Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | pavl-'s commentslogin

"A nation that can’t produce [physical goods] can’t stand."

Based on what evidence?

"And I think part of the issue is that we’ve become lazy. People don’t want to work anymore"

Americans work more hours per week than a majority of countries. Low-paying factory jobs are off-shored because they're low-paying.

"So what’s the answer? Unfortunately, hardship."

You probably should do more research on the subject, and successful onshoring regimes that have been implemented by other countries. If you, for e.g., determine that America needs to produce a certain quantity of semi-conductors to insulate from various natsec risks, there are ways to tackle that problem and usually they don't involve hoping an onshore industry magically appears because you've haphazardly shivved trade across the board.


To you "screaming and yelling" at a private company that still retains agency over it's content moderation is government censorship, but the government's direct censoring of information is not? Partisan politics has a neat way of twisting one's brain up like a pretzel.


Unless the author makes a compelling case about why AI breaks the MAD status-quo between nuclear powers, I will assume that their appeals to NATSEC are an attempt to artificially create moat for their company.


I also find it counterintuitively reassuring that we have already had the power to blow up the planet for decades. But at least in theory - GPT10 level AI could help develop missile defense systems that actually work at scale, which would eliminate the MAD status quo, no?


What about the missile guidance / launch systems it could develop? The question at the at the limit of development becomes is nuclear warfare slightly attacker biased or slightly defender biased?


I imagine that argument is a pretty easy sell. Of course governments will want to create moats that protect their incumbents.


AI is potentially so much deeper than MAD status quo.


One of the smartest people I know almost quit software her first year out of school, because her all-male team spent an afternoon teasing her about how they were going to start a strip poker game and they think she'd be "a natural", or some nonsense like that. Do you think such dynamics introduce barriers to female participation in tech? Do you think focusing solely at the "bottom of the funnel" could still result in a lack of diversity if the "top of the funnel" isn't pleasant for certain demographics to work? Do you think such an event would've occurred without pushback on a team with more than 1 woman? Do you think what you consider to be "common sense" is shaped very much by your personal experience, and that you'd have no "common sense" intuition for how frequently things like this happen because it doesn't personally impact you?


I’m 35 now, at no point in my career have I ever been in an environment that would have tolerated that, school- college or workplace.

And I haven’t been trying exceptionally hard to avoid it.

If such jibes had happened those people would not have a job, point blank.

Given the average seniority for a full stack engineer is 10 years, I should have encountered at least one, or worked with someone who had been in such an environment.

I think chud behaviour is an excuse, because it’s not tolerated for at least my lifetime.


One thing to pay attention to is how you influence those around you. I'm guessing, doesn't put up with that kind of shit. People who act like that probably don't act like that when you're around. Because of that, you get a sanitized view of the world.

That sort of chud behavior is very much tolerated in many places: https://www.romerolaw.com/blog/2021/11/complaint-alleges-ram...


Even if it's very uncommon, unfortunately even one incident like the one in GP's comment is enough to convince someone that they're unwelcome and abandon working in the field. In fact, an argument for workplace diversity initiatives is that it can re-assure people that they are welcome, and that kind behavior of is fireable. Personally the kind of "DEI" I most strongly support are the initiatives that lay out clear rules and expectations for what kind of employee behavior is allowed, and tell people who to go to if they see it occurring.


if everyone openly has your back, consistently, and for years yet you’re so fragile that a single dickhead (who will be fired) derails your entire career then honestly you were too fragile to do the job anyway..

I don’t know a single engineer who doesn’t get imposter syndrome.

As a man, I have been openly derided for doing something stupid, if I were a woman I might internalise that as if it was sexism- so how do you deal with that? When people are so convinced that if anything critical could be based on gender?

At some point you're treating people like children.

Again I’ll say it: every single educational institution and workplace I have ever been in has intentionally mentioned that anything that could be perceived as misogyny or sexual harassment have a zero tolerance policy.

