Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


This user doesn't have any awards

About Builder

  • Title
    third wave feminist, poststructuralist philosopher

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
  • Interests
    Computers, electrical engineering, programming, penetration testing.
  • Biography
    I break stuff and then fix it to find out how it works.
  • Occupation
    Unix Hacker


  • CPU
    Intel Core i5-4258U
  • Motherboard
    Apple Logic Board
  • RAM
    8GB 1600Mhz CL9
  • GPU
    Intel Iris Integrated Graphics
  • Case
    MacBook Pro Aluminum Unibody Enclosure
  • Storage
    256GB PCIe SSD
  • PSU
    MagSafe Power Adapter 60W
  • Display(s)
    2560*1600 IPS Retina Display
  • Cooling
    Asymmetric blade fan, aluminum enclosure
  • Keyboard
    Backlit MacBook Keyboard
  • Mouse
    MacBook Trackpad
  • Sound
    Acoustically Optimized Speakers

Recent Profile Visitors

3,141 profile views
  1. Well yes, but without explaining why, you're basically saying "here's my explanation, it doesn't explain the data, believe it anyways." You've explained that the source is incomplete. Okay. I agree. Data is imperfect, we're never going to have the full picture. What, then, is your explanation for the 20% pay gap? Do you have data to support your hypotheses, or do you just hate mine? What is your conclusion? That across the country, women consistently go into the same jobs at smaller companies, and get paid less as a result? Why? No, you're right. This is all shades of gray. I will say that I am about 99% certain that there is a wage gap, because I haven't seen better data proving otherwise, only anecdotal explanations.
  2. I read the transcript and looked at their sources. They're saying that it's about choices in jobs. This data set reflects that criticism. This is people with the same job. This is called "disparate impact" in discrimination law, and is fairly well known. Look it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact I don't know what companies you've worked in but in big companies it absolutely gets stratified to the degree that the military is. And yes, that individual situation is possible, but you need to show why that consistently causes statistical, disparate impact. Your individual anecdotes do not refute labor statistics for a country of 300 million people. Try harder. Then don't fucking hire her, fucking fire her. If she's complete shit, fire her! This is not hard. You've yet to explain why women are consistently 20% worse at their jobs than men. Uh, no I didn't, because the 5% number is wrong. I was using a hypothetical in the original argument. In this circumstance you would expect men to get paid 5% more, not 19% more, as they do. "Those numbers do not take into account experience, education, length of time in job, value of position in the company, how much the company makes (e.g. is company A able to pay their employees as much as company B), etc. There's so many variables not accounted for." Alright, so account for those variables, and prove me wrong. Just saying my point is wrong because you can think up counterfactuals that refute it does not make it so. "Where's your data to prove that woman are working at larger companies and deserve or have earned greater pay? There is none, that's why those USBLS numbers are meaningless." Because it doesn't make any fucking sense to say otherwise. Occam's razor applies here. Why do men in janitorial positions get paid 22% more than women when these positions are all contracted out? Okay, but you have to actually explain this point, with evidence. What's your explanation for this, and how does it fit the data better? You can't just guess here, you have to extrapolate from what is known to what is implied, you can't do it backwards. I'll say what I've said before. If you have a better set of data for analyzing these problems, please provide it. Until then, this is the best data we've got, flawed though it may be, and people don't seem to understand what disparate impact means.
  3. It doesn't, but I'll reiterate: if you consistently pay women with equal qualifications (this is a big if, I realize) in the same jobs as men 20% less, you're discriminating. It's not me saying this, it's labor law. If your women are performing 20% less than men across the board, demote them to a position where their pay makes sense or fire them. You cannot, however, keep them in the same jobs as men, with the same qualifications as men, and pay them less. Whether this means you misjudged their qualifications or what is irrelevant: it's discrimination.
  4. First off, please make an effort to read this whole post and respond to the relevant parts in your reply. I'm putting in the effort, so I expect you to. No skirting around the question, please. That being said, I guess I have to link it for you, even though it's pretty obvious: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.htm "Wage gap calculated from 2015 median weekly earnings of full-time salary workers in the United States as per the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics." Look at the objections I raised in my initial post, and tell me why they're wrong. Please. The facts are there, they're right underneath the number on Narrow the Gapp. If you seriously think PragerU is a better source than the US Bureau of Labor Statistics then we have nothing to discuss. Prager's sources are all self-referential to them and Christina Hoff Sommers, I looked at them. They're no good. This is not an "SJW move," this is called analytical rigor. The US BLS is a disinterested third party, and Narrow the Gapp's stats are calculated from their data. PragerU and Louder with Crowder are not third parties, and not only that, the sources you linked do nothing to refute the point that I am making. Y'all have yet to even make a legitimate point. I'm waiting. And I'll reiterate, because you haven't confronted this either: what makes a 5% pay gap okay? Your analysis here does not refute my point. Okay, so then why does it hold for entry-level jobs that anyone can take, like janitors? I can assure you that Apple's janitors do not get paid 20% more than janitors at every other company, they're all through contracting companies. You can't compare the same job because only one person can have a job. It's impossible. It makes very little sense that across the board that women are what, working at smaller companies than men and that's the explanation? That's what your argument is, no? Where's your data to back it up? Somebody working 24 minutes longer in an 8 hour day is not a twenty