Mythanar

Are you really? If you’re involved in nuclear accident, you get to live anywhere from days to months to years to decades. Even in the worst of the worst cases (you literally touched the fuel rod), you will have time to say farewells to the family, perhaps even write a will.

With hydroelectric accident you drown. The end.

Or alternatively: Skip the females at workplace and focus on the job at hand.

That's where we disagree. All effective teams are exclusionary; I've never seen an effective team chosen by lottery tickets. And effective intra-team communication is their most defining trait. In my experience, so long as diversity does not impede communication, it is a neutral trait (neither positive nor negative correlation).

He should probably not. If it works for the majority of the team (which from the grandparent comments seems it does), the impetus is on candidates to fit in existing culture, not the culture to change to fit candidates.

Most effective teams are usually ones with least communication impedance. The less you have to judge your words and go through diplomacy/"re-examination" dance in routine conversations, the more time you have to do your job. That's the reason "team fit/culture fit" is such an important criteria when hiring people.

> Having friendly, healthy relationships with your colleagues isn't valuable? Or just with the ones who are women?

Just with the ones who are women (from a male perspective). This specific point is because of #MeToo - this movement normalized the fact that "friendliness" and "healthiness" of a relationship is judged post-factum, sometimes years and decades post-factum, and the male perspective is rarely taken into account.

Think about it this way, even if one follows OP advice, and builds what he considers very healthy and friendly relationship, he exposes himself to (based on recent news stories, very real) risk of the relationship being second-guessed by the female, at any point in time in future, with the severe penalties resulting from mere accusations, not convictions, even if not true.

What you think is harassing might quite well disagree with target female view of what harassing is, complicated by the fact that HR department might disagree with you both. And should that whole thing become public, you'll be judged by the entire office, with the entire spectrum of views on what harassment is.

Personally, as a male, you have absolutely nothing to gain, and everything to lose. The most rational thing is to not engage at all.

From the OP, this happened in the public place. There is no expectation of privacy, nor should there be.

Just wait a bit, and with the way things are going, "Did you see all the snacks?" will be declared the thought crime against fat people.

I prefer using the same language in interviews as we do in office. If the candidate gets offended, chances are, he would be offended on the first day on the job; better weed those out early.

Not kleer001, but does it matter?

Would any of those traits invalidate his point or give more credit to his point of view?

By his logic, "cities of the future" are cities of childless families, set exclusively in temperate climate, on flat terrain.

Bicycles are environmentally friendly (BTW, so are electric cars), but they are ultimately a statement of "edge cases are someone else's problem".

Kid sick and needs to be picked up from school couple hills away in 1/2 hour? Depend on someone else with a car. Three toddlers to deliver to childcare and be on time at work? Depend on someone else with a car. Need to get to an older parent that is not feeling well half a city away in the middle of the night? Depend on, yes, someone else with a car (mass transit basically does not work at night even in large cities). Need to have enough groceries for a weekend getaway for a family of five - good luck with your bicycle (or depend on delivery company, or on someone else with a car).

I have to disagree with OP. Cities of the future are cities with abundant personal transportation set over non-planar infrastructure (i.e. many grades, not 2-3 max today) with grade separations for all intersections - or flying cars, powered by non-polluting energy sources.

Until we all get there, let's be mindful that preaching niche transportation options needs to consider real life scenarios, with all their ugly cases, and not only the best case fantasy of their author.

And that is Hacker's news how?

ParaTransit specifically is a non-profit organization. "Non-profit" and "incentives" generally don't mix well. Better service would require paying market rates - by the city, or partly by the city.

And it'd still be cheaper than building accessibility over existing subway infrastructure.

You make a very good point that disability is not binary; there is an entire spectrum from Michael Phelps to Steven Hawking. In some ways, having three kids on your back can be considered a [temporary] disability ;) My main point is that going down the percentage of affected population drastically changes the ROI of changing the infrastructure as a whole versus addressing the people involved individually. And wheelchairs specifically is fairly far down that scale.