Guess you never spent time programming the //e or older ][ and ][+. Seriously, you think the gs was slow? Compared to what I started with in college (the //e), the gs was rocking.

Always amazing how people think they're the first generation to deal with or discover things or face issues and have no clue what things were like before them.

I didn't get anything banned, but I left for similar reasons. I think they were going with cheap mods who probably had poor English skills (because they were from whatever country where labor was cheapest by the hour). But in many ways my issue was the opposite: The answers that were getting in the newsletter and getting all the attention and were not getting banned were the ones giving advice that would get people evicted, arrested, or just in court because it would make it easy for the landlord to sue to them or for tenants to sue them as a landlord.

That's been going on for years. It was a problem back when I was active and one of many reasons I left, even though I was a Top Writer (or whatever that title is) in one category. Top Writer? Yeah, still meant not getting much in terms of newsletter mentions when compared to the people giving answers that, if followed, would land people in court, or jail, or out on the street when evicted.

The vast majority of the ones I saw like that were political or dealing with anti-vax or other conspiracy theories.

At one time you could go to Quora for good answers and intelligent discussion on those answers. It's been a good while since that was the case. They've been pushing popular or flame-bait answers for a good while over factual or quality answers. I used to work as a landlord and would work hard to write good answers to questions so I could actually help people. I got thanked for them, but the answers to similar questions that kept showing in my feed, ones that were getting all the views and reactions, were usually inaccurate and often even advised people to do things that they could get sued or sent to jail for. I'd report inaccurate answers or bad advice that could get some arrested for larceny or worse and nothing happened.

Quora hasn't been about answers or helping people or exchanging information for at least several years. If it goes tango-uniform and the bigshots behind it lose their stock equity and get loans called in and lose houses and yachts, it's nothing more than poetic justice.

I see that you have difficulty understanding analogies.

Relationships, cause-effect and bidirectional influence are not needed to see that you can't fit 10 weighty freedom units of shit into a 5 weighty freedom unit bag.

So which is it? Is the women ...

Ask her, not me.

And does the ambitious woman also get a man who's happy to hang out in the background?

Margaret Thatcher found one.

I've seen the wives of researchers at these conferences taking care of the kids.

Maybe, just maybe, those women were happy to be there chatting amongst themselves watching the children.

Or maybe they were frustrated, etc. Or maybe some of both.

I just know that there's only 168 hours in a week.

You'll have to ask them.

Why aren't the husbands coming along to baby sit while the wives attend meetings?

Probably because they don't want to be constantly harassed by women about why they're staring at these children instead of being at the conference.

It was a bit pithy, but to be fair, that's exactly what that quote actually means.

The ambitious man needs the woman; the woman doesn't need an ambitious man. She only needs a reliable provider.

But being a scientist can and should be a predictable 40 hour job completely compatible with parenthood.

Should, huh? And people should give according to their abilities, and get according to their needs.

But the world doesn't work that way.

Meanwhile we live in a society where almost no one can properly support a family with just one parent working.

Except for the very richest in society, and just a few decades in just a few rich countries, that's been the human condition since at least the beginning of agriculture.

Women's work was H-A-R-D.

Just 90 years ago, in what is now a really up-scale New Orleans neighborhood, one of the ways that my great-grandmother -- who didn't "work" -- fixed dinner was to start by catching a chicken in the back yard and whack it's head off with a hatchet

And it was only around 1900 that gas-powered kitchen ovens existed. Before that, women had to wake up early to start the fire to warm the stove/oven to cook everyone's breakfast.

Etc, etc, etc.

In other words, women need to stay in the back?

Where in the heck did you get that from my comment?

Sure, there were/are social expectations, and many women wanted to marry successful (or prospectively successful) men, but few (especially middle- and upper-class) Western women have been in arranged marriages in quite a few centuries.

No.
In fact, that research makes my point: the woman standing behind the successful man is at home doing all the domestic stuff so that he can be "out there" in academia, business, military, etc

How about: you can't do 300 hours of work in a 168 hour week. Does that clarify things?

There's only 24 hours in a day. It's impossible for anyone to have it all, not just women.

Men can go to weekend conferences, work 80 hours/week, go on military deployment for months, etc when they sacrifice being home with their families.

Why not? Because there's only 24 hours in a day, and 7 days in a week.

It's the same reason that calls for making this and and be mandatory in school is impossible: there are only so many instruction hours in the school day.