jochung

More nuanced take: men are finally acting like women have told them to act for decades: talk about your feelings, open up, be in touch with your inner self... not realizing that only works for women because women's feelings matter and verbalizing them often enough will cause others to take action sooner or later. The reason men had the "irritating" habit of offering solutions is because it was inconceivable to most that you'd complain and expect that to actually accomplish anything.

It's like an attractive person telling the ugly that they just need to approach the world with a more positive attitude and good things will come in return. No honey, that's only because they want to have sex with you. Other people don't get shit for free.

As Warren Farrel said: men's facade of strength is their weakness, women's facade of weakness is their strength. When a man displays weakness, he forfeits his right to get help.

Two generations now have been utterly miseducated on gender by a feminized education system that treated masculinity as a condition to be medicated away and passive femininity as the role model, not realizing boys need adversity in their youth to prepare them for the complete heartlessness they'll receive as adults.

"But I love my husband!" Yes, until the marriage is over, after which he'll be devastated and pining for years, while you'll discard him like an old pair of shoes, still getting alimony, the house and the kids.

You're right. Just look at all those men telling us they don't feel safe because of what someone wrote, that the work place needs to be more welcoming to them, that being told they're bossy or domineering is insulting, that having to defend themselves in public debate is unacceptable, that they shouldn't be expected to choose between career and family, and that male hygiene products should be paid for by the government because having a dick and balls is just such a burden.

Wait no, sorry, I got that backwards. It's feminist women who do the female equivalent of this. And who find it deeply irritating if you only imply men do not exist to serve at their beck and call, and have zero obligation to them even if they damsel.

And no, not all women. But definitely even some who do have all the power, money and influence they could want. So who's fragile? Or perhaps more accurately: who succeeds in using their facade of weakness as a lever of power, time and time again?

I don't mind admitting the world is not fair, but it takes a special kind of obliviousness to look at women's position in the West in the 21st century and still see a class of victims and men as the ones who need to suck in their gut and soldier on for once.

"Centuries of privilege" is the kind of idiocy only a sheltered American suburbanite could come up with.

A century ago millions of young white men were too busy dying in trenches and being gassed to death with mustard gas in a war none of them could vote on.

Children worked on the field, in factories, and in coal mines, like their fathers were expected to.

And yes, women stayed home and took care of the kids because without electricity, plumbing, appliances, refrigeration and cheap groceries, that was actually a laborious full time job, and people were poor. Not to mention that getting through child birth and infant mortality was a blessing for both mother and child.

None of them were given opportunities simply by existing. On the other hand, providing scholarships to specific ethnicities, or creating special women-only pathways to entry, that is exactly that.

What people like Damore have tried to point out is that expecting demographics and sentiment within a field to match the general population, or else the "playing field" is not level, is an unwarranted assumption. It also puts the blame for actually society wide issues on a small group of people who had nothing to do with it.

If you want more black people in tech, start by addressing the way the US school system is stratified entirely by social class. Maybe you'll see a difference, and maybe that IQ gap will shrink. Maybe it won't, and what new "leveling" policies will you want to introduce then? Don't push out or disadvantage others out of misplaced revenge, and don't cite your American tunnel vision as justification.

People keep trying to make it so you can build complex sites and applications without coding, and in the end, what you end up with is far more complicated, fragile and inflexible than if you had just stuck with a normal development pipeline. Drupal's insistence on being both a product and a platform out of the box is what got them into this mess in the first place. They overestimated how much different use cases have in common, so they had to bolt on late-binding and lazy evaluation all the way up into the presentation layer.

I don't know if this is solvable. A CMS is complex enough that each of its functionalities deserves the care of good product and technical designers. These pieces ought to then be integrated into a cohesive whole, a la carte. For desktop software, we were able to pull this off pretty well, with 2000s OS X as the most cohesive, successful attempt, dictated by strong design guidelines and solid enough tech... And note that they invisibly transitioned CPU architecture along the way! But when online collaboration and multi device access became a requirement, everyone flailed and forgot the lessons of the past.

I don't think the current software market is capable of something like that. Almost everyone is trying to make captive SaaS where compatibility only exists on a service-to-service basis, in a subordinate manner. Branding is more important than cohesion, and flexibility and interoperability has taken a back seat to dumbing down.

This is what millions in enterprise funding gets you. A decade+ of sunk cost fallacy.

Alternative explanation: if they actually go after Facebook all the previous shady shit US politicians have done would also come into question. So they'll stick to emotive appeals like "when elections are meddled with" instead of specific, measurable outcomes.

Recall that the Obama campaign got the explicit go ahead from FB to violate their privacy policy, and built up equally large databases. Heck, recall Obama explicitly endorsing Macron. Does that count as large scale meddling?

What's hilarious is that the same people worried about internet driven misinformation are now the ones jumping into action because the media told them to #deletefacebook.

Mozilla is like a modern American university. There is a parasitic growth attached that is only concerned with funneling more resources to itself in the form of bureaucrats and intersectional evangelists.