Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Frameworks (Score 2, Insightful) 169

by Intrepid imaginaut (#48676605) Attached to: MIT Unifies Web Development In Single, Speedy New Language

I really hate using frameworks. They're fine as long as you use them for their limited purpose-set, but step outside the walled garden and your delving into a wilderness of minified spaghetti coded black boxyness whipped together over a weekend by people who weren't really interested or most likely able to envision different requirements.

And yes I include JQuery in this. Just learn friggin javascript already, it's not that hard.

Comment: Re:What gender gap? (Score 1) 216

by Intrepid imaginaut (#48672427) Attached to: Tech's Gender Gap Started At Stanford

Oh indeed it is shaming language, one of the few two bit tricks that lackbrained and heavily indoctrinated meat puppet social justice warriors use to try and win arguments. It usually comes accompanied by critical theory attacks, which are not to be confused with critical thought, indeed they are the exact opposite of critical thought.

So, let's "deconstruct" this as you chimanpzees are wont to say.

A real man has a cock and two nuts. That's all it takes to be a real man. Nobody cares what you think a real man is. Nobody.

This site isn't and never has been a place where women are generally considered inferior. Only a dribbling zealot incapable of reading and comprehending the words before them could possibly believe that to be the case. Said zealot then falls back on social justice parlour trick number three: hyperbole the shit out of everything. Someone has an objection to gender based quotas, they're obviously wifebeating rapists. Someone points out that the "pay gap" is based on age and experience instead of gender, they're clearly whiney little boys who need to grow up.

Here's my advice, take two steps back and get fucked, you tantrum throwing little poster child for the wee man syndrome.

If you actually cared about your "daughters, nieces etc" you wouldn't be parroting feminist talking points like an idiot, you'd be teaching them to take responsibility for themselves and to succeed on their own merits. If you weren't so busy seeing muh soggy knees and rapists everywhere, you'd recognise that teaching women to be paranoid neurotics is doing them less of a favour than the Salem witch trials did for the moral fibre of the locality.

There's really not much to it.

Comment: Re:What gender gap? (Score 2) 216

by Intrepid imaginaut (#48666385) Attached to: Tech's Gender Gap Started At Stanford

Feminist/progressivist position: The reason behind this overrepresentation is a complex system of biases (consider all the studies that have shown that people whose names, listed, on resumes, sound white and male, are more likely to get called in for interviews), historical factors (such as unequal education opportunities), and cultural factors (for example, unequal participation can form a positive feedback loop because being the odd person out, especially in a very visible way, can be off-putting). Then, of course, there really is a lot of overt misogyny, as five minutes on Reddit can prove not merely beyond doubt, but also beyond hope. All of these things (or rather, the gender-related rather than race-related parts) are what feminists are referring to when they use the term "patriarchy". In my opinion that's a poorly chosen term, implying something less nebulous, more focused, intentional, and planned than is the case; but there you are -- the feminist movement isn't perfect either.

("Privilege" is another term that leads to endless misunderstanding, since it gets thrown around in a manner that can sound pretty accusatory, but that again misses the point. The observation that certain people benefit from certain injustices is not the same as blaming them for those injustices. Maybe you went to Harvard on the family fortune your great-grandfather made by exploiting slave labour, and are therefore better educated than the black guy across town whose great-grandfather was one of those slaves. You hold no moral responsibility for slavery, but your superior employment prospects are still the product not of disinterested meritocracy, but the outcome of slavery.)

Of course what exposes feminists and quite often progressives as the naked bigots dressed up in flowery language they are, is that they've nothing to say about fields where women are overrepresented, or their underrepresentation in unpleasant jobs like garbage collection.

It's always a matter of great amusement to hear these often very privileged white women and men talking about how they're part of a civil rights movement when the actual civil rights movement was sparked off by a false rape allegation.

Comment: Re:Are you kidding me? (Score 1) 216

by Intrepid imaginaut (#48666317) Attached to: Tech's Gender Gap Started At Stanford

What are you babbling about now, there isn't some great god of success sitting there handing out career advancements based on people's personalities in silicon valley. The world as viewed through a feminist lens appears indistinguishable from a world viewed through the eyes of a primitive witchdoctor.

Comment: Re:Clickbaiting Bullshit Works (Score 4, Insightful) 216

by Intrepid imaginaut (#48666287) Attached to: Tech's Gender Gap Started At Stanford

The point is that it shouldn't be a choice between kids or career.

Yeah the choice is kids or career without much water between the two. If you don't like that resign yourself to having your children raised by strangers and hired help, which for most isn't acceptable. Raising children takes time and effort, something that the convenience of white goods and reduced physical requirements in the workforce hasn't changed.

What we're seeing now is a lot of women who went into the workforce and discovered that they were going to be neither wealthy nor successful, just like 99% of men in the workforce. Instead they're going to have a middle class lifestyle that they'd probably have been able to enjoy anyway plus a family had they chosen to raise kids instead. Is it any wonder womens' happiness has been decreasing.

That's not to say that men shouldn't be househusbands except it seems women aren't very attracted by that. Patriarchy, right?

I think first of all that the religion of feminism needs to die loudly and publicly along with every other social engineering cult, and secondly that people need to learn to differentiate between "a career" and "financial independence". These aren't the same thing.

And do not mistake me for a conservative or a traditionalist, I am neither.

Comment: Re:Risk = Reward (Score 1) 216

by Intrepid imaginaut (#48666179) Attached to: Tech's Gender Gap Started At Stanford

Just on a point of order, women have worked outside the home as long as men have worked. The only "liberating" that was done involved fewer requirements for physical strength in order to work and the mass production of white goods, reducing the effort involved in housework to a couple of hours a day.

Comment: Re:Who wants to live forever? (Score 1) 439

by Intrepid imaginaut (#48657619) Attached to: How Venture Capitalist Peter Thiel Plans To Live 120 Years

The sooner you pop off the better, it's poisonous little shits like you that make humanity look bad tbh. Age brings experience and knowledge of the mistakes that were made by others, mistakes like believing whatever the nearest demagogue is trying to sell. This is knowledge that must be passed on to young people so they don't end up making the same mistakes.

Comment: a progressive new group (Score 3, Insightful) 323

by Intrepid imaginaut (#48652485) Attached to: Putting Time Out In Time Out: The Science of Discipline

Oh look, here come the same "social engineers" that brought us soaring male suicide rates and burgeoning single motherhood with it's associated social outcomes, except this time they want to get their clammy hands on the children. They even use the same postmodernistic deconstructivist language as every likeminded gang of merry marxists.

Stop trying to redefine things through ideological lenses you muppets, science doesn't work that way even if you do manage to convince the gullible that it does for a while.

Comment: Re:It's hard to take this article seriously (Score 0) 622

by Intrepid imaginaut (#48642493) Attached to: What Happens To Society When Robots Replace Workers?

If those companies are run by people who are happy to deliver worse service as long as they can pay fewer people.

Before you start smashing any looms there Neddy Ludd, the purpose of automation is to deliver equivalent or better service for a lower cost. Automation doesn't mean lower quality, usually it means the exact opposite.

Mathemeticians stand on each other's shoulders while computer scientists stand on each other's toes. -- Richard Hamming