Because product managers struggle to comprehensively understand value add and have instead replaced stating business goals and value add with bullying based micro managing tactics like counting lines of code and conflating other such arbitrary metrics related to code with having a 1:1 ratio of accomplishing the goal and do not respect the thought of troubleshooting, architecture design (unless you take another two days to turn it into a diagram presuming it needs to be consumed by some other party) and finding an elegant way to implement code to accomplish the goal as work because they can't see it, and they can't understand it because they are too busy collecting visual days to prove they are properly micromanaging you to take the time to learn the challenges inherent to the architecture and challenge at hand.
But of course if a female CEO works the system and exploits it the way men does she is highlighted online for lacking morals and ethics even though plenty of men run businesses the same way all the time and are either not even noticed for doing it or otherwise glorified.
People online are insignificant. Online Peter Thiel is some sort of vampire who feeds off the lifeblood of young men and governments while suppressing the press. In real life, Peter Thiel is a respected businessman who is considered one of the archetypes of a successful entrepreneur.
In the story, there are parts she openly regrets as having optimized for appearance: returning to work so soon after having given birth. There are parts she doesn't express regret over but mentions (the miscarriage, pumping in the car instead of a mother's room and the ensuing feelings of humiliation).
There's probably a balance here but it appears that optimizing for appearance isn't of much value except when you need people to believe in your appearance: meeting investors, talking to your team. Since most people online are neither, they are not important.
Not every school has AP classes. In fact there's a direct correlation with AP classes existing in schools in neighborhoods where income is higher.
This is why MIT got rid of considering Subject II tests because even on top of already relatively wealthy select schools that offer AP classes only a select few of those offer classes that prep you for subject II test.
It's essentially exponentiating the amount of opportunities rich kids have to slice themselves within percents different from other rich kids at their school but overall entirely leaves behind students who weren't lucky enough to born in a neighborhood with a tax bracket that determines the schools funding.
And sorry for another comment. Your dismissive comments were so loaded there's alot to unpack here to properly address it instead of just letting you get away with this passively:
I never said I had to use the app or wanted to use it. I have been reading hacker news since 2010 and I wouldn't hesitate to say I've read it atleast everyday and used to be mildly addicted to it. I'm very familiar with the demographics of HN and that it is male dominated in addition to some large scale misogyny that exists on the site (i.e. there are open incel groups who chat in comments here often for example/no presumptions being made on my end, they are self proclaimed on the site) and I was highlighting that the creator might want to advertise in places with a more diverse demographic than HN.
I've been an engineer since 2012 and started college in Electrical Engineering in 2008 and went to a school that was 23% female and 6% female in my engineering department (as opposed to the tech school overall) and I can't assume you these statistics donot lend themselves well to an environment where it is easy for women to casually make friends with guys, if anything I go out of my way to live in urban areas where I can have a more diverse set if friends, whether it be males who are more likely to view me as a friend than the first girl they've interacted with in months, or just females or just people who are not so dismissive of women in general, and I was letting the creator know I would not go out of my way to reintroduce myself to a male dominated community to make casual friends with people, and this isn't the best place to bootstrap a userbase where the question set leans towards stacking the already majority make population on here with a set of questions that can easily exploit emotional vulnerabilities of women.
It's not that women can't be crappy as well, it's that crime statistics also lend themselves in the direction of being male dominated, not to mention just not being a very inviting place for females.
If the goal is to make friends, I'd rather do so in an environment that is closer to 50/50 ratio which for me so far in life has basically been anywhere I can get outside of my industry to have friends both make and female, and I'm much better off for it.
Your comments as presumatory. I never felt forced to use it, I was just saying I wouldn't want to and why. To have the attitude of saying oh if you don't like the all white male environment then get out, noone said you had to be here is a very white male hacker news thing to say, but tell me more how there's no women in STEM because of them and not because of that kind of piss poor attitude you have there.