Am I really the outlier? I’ve worked so many places and across so many countries and industries…


> Again I’ll say it: every single educational institution and workplace I have ever been in has intentionally mentioned that anything that could be perceived as misogyny or sexual harassment have a zero tolerance policy.

Just because they say that doesn't mean they'll do that. People lie, they systematically sexually harass for years, and only if its made public will they actually do anything about it.

https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/uber-pay-44-million-resolve-ee...

https://www.axios.com/2023/12/16/activision-blizzard-gender-...


In US companies and universities that I have been at throughout my 30-year career: a group of men harassing a woman with strip poker jokes would be dealt with very swiftly and decisively. My 2c.


YMMV, but during my time studying the course coordinators of the first year CS courses had to put out a notice to the male students that the female students (greatly outnumbered) were there to learn and didn't want to be hit on during labs and tutorials. They did that because it had become a problem, especially as these courses consisted of a lot of students who perhaps didn't have much experience interacting graciously (or at all) with the opposite gender.


Your suggestion that bad behavior by all-male teams would be improved by the addition of women rests on a couple of assumptions that are not true: that women are inherently better behaved than men, and that women naturally see each other as being on the same team.

I have been through some really awful experiences in the workplace in the last few years, and some of the most egregiously abusive behavior came from another woman. Women can be incredibly cruel to each other, and this woman in particular seemed to have it out for other women. Women are not inherently saints, and they are not inherently kind to other women.

On the other hand, I have often, often worked on teams that were (except for me) all men, but by and large they were men who had mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters that they loved, and who therefore had no trouble relating to me with respect and affection. While it is true that some men treat women specifically badly, and that some men treat people generally badly, it is not true that men in general treat women badly. Quite the opposite.

It does take a moment, as a woman, to find your feet socially in an all male space. But does it not always take a moment to find your feet in any new space? I have generally found that what makes it go smoothly is the fact that we are all hackers. If anything, it is all the walking on eggshells about sexism that makes social integration awkward at first. People are trying to figure out how they are "supposed" to behave around me, worried that I will be aggressive socially and legally. When we focus on the work we do together and the love we have in common for the field, we become friends naturally and get along well.

I myself think all the hand-wringing over demographics has been a waste of time at best and counterproductive at worst. I think it makes more sense to focus on developing virtue, civility, and good leadership among the people who find themselves here.


> I have been through some really awful experiences in the workplace in the last few years, and some of the most egregiously abusive behavior came from another woman. Women can be incredibly cruel to each other, and this woman in particular seemed to have it out for other women. Women are not inherently saints, and they are not inherently kind to other women.

In my teens my mom tried to reenter the workforce and got an office job, and she absolutely hated working with other women because of this. She wanted to work with men because in her experience, women were so much worse.


I don't think women are inherently better behaved than men, or that they naturally see themselves as being on the same team. It's that the dynamic where it feels fun or funny to tell a joke that makes a minority in a group feel bad is less likely to arise when there are multiple people who wouldn't be laughing, or perhaps even telling them to give it a rest. Nothing to do with comradery, just the natural tendency of people to not like when their personal identity is threatened in some way.

FWIW, I do think most men with wives and/or daughters are generally thoughtful coworkers, but I'm not sure that's a majority in most tech workplaces, especially the ones that skew young. Thinking back to my own experience, I think, I was blind to a lot of the things I'm speaking about (or perhaps even resistant to the idea of calling it out) until I had a long-term partner.


It is always so refreshing to read this kind of thing.

For a number of years I had the sense that I might be going crazy, because it seemed that throughout my whole working life I'd encountered good and bad people of both sexes, but never witnessed the kind of systematic targeting of women that both mainstream and alternative media sources told me was rife. How could it be that I couldn't see what was apparently right under my nose? So it's reassuring to know that there are also women who have had a similar experience.


> Do you think such an event would've occurred without pushback on a team with more than 1 woman?

