ryderm

Cracking jokes at the unfairness as a way to swallow it is very different than cracking jokes as a way to point out how unfair it is to others. I'm not exactly sure which you mean, but it seems like the former, and that is depressingly jaded.

I find the existential dread caused by acknowledging the unfairness a good motivator to try to improve things. There will always be randomness, but life doesn't have to be as deeply flawed as it is today

Don't accept it, try to to change it!

> but this critic is almost certainly making perfect the enemy of good in pursuit of an ideal.

Yes, because "good" means preventable poverty related deaths by the millions because it is not profitable to do anything about it \s. Good for you != good, but it is easy to look past that when it isn't right in your face

> Doing the right thing — not what’s profitable or power enhancing — isn’t what business is about.

If only society / the global economic system wasn't set up to incentive profit over all else....

a bit?

So, if you would love to clear up the misconceptions, actually answer all of the questions you listed? The only one you answered is about discounts for your product.

Sure, clearly that was hyperbole. All the evidence never points anywhere. This means the vast majority of actual peer reviewed science.

Obviously they are biologically different! That is not the question. The question is: Do these differences make women less interested in tech, or are there less women in tech because experiences they have had since birth make them feel unwelcome or unable.

> Is it such a huge deal that most women are not interested in technology?

If this is because they have been systematically discriminated against in tech and primed at a young age with BS like "cars are for boys and dolls are for girls" then yes, absolutely this is a huge deal. If it just so happened that they were not interested because they don't have the "technology gene" then this would not be a big deal, but that is nonsense and all the evidence points to the former.

This isn't quite true. It is up to your issuer if they decide to approve the transaction despite failing AVS or CVV checks. Often they will decline the authorization, but depending on their risk signals, might decide to approve it. Then, the merchant (or the processor they are using) can decide if they want to let the transaction go through despite the failed checks, or call it a decline and reverse the authorization, which removes the pending charge. Crappy terminals might cause the pending authorization to sit there for 1-3 days by delaying or not sending the reversal, but in general that shouldn't be the case.

Anybody else seeing that the site is broken? It says 1 vote still, even after signing and confirming my email.

I can't speak for this book, but Michael Hartl's rails tutorial is what got me addicted to programming, and is largely responsible for me switching majors to CS during my undergrad and getting into the industry. He is a great technical author. Give him your money.

I doubt that either of these outcomes are likely

Part of being a good software engineer is knowing when to do the "wrong" thing (implement something poorly to ship fast). But you must be aware of the trade offs. For early stage companies/products that are struggling for a market it often makes sense to hack things, but at a company that has a large and growing customer base, it rarely does.

Interesting point of view to hear. RE: enums - There is an idiomatic way to do enums in go I believe:

  type MyEnum int

  const (
        A MyEnum = iota
        B
        C
        D
  )