You've obviously never been to a private boarding school where tuition is $40k/year in highschool and in addition to this their parents paid for $5000 classes where the teachers helped them create calculator programs on SAT approved calculators to help solve problems faster and do timed exam grades.
I grew up on welfare until middle school years, made straight A's in a poorly ranked public school applied to every boarding school on the east coast because where I come from those schools are legitmately better (unlike in the northeast where many public schools are legit and fostered by small towns full of rich white people who drive to Manhattan for work everyday) and while I appreciate the people who paid for me to go to boarding school, I still got rejected from a Stanford summer school robotics program despite being qualified because I couldn't pay $10k in cash for it while a peer of mine driving a Porsche to school complained his parents were forcing him to go.
I still couldn't afford the SAT classes many of my peers took after school on campus so while yes my life is measurably better and you are correct money helps pad resumes outside of GPA, you are also incorrect it doesn't also help pad SAT scores.
This has been proven time and time again like a few years ago when sailing terminology was removed from reading comprehension because it was supposed to be derived from the context. Most kids who grew up in the Bronx don't have context for sailing terminology regardless of how well read they might be. This is just one example of money aside, how it is false to believe the tests are any less biased inducing than anything else that might go into a students application.
I guess I'm saying no to your attempt to distract from the fact that you can pay alot of money to pass these tests in addition to not having proof there is esoteric terminology people growing up on poverty despite being good students might not be exposed to.
This would be obvious to you if you've ever taken the SATs.
What point are you trying to make? You should make it. Right now you are knitpicking. Even if you are right only it was that one instance it sets precedent for economic power structures graduating students inherit in the workforce for years to come.
I just don't understand your prioritization of feedback which seems to be entirely focused on distracting from the comment.
The test has actually changed over the years and since people made a stink about the oarsman question, they’ve been more careful to reduce cultural bias (though I’m not convinced it was ever that bad in the first place). It is basically a canard at this point.
It's amazing to me ivy league universities have done this in the face of uncertainty and extreme anxiety now that we have evidence that elongated sustained anxiety and chaos in one's life can reduce someone's IQ, I just didn't think they would be so blatantly obvious to do if when something globally devastating enough happened to be distracting to even rich white people as well, when students coming from poverty are dealing with distractions that are often worse regardless.
Sometimes it truly takes a rich white person to experience something before they believe it can happen to anybody else, and then they make a decision everyone else benefits from. Here's to new beginnings.
I'm curious how well rich white students who have never been exposed to chaos and uncertainty of this magnitude will fair in comparison to incoming students who have been dealing with it their whole life, a much better IMHO indicator for success in this "uncertain" times.
I agree. As a woman working as a major minority in STEM as a software developer, and seeing this being advertised on HN means I'll probably be paired with a male if I used it.
Not only are these not appropriate, it's the kind of information you could give to a dangerous man to give them all the cards to know your deepest weaknesses and manipulate you. That trust has to be earned, and it turns vulnerable people into potential targets.
It almost makes me feel like you've never considered how awkward these questions could be for anyone but particularly off putting to any woman whose parents taught them how to be safe when talking to strangers online since they were little girls.
Like the AI app thing where two young men advertised and bragged you could snap someone's pictures and get their asl is an absolutely horrifying prospect for any women to consider having available to anyone on the streets.
Sometimes these types of concepts seem so poorly thought out and ignorant especially in light of the goals being centered around the deep and social nature of human beings, I have to often attirbute this to childish ignorance in my head and remember the feds have another thing they need to regulate on the list. Being inclusive and considering abused of people who are not white males in power is literally the center of attention for most of the world right now. Take it to heart in your everyday life.
There are plenty of other things you can discuss, even concept building ideas that don't center around personal ancedotes.
You sound like you have a lot of fear... it's literally just a chat app. No one is forcing you to use it, no one is forcing you to answer questions. No one is stopping you from joining the app, you get a question you don't like, and you hit quit. Objectively, how does this affect you or reality outside of this awesome thing called choice?
Not to downplay what you're saying, or sound harsh, but people these days certainly are hitting a level of sensitivity that I cannot even fathom.
