Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Men Are Sabotaging The Online Reviews Of TV Shows Aimed At Women (fivethirtyeight.com) 858

FiveThirtyEight has an interesting article today which accuses men of sabotaging the online reviews of TV shows aimed at women. The publication cites an example of "Sex and the City", a show which apparently won plenty of awards and ran for many years on TV, getting hammered by males on IMDb. Compared to women, who amounted to 60% of the people who rated the show with an average of 8.1, men gave it a 5.8 rating. It's not an isolated case, FiveThirtyEight says, citing several other instances where the male audience has downvoted shows aimed at women audience. From the article: The shows with the largest proportion of male raters are mostly sports, video game web series, science fiction and cartoons. The programs with the highest proportion of female voters are -- at least the American ones -- mostly from The CW and Freeform, the new name of the network previously called ABC Family. This list is pretty hilarious. Beyond the top 25, shown in the table above, male-dominated shows of note include: "Blue Mountain State" (92 percent male), "Batman: Beyond" (91 percent), "Batman: The Animated Series" (90 percent), "The Shield" (90 percent), "Ballers" (90 percent), "Justice League" (90 percent), and "The League" (88 percent). "Star Trek: Enterprise" is the most male-heavy of the various official live-action Trek enterprises, while "Battlestar Galactica" still managed to grab 15 percent of its ratings from women, which is somewhat shocking. For women, other skewed programming includes "Private Practice" (71 percent female), "Gossip Girl" and "Gilmore Girls" (67 percent each), "Grey's Anatomy" (60 percent), "Scandal" (60 percent), and "One Tree Hill" (59 percent).

Comment Reverse Calculate Average Lifetime of Civilization (Score 1) 267

I'd be interested in seeing a paper that estimates the maximum lifetime of a technological civilization, on the basis that : (A) the estimates given are right about the number of stars, how many habitable planets are in the goldilocks zone, etc.,., (B) we are not atypical, and then (C) that we have not encountered signals from any radio emitting civilizations.

We might find that there would be so many technological civilizations, that technological civilizations should only exist for a few dozen years. Or we may find that they are so rare, that it's extremely uncommon that they overlap, and they may well last for several millennium.

Comment Next up Kansas shooter's phone? (Score 0) 457

So next will the FBI be investigating the Kansas workplace shooter's phone? Or does the FBI only give 2 shits about workplace shootings when it involves teh Muzlimz.

Ordinary (Christian) Americans shooting up their workplace? Why that's just plain patriotism and 2nd amendment celebrations!

Comment Re:Suzie can vote. Suzie can get a pitchfork. (Score 4, Insightful) 954

I'm always amazed by the consumer who thinks that he can demand production and enjoy the benefits of other people's capital.

I'm always amazed that people think their "capital" has any sort of meaning unless the mass of society can benefit from it. Guess what, the only thing preventing the masses from stringing you up and taking your capital is the basic social contract that allows you to get rich as long as standards for the masses don't fall too far. You violate that social contract no amount of funny money or gold bars or factories is going to save your head from getting blown off as the police officers and military you depend on to live find it expedient to slay you.

Comment Re:What's the angle here? (Score 1) 123

I must be missing something. Iraq got invaded for far less, and it was later shown they didn't actually have shit.

That's precisely the reason they are developing weapons. Dubya's "War to Avenge Daddy" showed dictators that if they cooperate and disarm, then they are going to end up like Saddam did, dead. Of the "axis of evil" countries, Iraq had by far the weakest military and the fewest weapons, and guess which one got invaded? The man child has fucked up the world for generations to come, and any dipshit who voted for him and supported his attempts to play army man have to take responsibility for the current situation in the middle east and North Korea.

Comment A More Radical Position (Score 0) 197

I have developed, in 30 years of programming, to a much more radical position. Technical debt and mounting complexity are major problems, and I want to see a splinter movement within programming that defies the contemporary orthodoxy on how to solve these problems.

Object Oriented Programming is not a solution.

Refactoring is a failure as a solution. INSTEAD: We need to say "NO," from the get-go, to unnecessary technologies. Yes, refactoring is needed, but we've been talking about refactoring for decades now, and we still have so many problems. We need to say "NO" to new technologies, wholesale; To be much more skeptical and dubious of technologies. Don't import a whole system, when you're only really using only 1% of the technology in it. I see so many technologies in use in workplaces, where only 1% of the functionality is needed. (I'm looking at you, Celery.) These massive systems have security flaws, bugs, and inflexibilities, that require custom patching and regular necessary upgrading and updating. They are built on top of other massive systems that have security flaws, bugs, and also require patching and updating. Yet because of "We don't want to implement something that someone else has already implemented better, and actively maintains for us," I see decisions made to get the huge big massive honking thing that ** isn't actually needed. **

When you have 10,000s of lines of glue code, to glue your systems together, and you're actively maintaining them against one another, ... and the alternative was to write a 500 line program that would do EXACTLY what you want, and is easy to modify and understand, ... ... something has gone horribly, horribly wrong.

When you're sending massive REST calls in series, with HTTP headers and payloads and everythings, ... ...when a single maintained TCP stream would do just fine, sending 4-byte packets back and forth, ... ... something has gone horribly, horribly wrong.

I said above that Object Oriented programming is not the solution. I maintain that. I think we need to seriously re-evaluate what the heck we're doing. I propose that we look at the notations we are using in writing programs. Forth has a radically different notation. APL has a radically different notation. There is great expressive power in these systems. They are compact and powerful. I have come to see that smallness is a great virtue -- not baroqueness.

A great **design** can make a dramatically smaller technology footprint. We're so focused on agile methods, that we don't see that a design can have a dramatic minimizing power. It's not about waterfall. Designs can be iterated after all. If the design has a small footprint, modification is quick and easy. The entire program can be rewritten in a reasonable time, if the design is little.

I am not writing this to convince anybody. Rather, I am writing this so that fellow programmers who resonate with what I'm saying are encouraged. These ideas are very much in the minority, and are drowned out by the mainstream orthodoxy of programming. But I believe that serious programmers who have been looking at what is going on can recognize what I'm saying here. I would like to see more expression of challenge to the orthodoxy here.

My Pointers for more information, for the interested:
* http://suckless.org/philosophy
* deep study of Chuck Moore's ideas on programming
* http://www.colorforth.com/1per...
* Alan Kay's ideas on programming
* the design of the TempleOS, which is extraordinary and powerful while minimal
* "Software Survivalism" and "Neo-Retro Computing" (Sam Falvo)

Slashdot Top Deals

Crazee Edeee, his prices are INSANE!!!