>Maybe chill out a bit on the accusatory kneejerk reaction, this is meant to be a forum for civil discussion.
Without fail, during any discussion about tech and gender on these boards, "nice guys" come out of the woodwork as staunch advocates of equality in the workplace, their message couched in accusatory and bullying language.
I'll bet they're closer to being part of the problem with the industry, rather than the solution.
>that sends a million little cues about what girls are supposed to do.
Why do you assume this is cause rather than effect? I find it hard to imagine we set out to define gender roles, rather than those roles evolving over a long time due to a billion factors.
Because researchers have been looking for those factors for a long time but haven't found anything significant. Yes, if you give people a pull-up test men will do better on average but there's a shortage of strong examples of more complex skills where there's a significant innate difference. This is especially true for professional skills where there are multiple paths to success relying on many different mental abilities, decreasing the odds that any single innate difference could be make or break.
Porque no los dos? It's possible that "traditional" gender roles evolved, but are still reinforced by behavior even when they are outdated.
The economics of our society have changed both in what efforts are expected from whom, and in what options are granted to whom. That changes some of the billion factors weighing on our constructed social order, but there are still those who benefit from retarding the process.
>It doesn't protect against the insurers going bust
Can you clarify? I mean, I agree that your diversification should extend beyond the stock market (bonds, some metals, real estate). But I'm not sure what you mean by the above.
I can't give any such example. However, EVERY economic collapse has been followed by rebuilding. Maybe the nation has a new name or new boundaries, but something is always rebuilt. And once it is, gold has value again.
I hear Bitcoin is popular in Venezuela, where the people hunt pigeons for food after the communists took over. It's also popular in China, where - again - people are scared of their government.
I don't know that the US federal government is as scary, but it's not unheard of.
Oppressive governments are essentially the only good reason to use bitcoin, since the usual financial system is far more efficient at storing and transmitting money. He's either evading taxes or speculating.
My bank charges $40 + 2% forex spread for a wire transfer to Thailand. With Bitcoin I actually come out at a small profit. Bitcoin is way better at consumer level international transfers than banks.
Even generally non-oppressive governments make errors, and it happens more often that you'd think (and suing might be prohibitively expensive, untimely, or not an option at all).
The usual financial system is far more efficient at converting your wealth for the use of the oligarchs. USD for example has lost almost 100% of its value since the institution of the Federal Reserve system. The wealth did not go away. It was merely transferred from the populace to the rentiers.
>because it's not an investment but a safety net like gold and silver
Only if you're a resident of an unstable country.
Can you name a crisis where having a stash of gold and silver mattered? Do you think people are going to trade valuable goods (food? water? ammo?) for your metal bars? I can't imagine the circumstances.
When SHTF the government (or someone else) will confiscate that wealth. They have in the past. Personally, I think metals will matter less in any apocalypse, because they have no practical use.
As a Russian, I have survived the USSR economic collapse. Having a stash of gold would be handy (dangerous, as it would have put a mark on your back, but still preferable to holding any amount of Soviet money, which became worthless in mere months.) Gold was traded for great value in the harshest of times there.
Cyprus is a country with a wall running across one corner of it which operated its financial industry as a tax haven, overbalancing the economy. Savings in excess of the insured level (€100k) took a cut (8% I believe).
You don't need anything except potatoes and fast-growing greens to survive. Grain and rice are too labor-intensive and generally require a functioning economy.
(And if you don't have guns and ammo, you'll be immediately robbed by those who do)
Those are ways to invest in that total number. I already do that. I mean an information source for the total valuation of the world's stock markets on a monthly basis at least.
Are you just listing a few random ways that Bitcoin is more convenient than cash? The OP was about spending money at a bar.
But okay, here's how cash is more convenient: I can walk outside my office and use this dollar bill at any store anywhere around me. It has apparent value to everyone I will talk to. I don't need the internet.
If you need to "program" or "backup" your money, I guess Bitcoin is your medium. No argument there.
>It doesn't work that way. The best startups are ones that solve a pain point you yourself have experienced.
This is a natural extension of "startup founder" becoming a an aspirational occupation for kids fresh out of college. Who needs real-world experience? Disrupt!
Without fail, during any discussion about tech and gender on these boards, "nice guys" come out of the woodwork as staunch advocates of equality in the workplace, their message couched in accusatory and bullying language.
I'll bet they're closer to being part of the problem with the industry, rather than the solution.