The FBI wouldnt call it fear as much as they would call it multiple departments dedicated to busting child predators and other predatory behavior which is something the FBI works with almost every major video app to regulate, and take very seriously.
Your comments are not demeaning to me, they are demeaning to the severity of this issue worldwide.
I will forgive your comments and pure ignorance because I'm sure if you were educated on this topic at all in any kind of statistics based context you would have to be majorly sexist in addition to wrong.
Even zoom has recently used the excuse that they will not end to end encrypt video sessions for non paying users, because paying for it requires validation of identity through certain forms of payment and verification which can be tracked by law enforcement, because unverified accounts are the primary venue for the predatory behavior I speak of.
The previous CISO of Facebook who now works with Zoom on this very issue worked with the government to help catch child predators on Facebook as well and currently is a Professor at Stanford researching safety of specifically these types of chat apps. I'm quite sure these questions would be on the list of recommendations the FBI would encourage you not to ask, but if you feel so strongly I'm wrong about this I would encourage you to reach out to the world leaders on cybersecurity and the FBI and NSA on global efforts to reduce the kind of predatory behavior these questions invites.
I'm going to be ignorant and presumatory assume you're a man, and also ask you to please educate yourself on this topic before/if you have children. You'll be a much better parent.
Thanks for sharing your opinion. I think you raise a great point that women are more likely to be targets of harassment than men on the internet. I feel strongly that women should feel safe on the internet.
If you try the app right now, you'll find many women from Saudi Arabia currently using it (a Saudi celebrity tweeted it yesterday). I noticed several women who were using the app for hours but hiding their camera with a finger. Based on that user behavior, I'm building an audio-only option so women who feel the way you do will hopefully feel more comfortable.
Thank you so much for acknowledging my feedback. I strongly encourage you to reach out to security consulting firms and get multiple blind reviews to vet the work. Video chat apps are tricky but they can be improved for the betterment of everyone. They are expensive but cheaper than lawsuits with the government. The least you can do here is educate yourself on the legal risk the owner of the company assumes with this technology and work on identity verification of some sort.
And I'm really excited to see the demographic using your app and I'm really glad I can help. What you are doing is great, and great leaders surround themselves with diverse people who have constructive feedback, so it's great to see that quality in you. I'm excited to see where this goes.
Fortunately the FBI doesn't dismiss illegal activities of you lack this kind of information. They will investigate and can arrest individuals on US soil as well as consenting countries. Additionally a country's own law enforcement may cooperate and the perpetrators can be extradited for trial.
Sort of... sometimes they will lure them to the USA or catch them while they're here if the victim has enough clout. Some here may remember when the FBI arrested Dmitry Sklyarov, for example:
I'm a Democrat, and I think Trump pulling politics at a time like this is unacceptable.
However I grew up in the south and when I came to the northeast for college I had no idea how many northeasterners not only thought Republicans we're all dumb but also that the south should separate from the union and often heard the argument of how much money In a dollar per dollar of welfare goes to republican states, as a way to backfire on Republicans who don't believe there should be welfare.
It seems like this is a very specific dig right back at Democrats on this long standing argument.
Regardless, it's frustrating to know neither side is going to budge on their stances and either side will continue to badger and demonize the other not only during this time but always.
Though I stand by my personal ethics, I don't believe Democrats are blameless all of the time or that alienating each side is going to result in any progress in this country, only more radical responses from each side, of which Trump being elected is just one IMHO in a series of escalations fueled by spite for the other side.
>However I grew up in the south and when I came to the northeast for college I had no idea how many northeasterners not only thought Republicans we're all dumb but also that the south should separate from the union and often heard the argument of how much money In a dollar per dollar of welfare goes to republican states, as a way to backfire on Republicans who don't believe there should be welfare.
Some Democrats may think like that, but that's never been the policy of Democrat presidents or politicians. Whereas what Trump and McConnell are saying and doing are explicitly GOP party policies.
Does that help?