char

"if you're good, nobody cares what sex you are..."

Part of the reason this is such a hot topic right now is because the above statement is not at all true. It is certainly applicable for some, but not enough to claim true equality in the system.

> I honestly don't get it. You have all the same opportunities men do, at least in this space.

No. Just no. It's true that we have the same opportunities to TRY (i.e., submit resumes, build what we wish, etc.), but not to actually be IN the space. Have you ever been interviewed and had a male interviewer walk into the room, take one look at you, and immediately change his body language and adopt a condescending tone? Had it happen more than once in a 2 week period? I have. Let me tell you how fun that was. I hadn't even opened my mouth yet.

This is just one example of how entry for women can be a challenge. Clearly not everyone looks at women so blatantly with discomfort, but the fact that it even happens to a noticeable extent is enough to posit that there are completely disparate opportunities for men and women in tech.

There are so many more non-negligible ways women have more of a challenge to enter the tech world, but I wanted to quickly illustrate one example to bring attention to the utter fallacy of your statement.

Just wanted to share that I had a very similar experience interviewing as a front-end engineer last year, and had made many of the same assessments about the process as you have.

It is interesting that the company I ended up at-- while they did ask some standard algorithm and 'how do you think' type questions-- there were also many questions probing my front-end skills, including some quick JS coding problems. The interview just felt SO different than anything else.

Thanks for posting this!

Yes it matters, but not for success. When you're the minority in a field, it feels good when you discover there are others from the same background who have chosen the same path as you and have been successful.

I feel like this is exactly how Apple responded to the whole iPhone 4 antenna problem: by not really mentioning it, acting as if there were no big issues, and then silently providing a fix. There seems to be a pattern here.

Currently a gram of medical grade marijuana (or any 'good quality' pot) is around $20.

The author says that a gram costs, and always has costed, $10. This can certainly be true today if he's buying relatively low quality marijuana. If he's been smoking for many decades, he'd notice the quality of pot has gone up significantly, but so has the price. The kind of stuff my generation's parents smoked in the 70s is now what people are selling for $10 a gram, and apparently what the author is still buying.

Out of all of those problems, I'd say the fact that you can't get a web address to point people to your apps is the worst. I almost don't believe this is true, except that I still can't seem to find a web address.

Also, if you lose your Apple developer certificate, you can at least download a new one.

I'm confused. Hasn't this always been the case when you 'Like' (previously 'Become a Fan' of) something? Pages I became a Fan of well over a year ago (maybe longer!) have been publishing updates to my stream ever since. (The ones I don't want to get updates from have either been removed or blocked.)

The Page-to-User relationship is absolutely no different than the User-to-User one. By becoming Friends with someone, I'm letting them publish as frequently as they'd like to my stream. They can spam me if they want, and if I don't like it, I can block/remove them.

Saying that 'Like' buttons give Page owners permission to spam you is grossly misleading, and leaves out several important pieces of information that allow one to understand what is actually going on.

Why do people love trying to make complex issues black and white? The fact that there are so few women in tech is an issue that is likely caused by multiple factors, some of which were addressed in this article, and some of which were addressed in the Arrington post. No one is wrong; each just seems to be arguing over which the greater factor is, but refuses to recognize the other.

Arrington cites factors dealing with biological and societal tendencies of women as reasons for them to not engage in risky lifestyle choices such as startups, or to not be interested in tech in the first place. I agree with this. This isn't 'bad' or 'good', but it's the truth. People need to stop ignoring that there ARE (on average) differences between men and women. We (women) just aren't as interested in tech or building our own businesses in general.

I'm just one data point, but based on many experiences, I would strongly argue that in general, women do not have the desire to take as many risks as males, or deal with day-to-day uncertainties. A vast majority of my female friends thought I was absolutely nuts when I first started doing startups. (They still think I'm a little nutty, despite being able to pay my bills now). The most common questions were, "What are you going to do for money if it fails?" (Answer: Get a job, or build something else), and "How do you deal with not knowing what you're going to be doing in the next [insert some time period]?" On the other hand, my male friends overwhelmingly asked about the technologies I'm building and admired me for taking a risk. Also interesting to note is that the reaction of female friends to my (male) co-founder was more of admiration than thinking he was crazy (but I was looked upon as crazy).

On the other hand, for the women who ARE interested in tech (or could be persuaded to be interested), there are certainly existing challenges within the field itself. Again, I'm just one data point, but I am always amazed at the reactions I get from males in the startup world when they find out that I code. They are SHOCKED. Not only because I'm a woman, but also because I'm a white, blonde woman who is reasonably attractive. Sometimes I really do feel like I'm not taken seriously by many people until I do something completely bad ass to prove myself. The other article certainly has a point there.

"I build apps for people with big YouTube channels."

I find this is always the best answer, because trying to avoid conversations by saying "I have a startup", only results in the re-asking the "so, what do you do" question, to which I have to provide a real answer.

Here's what I would say to these guys:

If your product actually IS a technology (and not just a website FOR a product), you're going to need a technical co-founder.

Without a technical person, you just have an idea. You may have the market and business plans all mapped out, but this is really just the tip of the iceberg. Your final product will largely be shaped by the technology behind it. Unless you have a detailed technical version of your app speced out for someone to build, whomever you 'hire' to do the coding for you is by default going to define your product just as much as (if not more than) you have.

Now you can hire someone to do this for you, but with high probability, this relationship isn't going to work out. You're going to need this person to work with you 24/7 and be as dedicated as you. That's by definition, a FOUNDER. Anyone treated differently will quit, and you'll be back to the beginning.

My default view on anything is skepticism. I imagine that most HNers, being critical and logical thinkers, have similar positions. The abundance of skeptical posts makes sense to me.