paraphrasing). And I had forgotten that you can charge people to maintain/build GPL code (as long as you hand over source). So yeah, my bad.
The GPL argument is that anyone who produces a derivative work must contribute back to the project, and thus the GPL generates more contributors.
The BSD argument is that there will always be people who create a non-free option, and if that is done by extending open-source the community may get some, if not all benefit from them.
That's a bit leading. How about this?
Releasing something under BSD says "I did it for free, and if you take it and tweak it and make a bazillion dollars, I don't care."
Releasing something under GPL says "I did it for free, and you can use it and tweak it, but you can't make money off my work."
It's a complete lie to say that Apple store TOS prohibits releasing software that is GPL. The only hostility here is from RMS and his accolytes. Thay are the ones who want it to be impossible to have GPL on the App Store. Explicitly so.
RMS doesn't really have a choice, though - the App Store is blatantly *not* compatible with GPL. Apple says "thou shalt only do this and that and nothing else", which rams straight into Section 6 of GPL2. So it's the same "take this code and lock it down", except with "on an app store" at the end.
Does it suck? Sure. Is it what happens when open source and walled garden collide? Yup. But neither GPL nor Apple have any reason to compromise their respective values on this.
He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion
