This, and I wish I had downvotes to give to the guy you responded to. The idea that specs should be set according to intention rather than capability is utterly ludicrous.

"Disproportionately" has nothing to do with intention. The implication of that word being used is that games benefit more than other types of applications.

This is the comment I came for

I work for an automotive company and even we can't do what this guy did in spy-land where everything should be MORE locked down. As you say, the CIO is incompetent and should be bounced.

Women comprise 9.2% of Fortune 1000 companies. At a 9:1 ratio of men to women in such roles, you're totally right in asserting that this woman getting a high-visibility job isn't noteworthy. Thanks for helping keep things in perspective

How exactly does "space colonization" work? I mean, it's not as though it has actually been done yet.

why not speculate? The tone of replies here is disappointing but hardly surprising: toxic men playing the victim card, toxically. What gives you license to criticize somebody's rights to speculate? I pointed to an event reported on by NPR that at least superficially seems related to the story. All you brought was a shitty attitude.

maybe it had to do with events like this one where men undermined the spirit of women in technology: https://www.npr.org/2023/10/05...

Herbert Kornfeld and T. Herman Zweibal were such great reads.

It's hard to tell if the accusation is accurate or not. The summary is so full of hyperbolae that I can't bring myself to read the full article.

Remember when the GQP fretted repeatedly about that scary Muslim Barack HUSSEIN Obama having an agenda to institute Sharia law across the nation should he be reelected? I remember those complaints quite vividly, and yet here we are thanks to Republican efforts to curtail women's rights and ban books most of these idiots probably never read. "Accuse the other of that you are guilty.” — Joseph Goebbels

Thank you for this clarification. I was having a seriously hard time believing the parent poster's assertion was correct.

I'm trying to understand what you're saying here. Making up some versions here, we have Redis the software product being developed under FOSS up to and including version 42.0. Now Redis Ltd. comes along and says, "we're taking the product private". It sounds like you're saying that whether we're talking about all versions up to and including v42 can be taken out of the public domain and can't be used by the very people who made contributions to that FOSS codebase, making a FOSS fork impossible. Is that right? It seems like various FOSS licenses should be preventing this...

wrong answers only, please

No company could possibly be stupid enough to suspend *all* features for misbehaving on the social-media side of things. Then again, it's Elon we're talking about here and X has been a litany of bad business choices so far. On the other hand, he's so beholden to the mighty dollar that maybe the fact that he gets money from your future transactions gets you a special level membership of "X looking the other way". Hard to say how this might play out.