Now compare that to Netflix.
Which of these is more likely to produce shows that lots of people want to watch?
So if there were outside factors that biologically predisposed men and women towards different career paths or interests would you accept that those might result in something other than an even distribution of employment in certain vocations?
This doesn't make sense. The differences are either innate (biological) or the result of external factors. If they're the result of external factors (i.e. not biological) then they're likely to be amenable to change. The fact that the participation of women varies hugely between cultures (for example, in India, Korea, Israel, Iran, and Lithuania, Romania, it's a lot higher) implies strongly that external factors are far more of a reason why we have so few women than anything biological.
Outside factors are not an issue.
If every role model of a programmer you see until you're a teenager is male.
If computer programmer Barbie involves the girl doing some design, but the actual coding being done by boys.
If every children's TV show that includes both women and computers has the woman saying computers are hard and the man solving the problems.
If all of the clever boys at your school are encouraged into extracurricular activities involving computers, but the girls aren't.
I'm sure it would have no impact at all on you.
If you don't think that this is real, then sit down for a couple of hours this evening and watch two hours of children's TV. Count the number of male vs female lead roles. Count the number of times anyone builds anything and whether it's done by a male or female character.
I have two major beefs with IPV6. The first is that the end-point 2^48 switch address space wasn't well thought-through. Hey, wouldn't it be great if we didn't have to use NAT and give all of those IOT devices their own IPV6 address? Well... no actually, NAT does a pretty good job of obscuring the internal topology of the end-point network. Just having a statefull firewall and no NAT exposes the internal topology. Not such a good idea.
The second is that all the discovery protocols were left unencrypted and made complex enough to virtually guarantee a plethora of possible exploits. Some have been discovered and fixed, I guarantee there are many more in the wings. IPV4 security is a well known problem with well known solutions. IPV6 security is a different beast entirely.
Other problems including the excessively flexible protocol layering allowing for all sorts of encapsulation tricks (some of which have already been demonstrated), pasting on a 'mandatory' IPSEC without integration with a mandatory secure validation framework (making it worthless w/regards to generic applications being able to assert a packet-level secure connection), assumptions that the address space would be too big to scan (yah right... the hackers didn't get that memo my tcpdump tells me), not making use of MAC-layer features that would have improved local LAN security, if only a little. Also idiotically and arbitrarily blocking off a switch subspace, eating 48 bits for no good reason and trying to disallow routing within that space (which will soon have to be changed considering that number of people who want to have stateful *routers* to break up their sub-48-bit traffic and who have no desire whatsoever to treat those 48 bits as one big switched sub-space).
The list goes on. But now we are saddled with this pile, so we have to deal with it.
IPV6 actually makes things worse.
There is no flood defense possible for most businesses at the tail-end of the pipe. When an attacker pushes a terrabit/s at you and at all the routers in the path leading to you as well as other leafs that terminate at those routers, from 3 million different IP addresses from compromised IOT devices, your internet pipes are dead, no matter how much redundancy you have.
Only the biggest companies out there can handle these kinds of attacks. The backbone providers have some defenses, but it isn't as simple as just blocking a few IPs.
If you don't have a job, "relocation" is a bus ticket. But very few people move to improve their circumstances.
Not true. If you don't believe me, look at the statistics for worker mobility - they correlate strongly with wealth. Poor people are a lot more reliant on their support networks (family, friends, and so on). If they're in a poorly paying job, then they probably can't afford to take a month to look for a new one in the new location (especially with the real possibility that they won't find one). If they don't have a job, then there's a strong psychological pressure not to move to places with fewer jobs and there's likely to be a delay in receiving unemployment benefit as these things are typically administered locally.
In contrast, someone like a typical Slashdot poster can afford to stay in a hotel room for a week or two (or have an employer willing to pay the cost) while they look for somewhere to live and will typically be able to find a job before they start moving.
Oh, if we're willing to tax the first dollar of earnings (over the UBI), it's far more credible. But right now the majority pays effectively no income tax, so that would be a massive change.
UBI itself is a massive change, so it's weird to think that you'd introduce it without introducing massive changes. Most proposals for UBI have it replace the tax-free allowance. You might have a very small tax-free allowance on top of it, but generally the way of balancing the books involves paying tax on all earned income.
Anyone who imagines that all fruits ripen at the same time as the strawberries, knows nothing about grapes. -- Philippus Paracelsus