Sure. One of the women I dated detailed a story about how a man at a conference she attended suggested it'd be more fun if she was roofies. To her face, in front of her co-workers (many of them women). She was in a majority female industry (healthcare).

Why do we just assume that men stop doing cringe stuff just because women are around?


I hear stories like this, but now after 25 years in the industry, no place I've worked at would have ever tolerated this, nor have I seen or heard this happen from colleagues. Granted I've worked mostly in California, but still seems so foreign to me.


I have a first-hand experience once or twice a year that make me stop and think -- if I were a woman in this situation I'd probably be doubting my career path. The example I cited is particularly egregious, but I have seen several other examples from a variety of companies: - two guys on a zoom call joking that someone's camera was off because they were doing "weird stuff" - manager from another team drunkenly telling a 24 year old at a holiday party that he would leave his wife for her - software system named "naggy_wife" - coworker telling younger coworker to "not get married because you will never have sex again"

I am passing along these anecdotes because they're more easy to empathize with than some of the more general arguments of why it can be hard to succeed in tech as a woman (but they really only tell part of the story). Some of my other anecdotes might also sound closer to things you've seen or heard at the work place, or perhaps it's easier to see how some of these things might have happened without you being aware of them, given their (relative) infrequency and the contexts in which they arise. All of them happened without an HR incident (like, really, should a guy who wrote a system called "naggy-wife" get in trouble? a choice was made like 20 years ago... and maybe the guy doesn't even work there anymore). But you can also see how negative experiences like this can build up and contribute to the relatively common feeling among female engineers that they "don't belong".


>But you can also see how negative experiences like this can build up

Not really, TBH. I especially can't see why a woman experiencing these (to my mind, rather mild) interactions would think that things would be better in some other career path.

Let's say I, a man, went to work in a traditionally female-dominated field like nursing, and found that the other nurses there had named their cafeteria dishwasher "Hubby" as a joke because it took forever to work.

Would I, a grown man, consider changing my career because of this? No, I wouldn't.

OTOH, if the other nurses seemed to view me with disrespect or suspicion and I found I wasn't able to shift that perception through my actions, then I'd reconsider.


> Let's say I, a man, went to work in a traditionally female-dominated field like nursing, and found that the other nurses there had named their cafeteria dishwasher "Hubby" as a joke because it took forever to work.

Actually, this issue is in nursing. If you talk to male nurse organizations they do actually have issues of e.g. constantly being saddled with the heaviest patients or most physical labor because they're assumed to be strong, not having sexual harassment taken seriously from patients, and to be expected to take one for the team in handling the patients that were sexually inappropriate with female nurses. It does grate over time!


Those sound to me like genuine issues that need to be fixed. (To give an example of something I do think would need to be fixed in a gender-flipped scenario: Expecting only female employees to bring food to office parties, or clean up afterwards.)


This won’t be a popular sentiment among the woke mafia that puruses HN but I’ve seen far more women drop out of tech roles due to the general work environment than due to some sexist commentary. In fact, I don’t know any who left due to some sexist commentary. I know many who left due to how toxic the work environment is for everyone.

Tech workers are one of the least sexist groups out of any. If you think techies are sexist, you’d never last a day in medicine, law, or finance. Yet, women sign up for those in far higher percentages. Genuinely, it is actually hard to find a more left/progressive leaning professional field. It is not sexism that is the one thing keeping women out of tech. It is that it’s not an attractive or high status field to women. The people working in it are not seen as socially competent, it is highly outsourced, and depending on role has relatively little socializing. It’s also insanely competitive and you have to fight to keep your job from an army of H1B workers invading the country due to CEOs looking for slave labor. There are so many reasons to not be in tech and sexism should be one of the lowest reasons out there.

