I worked for years in a similar field(male dominated), derivatives trading at a bank. I never understood why women wouldn't/couldn't measure up and the floors are really male dominated on the trading side. In my time at the bank, I knew only 2 senior female trader and a handful of junior ones.

when I started taking over our summer intern training and development, I started to notice a big gap. I'm ultra aggressive and it turns out my style of training attracted and resonated with men in out summer intern group. But the women really shined when I put someone less aggressive in front (women or not) and when I told stories of the successful women on the desk (and embellished their willingness to tell their male colleagues to go fuck off) suddenly the women felt more natural coming out of their shell.

Looking back, I realize it wasn't about big changes that upend a culture. It is the small changes that on every side that slightly modify impressions and radically equalize outcomes. Sometimes, a little white lie is the best thing you can do to help people.

because he missed the fact that back in 1984 almost 40% of comp sci majors were women. Let's say there is some small statistical difference, history tells us it won't be 75/25 but much closer to 45/55 (because in 1984 there were still large barriers to women in many colleges).

you mean where disney is legally required to sue the daycares if it wants to keep its trademarks valid against actual encroachment, because people could legitimately argue "you let that profit making company knowingly use your trademark for 0 dollars, so charging us more would be illegal"?

yeah, take issue with trademark law and the fact you HAVE to fight once it comes to your attention else you devalue your trademark in all future legit negotiations. You seem to think disney likes being forced to employ expensive lawyers to send out the equivalent of take down notices for this stuff.

midget smart phone users of the world now finally have a solution to their screen break problems.

then rest of us, not so much...

no, no it's not.

we know the standard American diet is horrid. But really I can show you large cultures that engage in high carb, low fat, modest protein intake, hundreds of millions of people, who live long, healthy, active lives. I can also show you high carb and fat, with only modest protein intake countries as well.

The one thing long lived groups seem to have in common is low overall calorie intake. That's about it.

But if low carbs work for you, your genetics, and your lifestyle more power to you. But thinking it is the be all, end all, of dietary advice is just shortsighted (or willfully ignorant).

this study says NOTHING about heart disease. it says something about markers that roughly correlate with heart disease, but are in no way common to all heart disease patients (hospital data shows at least half of all heart attacks are of people with normal cholesterol levels).

You would need to follow this group in a randomized trial for DECADES to find out anything about heart disease.

this I've seen in action. my friends into iron man workouts did great on a super low carb diet.

I tried it as they claimed "I have more than enough energy" but I power lift. My number collapsed and after a month, gave it up. You CANNOT get anywhere near 100% without a decent carb intake. Anything under 100 grams and my ability to get through a hard workout drops dramatically. Several other lifters trying to learn to lift big have noted exactly the same thing.

On the other hand, when I was doing primarily long distance biking, basically any diet that got me XX calories worked great. Whether fat or sugar, or multiple beers, my body didn't care. It just needed fuel to get me through the next 70-100 miles.

it is amazing to me how SURE everyone is that carbs are bad for you.

carbs are, traditionally, the bedrock of human consumption. Hell, we look at the start of society by farming of a carbohydrate source. And frankly, some of the longest living countries have diets where carbs form the backbone of caloric intake. There may be a huge issue with constantly spiking your blood sugar with sweets (i.e. the american way), but just a little thought would show you how ridiculous it is to claim that carbs are the grim reaper.

Example, Japan. Diets here (I live there so will speak where I have direct experience) are extremely carb heavy. In fact, rice forms the backbone of your ENTIRE DAY. Literally every meal has rice as a central part of your caloric intake. Meats, on the other hand, even fish, are not as common. And very few foods outside of restaurants are high fat. Other places, like Italy, have a high carb, high fat diet.

What do most of the long lived countries have in common? their total calorie intake is low! The one thing that has never had any question mark: caloric restriction is the best indicator for long life. Not carbs, not fats, not saturated fats, not any of those. Just eat less. And it will lower all you blood markers simultaneously. Or, if you want, work out a hell of a lot (not this 3 hour a week BS, I am talking 10-15 hours a week of intense exercise). Then you can basically eat anything and your markers will be amazing.

else, you have to find the diet that works for your genetics. For some, that will be low carb. or some, that will be low fat.

no it doesn't. It isn't a question of nature vs nurture except for people who wear blinders. In almost all mammals, and all apes, males are far more aggressive.

In case you didn't know, aggression is strongly linked to testosterone levels. There are some women who have testosterone levels that could begin to compare to the average male, but that is no where even close to the average. There are good actual academic studies of this.

it isn't a historical quirk, it is biological, and generally males are more aggressive in almost all mammals, except when protecting children.

completely OT:

folks are trying.... it's very cumbersome

the problem isn't when rich people buy big cars to flaunt status. Frankly, If you are rich, there isn't much of a difference in the gas mileage you get out of a Viper vs an Escalade. The problem in general is when everyone else can afford to buy big cars and run them. There is a general culture of buying big cars in the US, and while the gas price spikes in 2006-2008 and the recession have stunted that, there is an argument for not going back to where we were, both from a traffic safety standpoint and energy efficiency standpoint. I don't worry about general consumption trends when Hummers and Escalades have higher sales. Who cares, there aren't enough to matter. I care when the F-150 starts setting new sales records because almost everyone can afford one.

And of course, the point was that because prices are falling so fast right now, a small increase in prices due to a raised tax will be hardly noticed. Not very many people say "Gas only fell by 30 cents a gallon instead of 36 cents a gallon, I'm being ripped off!". And that is definitely right. It's not about raising prices to curb consumption, but specifically to take this opportunity to address a real tax shortfall when people will not be explicitly hurt by it.

huh, I just started reading up on this but only ONE twitter account made those threatening comments, it was not obviously any particular person, and could have been someone trolling as much as anything else.
you can't then, with a straight face, say it is 1000 or even 2 people doing this.

Hell, for all we know, it could be a cynical method of getting people to feel sorry for you and therefore, side with you. who knows? It seems to have worked quite well actually, as now a lot of folks make out like everyone on the other side has said things like this.

question, have you seen the agreements? I ask because I wonder if a press group can say they are bound by an embargo from releasing the review of the game until XX:YY time. That to me is what is needed. If press were honest that the reason no review has come out is because of an embargo, people could understand.

Then again, I have never bought a game day one, so maybe there are factors I am missing in why people buy the moment it is released with no reviews out and then get pissed out no reviewer warned them (which they obviously weren't waiting for anyways....)

you have to stop looking at it like that. there are two possibilities. either the blackout is set 17 hours after release, or the publisher gets a copy at release and tries to put something out as fast as possible, possibly without having played the game very thoroughly.

it wasn't like the publishers had a choice, though going forward, they should say well in advance of a game release that there is an imposed blackout until after release. really that is all that is required now that the general community knows what a blackout is.

It's like with financial market data actually. People like bloomberg get all the data a bit early (which is HUGE) so that it can be disseminated electronically through multiple sources at the release time. The flip side of the risk of insider trading and the government usually does a pretty good job of enforcing the blackout.