I'm not seeing any correlation in the data
https://imgur.com/Ooa6Etr

You realize that was debunked, right?

http://www.theverge.com/2015/1...

I mean, it's great because it fits the assumed narrative, but there's actually no evidence to back up the claim.

That doesn't apply to this Revolv thing though; I have no idea what the hell they're thinking here at all.

The Microsoft one is pretty close, so that didn't bother me. The Apple one did, because it was basically slapping me in the face with 101%. All I could think was "Sheesh, even in a gender split percentage, Apple just has to come out on top!" ;)

This is exactly what I suspected. Thanks!

Fair enough, though every time this is mentioned on the news I can't help but wonder if this wasn't standard practice for the last few Secretaries of State. Do we actually *know* this is unusual? I mean, I know the Fox anchors have an orgasm every time they can talk about this, but I'd feel better knowing that this really was unusual. I honestly have no idea, and I'm suspicious only because it wouldn't be the first time political opponents made a mountain out of a mole hill.

They offer it for free to news and human right & election monitoring websites for free. I wouldn't be surprised if down the road, anyone else could buy the service. That's where they'd make money.

I would be bummed b the wireless charging removal except that its so terrible relative to the USB-C charging. The latter has quick charge: 4 hours of life in 10 minutes, and in general, is just way, way faster to charge. Wireless is nice, but it's always super sloooooooow.

Someday there'll be QuckCharge wireless, and I'll be chomping at the bit. But with USB-C (no more mangling of ports!) I really don't care about wireless anymore.

It's the GSL -- Guideline Support Library. It's header-only, nothing to link against, and it's being kept small to make it easy for it to be cleared for use.

A fair point. Plus, one has to consider that if harming AM was their primary aim here, releasing the data is bad, but releasing a subset of the data that demonstrates that kind of male-to-female ratio is perhaps far worse (for AM). If the ratio was 10:1, they're providing a fair service and just not having much luck attracting women; look at all those scumbags who are trying to cheat on their wives! If the ratio is 8000:1 though, look at all those scumbags running the site who are cheating people out of money! If you wanted to put a nail in their coffin, this is a great way to do it -- out the men, embarrass them, give them call to sue AM. Then doubly embarrass them as chumps; surely that'll push a few fence-sitters over the edge.

It does make me wonder. The only way we could verify this is if a bunch of women who had accounts looked themselves up, didn't find themselves, and then self-reported. So we may never know either way on this.

Milkshake would have been more fun, if only for the image of an Android filled with chocolatey goodness and a pair of straws for antennae.

I think the 47% you're thinking of is sales last quarter or the North American breakdown. I remember seeing the 47% vs 46% cited, but only recently, and I remember it was not the overall figure. Worldwide, Android is sitting at something like 76.6% (it dropped 2% after the iPhone 6, and that translated into a 2% jump for Apple to 19.7%). The mobile profit numbers are inverted and wider though ;)

Beyond that, I agree with the rest of your post. I think one of the points the article was trying to make though was that standing out is difficult. Even if you make a quality app, one that most people would be willing to pay a reasonable amount, it lost in the sea of crap. Which goes back in part to your point about the knock-offs -- they're getting as much prominence as you, and they're cheaper, so why wouldn't someone try that first?

It seems clear that everyone would benefit from a system that pushed quality to the top of the search list, but so far no one has figured out a way to make that happen reliably.