I don’t know any women complaining about sexism in comparison to the level of “holy fuck, when will I ever get a break?” It is an unrelenting field that constantly has you worried you’ll lose your job next month. On top of requiring you study at least 500 leetcode problems before you do any interviews. Go figure, most women don’t enjoy that.


My ex-partner was a consultant at a FANG. It was her first engagement at a customer site after six months of very successful work internally.

She was placed in a group overseen by another consultant. He was from the same firm. In fact he was a principle in the firm.

He immediately started undermining her. He gave her advice that she followed, and then he criticized her for following his advice. He was extremely helpful to women employees from the client, but a complete dick to her. There were many other things he did. She documented what was happening, and complained to the skip-level but he denied it, and they didn't believe her. It looked like she was going to be out.

Then there was a reorganization and several other women from the same consulting company were moved onto her team. They had much more history with the company. They were all high performers. He started doing the same shit to them. When they started reporting the same treatments and complaints management finally listened, and recalled him to the central office.

The story has a great ending though. Once back in the main office, said horrible man then made a wonderful mistake. He started sexually harassing the new corporate council. That ended very badly for him.

So, yeah, sexual harassment happens.


> He immediately started undermining her. He gave her advice that she followed, and then he criticized her for following his advice. He was extremely helpful to women employees from the client, but a complete dick to her. There were many other things he did. She documented what was happening, and complained to the skip-level but he denied it, and they didn't believe her. It looked like she was going to be out.

This sounds like what happens to other males too? I'm not sure if that's related to sexual harassment though.


Yeah, exactly. This is the difference. People in tech assume that when this happens to women that it’s sexually motivated. No. It’s motivated by knowing you’re stack ranked and the best way to get ahead is by tearing others down. The industry is insanely toxic and most men just deal with it silently.


How much of this opinion has been shaped by actually talking to the women whose experience you are summarizing? And specifically in a context where they'd give you an honest and candid answer, which probably wouldn't involve you saying stuff like "woke mafia" out loud (as it would put regular people on guard and they'd feel less comfortable being honest with you). I don't want you to answer question that literally, because it's the internet and you can just say "I've talked to 1000 women in tech and have summarized their tabulated their experiences in a spreadsheet on my computer." Just honestly take a quiet minute or so and think about it. If the answer is somewhere close to zero, ask yourself why you felt such a high degree of confidence in the assessment you gave above.


Even in Chicago 30 years ago I cannot imagine that happening where I worked. Women were pretty well represented in tech there, incidentally. My immediate supervisor was a woman and I was the only male on my team. This was in IT in financial services. I would guess the whole department was 60:40 male:female.


Seriously, every instance I'm aware of men having done something like that where I worked (and it's happened more than once), they've been fired either the next day or the same week.

The solution there has nothing to do with hiring more women, and everything to do with zero tolerance for a sexist environment.

I mean, that happening is just insane. This isn't the 1950's.


Extreme examples like this provide a nice attention-grabbing narrative, but they're not responsible for driving the central 99.5% of the workforce distribution


Do you think a movie where the main character is driven to madness at the site of a Native American burial ground/frontier wars is not purposefully introducing this subtext or do you not like the language that the author used?


That is very valid subtext but I also believe Stephen King was wigging out detoxing from booze and blow with his family in CO and remember some Bradbury he read. Both can be true. King was so good he doesn't remember writing Cujo like Bowie doesn't remember recording Station to Station

Eyes Wide Shut is visually captivating string theory goodness - you can lose your mind over the rainbow right quick - but also I think Arthur Schnitzler wanted a little taste of that hot secret pre-WWI Vienna action that he'd never get (I'm all about that fallacy of authorial intent).


Most or all mentions of Native Americans were introduced by Kubrick and absent in King's original


> Stephen King

Would be good commentary for his version of of the film


Why do you think the goal of modern art should necessarily be to appeal to as many people as possible - or when you say "universally bad" do you mean to say "perceived as bad to people who aren't immersed in art"? Marvel movies and McDonalds will always exist for normal people.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: