> Men have higher quantitative reasoning ability than women. The truly magical men that should be in control of our society are being shouldered out by very intelligent women.
Dear God, I never thought I'd read a comment as blatantly sexist as this on HN, but here we are. In one comment we have a theory which posits:
* America is in decline because "traditional men" are being attacked by a deliberate feminist takeover.
* "Genius men" (which arise through natural means) bestow the lesser gender with the ability to reason, and therefore any "genius women" are the direct result of their fathers.
* Said "Genius men" are actually being targeted in a systemic fashion, with the end goal of genocide.
I'm very sure you consider yourself among these elevated men who are under attack, in which case I can only hope your theory is true so the world is spared the presence of like-minded fools.
Not sure if that is relevant. Source should not be important if the facts match reality.
Some social scientists observed that women tend to choose lower-risk decisions compared to men that are pressured to take higher risks with immense payouts (rare) or complete disasters (frequent). So these two strategies yield different results - women have a smaller variance, i.e. there are less women at the top and less at the bottom of the society. For men, there are many more men at the top but almost the whole bottom tier consists of men.
There is also the theoretical notion of hypergamy, i.e. women never marrying anyone below them on social ladder and shooting for the top 10-20% of men, so the higher status they achieve, the lower dating pool is available to them. Complementarily, the higher status a man achieves, the bigger his dating pool becomes due to aforementioned hypergamy effect. Frankly, I am not sure how true this is but perhaps can be used as a heuristics while looking at current state of gender relations.
So the question is how to motivate women to take immense risks in order to achieve what traditionally men do and how to persuade them to date down. Any ideas?
From what I've seen, women tend to pick "fun" (literature, art etc.) careers more often than men. My understanding is that they're aware of availability of the backup strategy of marrying some guy who makes more money than them (and thus avoiding near-poverty life associated with those degrees), which makes them less risk-averse.
That's hardly Uptown by any stretch of the word and the crime rate in the area is much higher than you're letting on (certainly compared to your average suburb.) As someone very familiar with real estate market in the TC metro, any home in Minneapolis that's below 150k is either in a high crime area, extremely lacking compared to other houses nearby (probably has no garage, no basement, backs up to train or highway), structurally deficient, or all of the above.
> To me, long studies meant delayed enjoyment of life, less freedom until 23, etc... You get less immediately, more later.
What do you think life is like if you choose to skip postsecondary education? In most cases, it's straight into a factory/manual labor job that is much more physically (and in many cases mentally and emotionally) draining than your standard white-collar coding job.
To characterize those who choose education as having less in the near term seems to ignore what modern universities have become: in America at least, it's basically a secular rumspringa, wherein students dabble in drugs, sex, and other "counter culture" in addition to their studies. This may not be the experience of every CS student (perhaps due to the field's gender inequality and the number of introverted personalities), but it's just a gross misrepresentation to state that choosing further education means less freedom and enjoyment of your life and you should be rewarded thusly.
I think it's often a matter of immediate freedom... even if I have a clear idea of what life is without high education.
"You'll do whatever you want but get a degree first": tell me you've never heard these words. Maybe this education-then-life approach is counter-productive: education should be a life long journey, and life shouldn't start after your studies. "Finish your homework first, then you'll get to play" may be related...
Also, I suffered a stroke at 32 because of my job, so I'm not sure IT is as safe as you think. YMMV.
And I didn't study in the USA. Free education in Europe is not always as sexy as some may think. I often think that maybe this difference is what makes Europeans boring, and americans so creative and innovative. It's like we're trained through higher education to be obedient (white collar) workers, and you're trained more to achieve whatever you really want.
Lastly, it's been studied/proven/observed/shown that children who can delay immediate gratification for a better future outcome will perform better at school and in their lives (cf The Stanford marshmallow experiment).
I mean I grew up in Southern California. Now I live in Vegas. I go to the grocery store and I have to be on full alert to make sure I don't hit some random pedestrian who decides for the fifth time in the day to play Russian roulette by stepping into the middle of the street to cross without even looking up to see if anyone is noticing. At the grocery store, people are walking around like zombies in pajamas that they seem to have been wearing for the past three days straight. I leave the grocery store and load up my car, then I push my empty cart to the cart collection bin. When I get back to my car someone else is loading up their car, with their cart behind my car. I get in my car and wait to finish and when they do, they leave their cart behind my car and drive away. Not to mention the very sad sacks who spend all their time and money in the casinos.
The people here are poor, and my perception is that they don't have much hope and/or desire to affect any kind of change in their life. They just seem not to give a crap.
I don't live in a nice part of town, and I suppose it could just be culture shock for me personally having moved from Irvine to Not-Summerlin, Vegas, but that's my perception.
If you look at video game emulation, CRT shaders are in vogue for that very reason. Would be quite interesting if someone were to apply the same filters to video playback.
> Many people commute and Europe has a good transportation network as the U.S will soon have to? Then what .... then city centers become less attractive as you can more easily get to where the action is without living a stone's throw from it.
This is the crux of the issue. Cities were built around different modes of transportation (walking, biking, driving, trains) whereas suburbs were built up entirely around the automobile. This aversion to driving is something unique to Millenials; owning a car meant freedom and marked success to previous generations. These days, young people are comfortable with streaming services and the new shared economy, so "owning" something isn't important as it once was. Additionally, we face economic concerns (we're making less money and cars are expensive), political concerns (oil, in many cases, directly supports oppressive regimes), and ecological concerns.
In a generation or two, suburbs will have had to adapt to this change in lifestyle and commuter rail/light rail projects are already underway to connect the first ring to the urban cores. Additionally, I think more emphasis will be placed on rebuilding a town center/main street in the areas that can support it. Finally, self-driving electric cars will calm traffic immensely (imagine if all vehicles report to a centralized dispatch AI that can calculate the most efficient routes available, knowing exactly when to turn, stop, accelerate, etc using computer vision, path finding and flocking algorithms.) Cities and suburbs around the country are already adding bike lanes and pedestrian to roads.
> It's like a nursery school filled with Rachel Dolezals.
I'm sorry, but what does that even mean??? Please, enlighten me on how a community openly filled with racist (chimpire) and sexist (candidfashionpolice, not even gonna list ones involving dead women or children) is "thought-policed."
If you mean there are groups of Redditors that openly oppose such subreddits, then yes, those do exist. That is a far cry from thought policing.
/r/LGBT and the events surrounding it are often cited as a good example of Reddit thought policing. Unaware of the story? You are making assertions out of turn.
Dear God, I never thought I'd read a comment as blatantly sexist as this on HN, but here we are. In one comment we have a theory which posits:
* America is in decline because "traditional men" are being attacked by a deliberate feminist takeover.
* "Genius men" (which arise through natural means) bestow the lesser gender with the ability to reason, and therefore any "genius women" are the direct result of their fathers.
* Said "Genius men" are actually being targeted in a systemic fashion, with the end goal of genocide.
I'm very sure you consider yourself among these elevated men who are under attack, in which case I can only hope your theory is true so the world is spared the presence of like-minded fools.