zlacker

>>zdw+(OP)
As usual, the actual numbers don't back up the narrative. For example, significantly more men in the study left due to unfairness than women do: 40% vs. 31%. So either women are treated more fairly or these numbers don't mean anything, yet you would never know it from the text, which is all about the horrible things that happen to women.

Hmmm...

>>mpweih+D4
The willingness to slog though abusive working conditions is one of the most highly-selected-for trait in tech. Mature people are, on average, are less willing to do this than young people of the customarily military age range.

>>whatsh+e5
Please don't post unsubstantive comments or flamebait here. What you say isn't remotely plausible, since if it were true, software companies would be filled with non-programmers. Edit: I mean instead of programmers.

>>dang+6a
I think you read his comment in bad faith and ascribed "flamebait" and unsubstantiveness to it. Specifically, the comment states:

> The willingness to slog though abusive working conditions is one of the most highly-selected-for trait in tech.

The comment claims that "abuse tolerance" is one of the most highly-selected-for traits, not the only thing you need to become a programmer. Further, programming skill isn't even necessarily a "trait" - the colloquial meaning of "trait" is often a personality trait, not any possible characteristic of a person.

I don't see how the comment is substantively different from the many others on this topic.

>>Sacho+iK
The comment was edited after I posted that. Originally it said, "is the most highly-selected-for trait in tech".

It always shocks me when people silently do that to undermine someone's reply; it seems so blatantly dishonest. Do we need to make comments non-editable once they have replies?