I don't subscribe to the thinking that attracting more women to engineering just because they're women is somehow a self-evidently good thing, consequently I personally don't care or see it as a necessarily bad thing if the field has a (largely untrue) stereotype of being mostly a job for men.

To be honest I think that if someone can't get past some perceved stereotype and simply do enough minimal research to find out that the field they're interested in actually has opportunities regardless of the sterotype, then they already proved themselves a bad fit by demonstrating they don't have fact-based aproach to problem solving so won't be a good fit to be an engineer in the first place. Think of it as natural selection. The first round of the interview is just turning up.

Why?
Its not a problem that most women chose to do other things. Its nice to see freedom of choice in action.
Unless you can prove to me that women actually have less opportunities than men to get into STEM in the first place, this whole article is just misandry.

...so you're simply advocating for better (i.e. more misleading) advertising of the same old product?

That just seems deceptive and immoral to me, and would cause even more women to drop out as soon as they figure it out for themselves.

>> She notes that....at Princeton, the student chapter of Engineers Without Borders has an executive board that is nearly 70 percent female,

I trust that she is equally concerned about that gender bias and getting more men into that board then? No? Funny how she suddenly gives equality a hall pass when it happens to be women that dominate something.

I'm sorry but the argument that there *needs* to be more women in computing just because vagina makes no sense to me.

Why does she just blindly assume that we all see the relative low percentage of women in the field as a problem? There is already nothing inherently gender specific in the subjects that make up CS (math, AI, good algorithm design etc). Lets keep it that way.

Remember the road to equality (and freedom of choice) is to keep the opportunities equal to both genders, not make equal numbers of both genders take those opportunities. If you introduce artificial advantages that only benefit one gender, even if it is to address some perceived numerical imbalance, you're necessarily reducing ACTUAL equality.

>> So what is so wrong with making a curriculum more attractive to women?

It depends what you mean. I agree the learning environment should be gender neutral, and changes to make that happen are of course good. But you're talking about the curriculum itself, i.e. the subjects being taught. There is currently absolutely nothing in the subject matter itself that makes up Computer Science (math, logic, algorithm design, AI, etc etc) that is inherently gender-specific (unless you start considering the inherent gender-specific differences in mental skills between the average mens and womens brains and yes those differences really do exist).

By introducing gender-specific changes to completely gender-neutral subject matter you cannot help but make gender and sexual equality more of an issue not less.

Remember the road to equality is to keep the opportunities equal, not force equal numbers of both genders to take those opportunities. If you create additional artificial advantages that only benefit one gender, even if it is to address some perceived imbalance, you're just making the problem worse.

Yeah I'm not sure I believe anything the FDA says or that they put the interests of the public first.

About half of their funding and much of their upper management comes directly from the drug industry. The FDA seems to be the very definition of a fox watching the hen house.

I really tried with stevia since it at least superficially seemed to be the way to go weight-wise, but i just couldn't get used to its nasty taste. I couldn't find one use for it where even a little didn't badly screw up whatever I put it in (Tea, coffee, cooking, etc.).

I think I'm proably like a lot of (non-diabetic) Europeans in that I mentally lump aspartame, sucralose, splenda, corn syrup, saccharin, MSG and all other man-made sweeteners into the same "big money is covering these up as a direct cause of serious health issues" category, and sucrose into a "not great, but way better than anything artificial" category.

My question is: Is my paranoia scientifically justified?

>> He only wants the best for the next generation of Americans.

Ahh so thats why he's trying to directly engineer mass unemployment of home-grown US engineers, and replace them with a dependency on a 3rd world country where the academic system is a complete sham that is based on widespread cheating and the sale of degrees as standard practice?

Your paranoia of rebooting your phone several times a day is an illness. Your advocation that this is necessary is ridiculous. Your assertion that when we buy expensive products we should all adopt sheep-like acceptance of low-quality and functional issues without even complaining is just downright insulting and retarded.

No but I seriously would like to know how/why people that screw over others and make such bad decisions cen even get the chance to be CEOs, and why apparently many if not most CEOs are like that.

>> you have no idea how machine learning actually works

I acutally do, since I did AI as a final-year elective in my CS degree and machine learning was a significant part of it, Perhaps what you actually mean is that your view of what it is doesn't agree with mine. So instead of just continually being a dick and insulting my knowledge, why don't you tone it down a bit and justify your own points more specifically? actually never mind I have nothing to prove here or learn from you.

...since apparently common sense, intelligence, sensitivity and interpersonal skills are not prerequisites for being a CEO of a global company anymore.
Kinda makes me wonder what relevant skills she actually does have.

>> Pretty much any lawyer can choose to run for a post like County Attorney

Exactly. Do you REALLY think the type of people that become lawyers in the first place are also those that are naturally the least scheming and devious and most altruistic? I for one don't, yet as you say, those are the ones most well-placed to run.