Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Female founders who've had a great 2016

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 122 posts

Re: Female founders who've had a great 2016

#111

Post by [deleted] »

matt4077 wrote: post #46
danso wrote: post #22

I support these kinds of lists. Like #BlackLivesMatter, the focus on a purportedly disenfranchised group doesn't mean that the "main" group doesn't matter -- but it's an acknowledgement that we see plenty of representation of the main group -- in this case, men -- by default. Unless you believe that there really are no barriers specific to women (and it doesn't necessarily have to be sexism) and that women just are t…

May be more necessary than usual – I got the feeling that women were overrepresented in the "Founder-does-something-terrible" articles, at least on HN. Some was certainly deserved, although I'm not sure about the proportionality of the 20th "No, seriously, Elizabeth Holmes is a terrible terrible person!" - article. Some was offensive, misogynistic, backwards bullshit that I can only hope is highly correlated with the…

[deleted]

Re: Female founders who've had a great 2016

#112

Post by HaveCourage »

If this list was "Young founders" or "xyz state founders" no one would bat an eye.

Please let men and women be differently abled. Equality is the opposite of specialization. Specialization is power in a complex world. Video on that idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNz5WXwKHsU

Sexual dimorphism has outcompeted equality. Equality lost.

Re: Female founders who've had a great 2016

#113

Post by facepalm »

tomlock wrote: post #108
facepalm wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll include a link to my paper where I use the method of autoethnography to show how Google has turned into a misandryst megacorporation. Just kidding - I didn't write a paper about it, nor did I conduct a rigorous study. Most of the Google Ads I have seen came via various Google Twitter accounts, like https://twitter.com/lifeatgoogle (Life at Google seems to be dedicated to hiring people for Google). So my filter b…

I'm still not sure why you had the impression that Google is not interested in hiring male coders anymore?

Have you looked at the life at google tweets?

Re: Female founders who've had a great 2016

#114

Post by chongli »

morgante wrote: post #103
chongli wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About 14 percent of the incoming freshman said their families earn above $500,000 Sure it does. If everybody in the US had equal access to primary and secondary education and Harvard had income-blind admissions, do you really think that number would be so high?

Harvard does have income-blind admissions. Admissions officers don't look at your financial aid information when you apply and it's not a factor. Of course, there's still the factor that wealthy parents can pay for a better education. Also that intelligence is largely hereditary.

Harvard has 30 percent legacy admissions. Those are definitely not income-blind.

Re: Female founders who've had a great 2016

#115

Post by morgante »

chongli wrote: post #114
morgante wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Harvard does have income-blind admissions. Admissions officers don't look at your financial aid information when you apply and it's not a factor. Of course, there's still the factor that wealthy parents can pay for a better education. Also that intelligence is largely hereditary.

Harvard has 30 percent legacy admissions. Those are definitely not income-blind.

While I agree that legacy admissions should probably be phased out, they're still "income blind." Knowing someone's a Harvard graduate does not mean you know their income.

Re: Female founders who've had a great 2016

#116

Post by facepalm »

tomlock wrote: post #109
facepalm wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My question is/was: do you think sexism is the main thing that differentiates tech from other non-routine cognitive professions? That economists created such a classification is pretty irrelevant. The point about the broadness was that if it is so broad, you might as well take all professions and get a different result.

I think your original argument was worded "only thing" not "main thing". It feels like you've changed your argument slightly.

Are you sure you can not decipher the argument I am making? Feel free to either replace "only thing" with "main thing" in my first comment, or "main thing" with "only thing" in the later comment, to make it consistent enough for you to parse.

Re: Female founders who've had a great 2016

#118

Post by tomlock »

facepalm wrote: post #116
tomlock wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your original argument was worded "only thing" not "main thing". It feels like you've changed your argument slightly.

Are you sure you can not decipher the argument I am making? Feel free to either replace "only thing" with "main thing" in my first comment, or "main thing" with "only thing" in the later comment, to make it consistent enough for you to parse.

"Only" and "main" have two significantly different meanings so you actually stated two different arguments.

Re: Female founders who've had a great 2016

#120

Post by facepalm »

tomlock wrote: post #118
facepalm wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure you can not decipher the argument I am making? Feel free to either replace "only thing" with "main thing" in my first comment, or "main thing" with "only thing" in the later comment, to make it consistent enough for you to parse.

"Only" and "main" have two significantly different meanings so you actually stated two different arguments.

Sorry then my English isn't good enough for such nuances. Maybe replace all instances of "main" and "only" with "significant" or something like that?

I think with some goodwill, you could see the point I was trying to make.

Post reply on HN