No one said there are not personality differences. The assertion was that women are neither "on average" better team players, nor better employees in general, in the context of tech jobs. Pointing out there are "personality differences on average" does not counter the argument.

Have you worked with women? Women are no more team players than men. I've observed women back-stab, gossip, manipulate, ostracize, and generally destroy team dynamics plenty of times (and I've seen men do it too). There are a lot of features which contribute to who would be best for a job. Gender, race, biological sex, none of it is relevant to a job in the tech world. By saying "I'd hire a woman over you" because "she's more likely to be a team player" you are either being inflammatory, or your boss needs to reevaluate your own position as a "boss".

Gun ownership falls perfectly in line with liberal, progressive, and socialist philosophy. I encourage you to present axioms required by any of those positions which also require gun ownership be restricted. Democrats in the USA have made it their cause to restrict gun ownership. That group is neither liberal, progressive, nor socialist. They are blatantly conservative.

Conservatives prefer to restrict gun ownership because conservative interests are the interests of the existing power base (the wealthy, political elite, etc.) and because an armed population is a threat to existing power bases. That republican politicians cry foul is theater.

Maybe they are trying to make it obvious that they have been coerced into cooperating with the NSA using the only language they can legally apply?

You're just listing events which occur in greater frequency toward women as proof that violence is more frequently directed at women. You haven't supplied any more data than the interlocutor you accuse of presenting a baseless argument.

Because they aren't depicted as sex objects in most other contexts in society? Geeks aren't special here.

www.openremote.com

Amazon is grabbing publishers share of the profits? Why do we care? Publishers are just middlemen leaches. They used to add value because publishing used to be expensive. Now people could easily publish their own given a marketplace which wasn't controlled by publishers (like... amazon?).

Amazon might drive the publishers out of business, or cut into their profits? Good.

It isn't because you think cops are fabricating evidence that you shouldn't speak to them. Cops have been trained that if they can construe your language as damning then it is damning. They mostly honestly believe that if they can get you to trip in word games then they have discovered something. They are mostly not attempting to "fabricate" evidence.

By talking to them, you are very likely to give them evidence which could be used against you. The odds that you are competent enough with language to throw cops "off your scent" by speaking to them are infinitesimally small. If you are the kind of person who picks their actions based on the best probable outcome, you don't speak to them. If you are the person who buys California Lottery tickets, then maybe you roll the dice with trying to present yourself flawlessly in a stressful situation when in all likelihood you don't even know what qualifies as a flawless presentation in the eyes of the police you are speaking to.

I guess you don't mean to say that you can't imagine Steve Jobs outsourcing all their manufacturing to China... since that is what they did and continue to do.

Apple dodges billions in tax they rightfully owe the USA. They manufacture everything oversees. They were even using sweatshops until they got called out on it. All of this was done under Steve Jobs. He caused untold damage to US society by following contemporary big business norms to the letter.

The problem with assuming something is obvious when your interlocutor points out it isn't is that when you are wrong and/or ignorant, you don't discover it. You are experiencing that in this situation.

Even with the bandwidth offered by comcast/tw, one user streaming video does not tax the bandwidth that user is paying for. It might seem like it does, but only because it is being actively throttled by the ISP. The amount of bandwidth provided by a google fiber connection is over one order of magnitude greater than the bandwidth being offered by comcast/tw. You are correct that users doing more things requires more bandwidth. You are *greatly* underestimating the amount of bandwidth which is actually available. Given the amount of bandwidth provided by google, every user could simultaneously stream 10 high quality videos and have plenty of bandwidth remaining.

An analogy with a comcast connection would be having a router in your house letting two people browse the internet at once. Does this double the amount of bandwidth used? Yes. Is the amount of bandwidth used still trivial? Yes. Does this doubling of bandwidth use require comcast upgrade their infrastructure? No, because it was expected and accounted for in the initial deployment of said infrastructure.

If you use gmail and google search then you are splitting some pretty fine hairs. Ya they would have a more complete picture if they were your isp but... they know a whole hell of a lot without that (which you are willingly providing). I'd argue they already know the most sensitive information.

If the police become suspicious of you because you aren't giving them evidence... it doesn't matter. You haven't given them any evidence.

Dogs aren't wolves. A wolf will kill you if it thinks it can and it's hungry. Very few dogs are dangerous. Further, dogs kept in tiny cages and never allowed to leave probably wouldn't actually live longer than their wild counterparts, though I'm speculating.

Nonetheless, I agree with your point that confinement is probably much more damaging to a water breathing animal than it is to an air breathing animal.

What about the current situation is bubble like? The wages of engineers? Certainly not. The fact that companies are being purchased? That has been the silicon valley model for decades; avoid the R&D costs for your large company by doing hardly any R&D and instead purchase whatever tech you think you need from the near-infinite number of startups clamoring for a payoff.

Are housing prices in a bubble? If so, that isn't exactly tech, and I don't think anyone could point to anything like this except maybe in San Francisco and Austin. Even so, the reason prices in those areas are high is due more to foreign investment than it is to geeks.

If any economic categorizations other than "normal" are appropriate than they are "depression" or "recession" rather than "bubble". I haven't perceived any significant change since 2008. Companies remain stingy. Unwilling to train. Unwilling to pay for the talent they need. Commonly using outsourced labor (which blows up in their face almost without fail). We work in an industry with extensive collusion among the major employers not to compete for employees (yes, this is still happening) and where no one is willing to form a union.

By what metric are we experiencing a bubble? Do we mean a negative bubble?