Quite clear that people here work in low risk jobs. Anybody working with heavy machinery, drills, saws, knives, etc will immediately know how to use those 45 seconsa well. Those trades that don't typically let you read HN all day.
The only biological feature that makes women "better" at handling screaming kids is the inability to do anything about when frustrated men choose to deflect and defer reaponsibility to the helpless women if the tribe, because they are stronger & not physically burdened by child-carrying, usually with violence or threat of violence - for generations in a row, until we all sub-consciously accepted it as a truth.
Like the experiment where the monkeys wouldnt eat bananas for generations after the electric shocker attached to them was removed - they had internalised the idea that bananas gave shocks, we have also internalised these untrue ideas.
Hormones tell me otherwise. Women suffer a symbiosis from the fetus for the whole pregangcy.
Also, they have very distinct spatio-temporal skills compared to men. And that experiment is nothing against millenia on behaviour encoding in your genes.
American Social Pseudosciences should shut up their Sokal-like mouth and learn the basics for once and all.
They did tests and trials on how human males and females do orient themselves on distinct environments. Females used points and clues from the environment creating some kind of a graph and men used geometry with distances as vectors and rotations.
That on average, of course, because there wil always be overlapping edges. Women using 'male' bound orientation schemes and vice-versa.
And they also showed how females could find Waldo-finding like tasks much faster on average than males, while the males were better of focusing for long a single point against slighly moving surronding events without distracting themselves.
This is not pseudoscience nor male chauvinistic bullshit. It's the pure reality. Hormones drive us, either you like it or not.
Discrete math vs linear algebra. Distinct tools to solve the same problem. Which is better? It depends on the case.
Yepp, that blog link you posted, from whoever this Jorge Laborda may be, is just 3 paragraphs recapping snippets from that book, it's right in the first line: "Why Men Don't Listen & Women Can't Read Maps", by Allan Pease.
Since you like to appeal the authority of Some Dude, let me give it to you straight from the "About the Author" section from goodreads.com[1] of your sources.
Are you ready?
> Allan Pease is an Australian author and motivational speaker. Despite having no education in psychology, neuroscience, or psychiatry, he has managed to establish himself as an "expert on relationships". Originally a musician, he became a successful life insurance salesman, he started a career as a speaker and trainer in sales and latterly in body language. This resulted in a popular sideline of audio tapes, many of which feature his irreverent wit.
Hahahahahaha, I literally couldn't make this shit up. Good luck out there, buddy!
If you think different sets of hormones do not condition tons of behaviours you are deluded, buddy.
It affects me as a man, too, be highly educated or not. As I said, one of my favourite recreational Math authors (like Conway or Gardner) it's a woman, and her favourite Math branch it's discrete Math. Now, please, understand that she was pefectly able to understand the rest, as Mathematician men are able to the same with subjects they don't like much, too.
PD: women on average have a more developed language area than men. They can process and send more complex information like men on a single sentence from subtones in every word.
If men use more 'complex' language than women on average it's because women already told everything implicitly with every subtone in words driving subtle but different messages women are able to understand but men do not.
So, most of what men do it's to add syntactic sugar while women have a much superior context aware syntax.
People doesn't seem to understand the concept of overlapping Bell curves. I'm a geeky guy, but I love good jokes and rimericks, and good mystery novels too.
The left loves to focus on extremes and tries to cancel the whole graph, as it happened with the post from Google on women and men in STEM. The right would love to snip any edge (artsy men, even if they are nerdy/geeky), or technical women -there are several, even in rural places where often men died young, far earlier than women and thus they had to learn several skills in order to survive. Heck, with Bulma from Dragon Ball and Scully from The X-Files there are tons of them, more than the mentioned Bell curve's edges.
And yet here we are. Both the extreme left and extreme right hate Science, because it makes most of their arguments a total bullshit.
Said this:
- quotas on race, gender or sexuality are bullshit. Are you poor and/or disabled? Ok, set quotas for these, as they are in actual danger.
- It will never a 50/50 parity of men/women in STEM by design. Maybe in 50000 years, but for that you would need to have proper parental leaves and throw the 40h week to the trash. Since the 80's the productivy skyrocketed and by just working 20h/week (even by employing 1.5x more people) the producitivy would be equal if not superior, because of the lack of burnouts. Also, the economy would rise a lot too, as people would have more time to go outside and do the chores. Healthcare costs would plummet down too as stress and mental related illnesses would go near 0.
I literally give you a link that points out that what you're basing your beliefs on, is from some motivational speaker, pop-science, borderline con-artist author.
And you reply with... more anecdotes. Do you not see the irony? Are you incapable of reflecting on this?