percent increase. That is less than a five percent increase. Okay, but again, you need data to back this up, not just anecdotal hypotheticals. Show me the data that proves that set does not have the full picture. You haven't done it yet. Well, you're at odds with labor law here. Equal qualifications covers meaningful experience, becoming a specialist means they're not working the same job, and beyond that, I can't see how this is different from garden variety sexism. Women across the board are 20% less competent and performant at their jobs (regardless of industry) with equal qualifications to men? It could be the case, but I would say that's at odds with the accepted neuroscience. Additionally with regards to labor law it doesn't matter if you say your women are performing worse than your men and that's why you're paying them 20% less: you're not allowed to do that. The intentions barely matter with discrimination law, it's only the outcome that matters. If your actions lead to a discriminatory outcome, that is the legal definition of discrimination. I would also say, fire those women. Find better women. We exist.
  5. Women can be misogynistic too, this is called internalized misogyny and it's an effect of living in a patriarchal society. Men are not the sole reason in a syllogistic, philosophical sense, but they are the primary reason. I don't think you're mentally ill, I think you're badly misguided. But it's ok, you can call me that. I've been called that before. Between depression, ADHD, and gender dysphoria, you're not even wrong. However, calling people mentally ill for talking about sexist behavior in high-tech is exactly the kind of shit I'm talking about. I don't care whether you're a man or a woman, you're just proving my point that people can't discuss this rationally. And you're one of the good ones, if I remember, @dalekphalm? Good to see you again comrade. It's not like this is intractable, either. This is a problem that men can fix through acknowledging it and working to distance themselves and the culture from the toxic people. But it's not going to go anywhere if we can't even discuss it without accusing people of being mentally ill.
  6. Oh god...PragerU? Louder with Crowder? First off, get better sources. Narrow the Gapp uses data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, and they link it below. Also that's a 19% wage gap, not 29%. 29% would be if they get paid 71c on the dollar, but they get paid 81c on average. Labor markets are also not susceptible to supply and demand in the same way that commodities are, so the idea that corporations could reduce their costs by hiring women and that because they don't that that means the gap doesn't exist is a direct fallacy. Case in point, raising the minimum wage does not increase unemployment. This was discovered through research in the early 1990s. Refuting the video itself, they don't account for the refutations in my original post. The 81% number is based off of people working in the same field under analytically comparable conditions. That video doesn't even refute this point, they just say that men and women go into different fields. Well duh. Please be a little bit more careful in the arguments you're making, as I've already refuted all of them in my first post here. But let's just assume they're right, even though they're wrong. What accounts for consistently paying women 5% less than men across the board? That's not ok either. The idea that anything less than equal pay for equal work is ok is laughable. DItto on the gay transsexual though (notice the avi?), but of course I'm white. That doesn't mean (and I don't believe) that that makes you right and me wrong, that's just idiotic. And no, I'm not trolling, I'm trying to have a serious discussion here.
  7. Common sense never secured anything, humans are terrible, terrible creatures and the only way to protect them is with machines. People have notoriously bad judgment. OP, just stick with Windows Defender and you'll be fine.
  8. Nothing. It's men being absolute toxic dicks about it that we don't like. (if you're not convinced just watch how people react to me saying this)
  9. The amount of attacks are directly proportional to the popularity of the platform. Additionally Microsoft was extremely cavalier about security for years and years but they've gotten a lot better in recent years. If you're running a Mac that is mission critical you should have at least three tiers of backup: bootable backups (ideally daily) with something like SuperDuper, continuous backups with Time Machine, and offsite backups to something like BackBlaze or CrashPlan. There are definitely still fewer threats on macOS than Windows but this isn't necessarily because Mac security is inherently superior. It's pretty good, but the hierarchy these days for system security still goes iOS (non-jailbroken) > ChromeOS (no chroot) > everything else
  10. What's the open source alternative to comprehensive GUI scripting? What's the open source alternative to the Cocoa APIs, arguably one of the most elegant APIs in existence? And yeah I know what Linux is! my dude, I am a computer programmer. Linux on the desktop is a goddamn nightmare though. All the user interfaces suck and nothing works without spending three hours fucking around with it to do basic shit. Why are you going into other peoples' threads to tell them what operating system to use?
  11. definitely not. where else can i get the Aqua DE? applescript? osascript? total integration of the GUI with the command line? or do i have to deal with the shit-tier Linux options or the complete and total abomination that is the Windows UI.
  12. and that's where you would be wrong. no idea why they're marketing them to gamers but bloated, enormous C++ builds on 32 threads make -j32 all ...i could die happy.
  13. pricing's in https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2017/5/30/15710476/intel-core-x-processors-i9-chips-i5-i9-skylake-kaby-lake-computex "To that end, the Core X series scales from models with 4-cores topping out with the $1,999 Core i9 Extreme, which Intel proudly points out is the first consumer desktop processor to offer 18-cores and 36-threads."
  14. Hi all I'm doing a themed build in a couple of weeks and the theme is "permanent revolution." I was just wondering how many communisms are required on average? I realize I'm just a beginner but need some help working out the kinks. I'm planning to use a i7-6950X "Class Consciousness" edition and a Titan Black "Special Antifa" limited edition. For reference here's the blueprint I'm working on: