Caffeine is acts as a stimulant chemical in the brain and some other tissues of the body. It can also block an inhibitory neurotransmitter (brain chemical) called adenosine. Adenosine acts on our brain to calm things down and even bring on a sleepy feeling. When we have caffeine, the brain produces more adenosine to counter the caffeine. If you feel sleepy after drinking coffee then your body is producing even more adenosine than normal. The caffeine and adenosine compete for brain receptors and the adenosine wins out. I have this same issue. I've also heard that it can be linked to mild ADHD due to the chemical imbalance which causes this reaction to caffeine.
I watched it and just checked a transcript, she doesn't say testosterone is a negative thing.
Those who are dead via saline solution can be told once they're... ummm... undead.
Few men and even fewer women are inclined to do repetitive, emotionless tasks
Editing Wikipedia or writing code should not be a repetitive, emotionless task. Wikipedia makes it such, which is one reason I don't edit it any more, but I started my own little wiki recently (wiki.world3.net, view recent changes because the front page isn't done yet) and am really enjoying adding content to it. Similarly I enjoy writing code for my own personal projects, and even at work much of the time.
There is something wrong with Wikipedia and FOSS projects that makes them unpleasant. I'd go as far as to say that Wikipedia doesn't just put off women, it puts off a lot of men who aren't willing to fight the bullshit constantly.
Men's natural thought process tends toward "this this this" whereas with women it's "me me me".
No, it's just that women are more social so prefer to see the speaker's face when listening to them. It's a broad generalization of course and there is no particular advantage or disadvantage to either method. TV generally puts the speaker on screen so the more professional the YouTube video the more likely it is to do the same, regardless of gender.
Don't try to make out this is evidence of women being selfish, because it isn't.
People usually make choices for a reason, they rarely flip a coin to determine which web sites they will use. Wikipedia is edited voluntarily, and few women are volunteering. Since there are many women working in academia it seems odd that they would not volunteer to work on Wikipedia as often as men do.
It's like saying people have a free choice between a ham sandwich and shit sandwich. It may be true that no-one compels them to choose one or the other, but that rather misses the point that one is extremely unappealing to them.
Women are the single most argumentative, must be right, cant change their minds, NEEDS AN APOLOGY EVEN WHEN PROVEN WRONG group out their.
Insightful? What the FUCK Slashdot?
This is textbook bigotry. Applying the poster's irrational prejudice to a full 50% of the population, to people he clearly doesn't understand. The misogynist trope that all women are irrational, PMSing, manipulative, childish and unhinged needs to die.
It's not even consistent. Sometimes it's all women "change their minds randomly", other times it's "can't change their minds". At least get your bullshit straight.
Imagine demanding a quotum on Pinterest
Wikipedia isn't demanding a quoter or 50:50 balance, it is simply saying that it wants to be less unappealing to women. Wikipedia is trying to remove negative aspects of itself that turn a certain section of the human race away from editing it.
No quotas, just removing barriers to participation.
The argument isn't that men and women are the same, it's that women seem to like other user-generated-content web sites but for some reason not Wikipedia. Perhaps there is a perfectly good reason why that is, but so far no-one has been able to find it. What we do know is that women say the atmosphere of Wikipedia and the way it is organized and edited puts them off.
I think we have to go with the available evidence.
Ars Technica confirms your story is bullshit: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/...
"The tide of abuse first surged over Zoe Quinn, creator of the game Depression Quest, who got a deluge of negative attention, abuse, threats, and harassment over a blog post written about her by an ex-boyfriend that was published August 16. The post, composed of narcissistic analysis mixed in with screenshots of several online conversations, exposed many personal details about Quinn irrelevant to her profession or professional conduct.
Details from the post were quickly spun into a conspiracy. Based on the lone fact of Quinn's relationship with one Kotaku writer, Nathan Grayson, who quoted her once in an article and never covered or reviewed her game, rumors circulated that Quinn had "alleged affairs with video game journalists" which influenced coverage of her game. There is no evidence to support this assertion, and the only fact that it's based onâ"that Quinn began a relationship with Grayson some time after he quoted her in an article and never published anything about her againâ"disproves it. The other two people named in the post are a sound designer and Quinn's boss, who do not work in gaming journalism."
Mod parent down.
Berlin 1945 == Moscow 2020
Not really. Germany was screwed by the victors after the first world war. Crippling reparations made life impossible there, and the people became angry and resentful. The Nazis used that to their advantage. Russians today on the other hand have a relatively good standard of living and the problems there are no-where near as bad as Germany was. The Ukraine is one specific issue where clearly a lot of people living there want to be part of Russia.
I find it ironic how some western countries, particularly the US and UK, are saying pretty much what Russia was saying when they invaded various countries in the name of protecting the population and democracy. Like we did Russia is saying they want to see meaningful dialogue and negotiation for those parts of Ukraine that want to be independent or part of Russia, i.e. respect for their democratic will. Like Russia did we are now accusing the "invaders" of having all kinds of ulterior motives and bring on the brink of starting a major war.
WW2 is not a good example of appeasement failing. By the time it started it was already too late. The lesson is not to screw up other countries in the first place, and when you do appease them at the earliest opportunity by fixing it instead of letting the anger build up until it explodes.