There are of course some statistical biological (hormonal, physiological, whatever) differences between women and men. But there are also statistical biological differences between... men! And we are not grouping men like this, except in caste systems or believers in racism. So why should we do this for women?
Because it's extremely convenient for people like you, to have women classified as child-rearers and general house servants, and then retroactively explain that this is "natural" with anecdata and pseudoscience, and never having to make any real attempt at gender equality.
Should we ban men from poetry/arts too? That would be dumb.
In my case, Discrete Math and combinatorics where hell compared to other Math branches. Yet I could approach them from overlapping subjects. Women do the same, they applied different strategies and then they bound them together. This requieres effort for both genders? OFC, but that's the 'winning' strategy; the most different skills you gather, the better.
Men prefer measure and rotate and women use nodes and graphs? How about using both by definning a lattice and placing easy nodes as helping points making orientation a breeze for both genders?
Also, if you negate any difference, how come men and women tend to lose different brain sections upon dementia/Alzheimer?
> Should we ban men from poetry/arts too? That would be dumb.
Exactly, so please stop with the "women are better at [whatever task you don't want to deal with]" stereotypes. It's all pseudoscience, trying to find some "natural" or biological basis for oppressing people, just like racism.
No, is not pseudoscience, it's called 'hormones'. Your discourse it's a bit antropocentric. We aren't special for the Physics in the universe, nor we have free will.
Again, I don't care about either left or right wing beliefs.
Hormones' influence it's pretty real.
In order to avoid oppresions, we have the law systems, thank you.
I didn't read the article but I'll stand in for the person you replied to and make my best guess at what he meant:
I think he's saying that a manly man might not be soft and cuddly with a small child like a traditional mother would. But that is not necessarily detrimental. For instance, a guy might not want to coo and caw, or change the pitch of his voice, or giggle, things that some men find weak. But (perhaps - I don't know anything about children) the child may still respond positively to a male who used his normal voice and interacted with them however he naturally felt.
Maybe we can start a new protocol where the html is encrypted, and the viewer must try 2^10 to 2^20 hashes before the decryption key is discovered. Same formula that BTC mining uses. It would be negligible cost for any single user but terribly expensive for crawling en-masse.
Anything that increases the entry time by a second or more is a pretty good way to make me (and probably others) just not bother with opening the website.
Usually the Anubis anti-bot things only take a second. But I stared at one for more than 30 seconds the other day when I tried to access one of the Linux kernel websites. Literally just a progress bar with a hash counter. I was on a modern iPhone, I don’t know why it took so long. maybe because my phone had low battery? But it’s infuriating that this is what the web has become.
The web is becoming more and more unusable every day. If your data is easy to access, it gets stolen and scraped, your site effectively DDOSed. If your site is hard to access nobody will visit.
This is just introducing a small business cost for AI/scrapers and a reason to bail out of the funnel for real users--so by charging, you'll have an even larger percentage of bots.
Folks added an optional field to store a broad age category to optionally present to websites to facilitate keeping children out of porn sites, and everyone lost their collective minds.
Ada was designed to solve different problems in harsher environments than other PLs at the time. Mostly, it was designed for the defense and aeronautics industries and had to compete against other PL designs to become a govt standard, similar to how weapons of war are developed and chosen. Think developing for hardcore code audits. There is no way the language could check all the boxes and remain compatible with, say, Pascal or Modula syntax.
I've used public transit for the better part of 50 years, including inner-city buses and light rail trains in several cities. And I've literally never, ever seen nor felt nor smelled an actual "puddle of urine" on a seat. Yeah, sometimes the seats were kinda iffy or damp; perhaps someone spilled a drink there. There were often people eating, or even drinking a beer on board a bus. So I often see pistachio shells or a discarded bottle/can behind a seat. But human waste is unheard-of.
But any actual urine "spills" would've gotten cleaned up right quick. They simply don't tolerate that stuff. Look at any bus operator and they are tough as nails if someone tries shenanigans.
In fact, the craziest times I've had were in ride shares and taxis. I was all dressed up for a funeral one morning, summoned a taxi, and the driver who tried to pick me up was obviously drunk. Another time, I had a medical transport that was summoned, sat at some gas station for 15+ minutes, and when he arrived at my place and I got in the back seat, it was wet and had clearly been through a hasty cleanup, and I could smell urine permeating the vehicle, and it was absolutely nuts, but I said nothing, because it probably wasn't the driver's fault. Probably.
how are you going to compare cars with no fixed location premium with housing? also utilization is totally different - cars sit ~95% of the time, housing can be nearly round the clock if you work at home. transportation is more like a utility/commodity whereas there are so many personal factors for where to live.
reply