'Rationality: From AI to Zombies' is available on a pay-what-you-want basis. It talks about cognitive science, ethics, human (ir)rationality and how to improve it, among other things. It stems from the Lesswrong Sequences [2], which have a lot more content, but are a bit messy.
> Fun Theory is the field of knowledge that deals in questions such as "How much fun is there in the universe?", "Will we ever run out of fun?", "Are we having fun yet?" and "Could we be having more fun?"
The unit of sharing is the channel. You start with a personal channel user@domain.com and can create any number of new channels (holiday-photos@domain.com). Each channel has followers, moderator etc that you can control access to (or just set it as public): https://buddycloud.org/wiki/Channels_Explained
Think of the architecture like your email provider: You can always grab your mail spool and find a new provider. buddycloud is not dissimilar - just grab your posts and followers from the API and import them on a new provider. We're make this easier soon but, the data and endpoints are all there to facilitate it.
I know women who do use their gender to get respect. I never heard them explicitly demanding it, but they expect it and often get it. There are not many of them, but they do exist.
Maybe you don't know any such women, maybe you live in a culture where you don't get respect even when you deserve it, but that is no reason to write such an aggressive article.
I am concerned that nowadays, when a guy points that we are not going towards gender equality, but overshooting it, he is labeled to be chauvinistic and buried under a mountain of hate. The original article was polite and had a point, he didn't deserve this.
If a woman acts inappropriately towards a man, he rarely has any option to make her fuck off. "Men don't have to do it"? They can't. It's only that it happens less often (I guess). Seems to me that women have a lot more power in this regard.
I don't doubt that worldwide, men suffer sexual and physical assault from the opposite sex at a lower rate than women.
However, in developed countries, I wouldn't be surprised if it's closer than we collectively think. Here is an informative article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/07/feminism... Men are probably less likely to report incidents due to humiliation or rather, lack of action. Checkout comments on stories when boys get sexually molested by female teachers. Oh yeah, the boy is supposed to love it because he's a boy! Very different when the genders are reversed. Castrate the man! Execute him! Or how about physical assault? Did Elin Nordgren serve any time or get lambasted by feminists for assaulting Tiger Woods? Nope. In fact, she got a tidy settlement.
No. These are just a bunch of guys predictably derailing the discussion of how women are harassed at tech conferences with, "But sometimes it's a guy, too! Ergo, we shouldn't get anywhere in this discussion!"
If a person effectively says, "whatever, when men endure what women have to, then we'll talk," you bet I'll respond to that as it implies whatever men go through is less important. I don't have a downvote button so the only recourse is responding.
I was responding to the flippant statement: "When 1 in 4 men get sexually assaulted during their lives, I will start giving one iota of care about poor poor dis-empowered men," as if somehow men who are sexually assaulted are less important.
Who was I to think that the fact 1-in6 men are sexually abused while underage was a quick and easy response to a remark that men are not sexually assaulted in any real numbers.
I should have looked up the statistics on all demographics, because apparently that sexual abuse isn't good enough sexual abuse to refute the weight the parent poster was giving to the 1-in-4 women statistic.
Right, but that’s during childhood, not as an adult going to work and attending technical conferences. I can think of only one person I’ve met since turning 18 who was, umm, skeevy to me in a sexual way, and that person was male.
(He didn’t actually assault me, but I later learned that one MIT fraternity had nicknamed him “the NAMBLA man”, and a while after that there was an article in the school paper reporting that he had just done time for rape.)
Yeap, judging from the downvotes in all sibling posts, the "think of the women" PC brigade is on witchhunt tonight. God forbid someone brings up an area where men are less pampered. Oh well.
Your comment should get downvoted to oblivion for its sheer lack of originality, panache, and basic human empathy, but let me humor you with a response:
When 1 in N women can serve in the military without being raped by their fellow servicemen, then we can talk.
And then can we have the conversation wherein you attempt to defend your apparent belief that people dying in service of their country is superior to people being RAPED BY THEIR OWN COUNTRYMEN in service of their country.
I don't regard rape as a fate worse than death. It should be regarded as a crime worthy of prosecution to the fullest extent of the law, and right now it isn't.
If people in the armed forces were killed by their fellow soldiers at the rate women in the armed forces are assaulted and/or raped (which would mean a Fort Hood massacre every _week_), it would get a lot of attention, and the perpetrators would actually be prosecuted instead of shielded from consequence. But when a victim of assault reports it in the military, the consequences usually fall on the victim and the perp gets to walk. I think any rational human would find that sickening.
I also take umbrage with your sugarcoated characterization of rape as "involuntary sexual intercourse," as if it could happen by accident. There is no such thing as "involuntary" sexual intercourse. Sex requires consent. If consent is not given or is revoked, it immediately becomes assault and/or rape, and the person who disregards that becomes an assailant and/or rapist. Your use of dismissive, diminishing rhetoric to describe (or even excuse) the traumatizing act of sexual assault/rape is a lame and misguided attempt of political correctness of your own preference. Which is a nice way of saying that you're propping up rape culture.
I don't know you, but based on your comments you seem to have very little to no empathy for victims of assault. I would implore you to examine why that is.
The cards could be given for any non-appropriate behavior, not just sexual harassment of women. Keep in mind that there are also some sexist women that can't behave themselves.
EDIT: The cards don't seem to be gender specific, though it is implied that they will be mainly used by females.
Just because it's wrong one way doesn't make it wrong the other way. It's wrong for Etsy to give male programmers money because women are already underrepresented and, in many ways, disadvantaged in a male dominated hacker culture. It would also not be wrong to give poor black kids a chance (even though it would be wrong to "discriminate" against white kids).
The point of non-discrimination is EQUALITY between people of all races and genders. So if you can't switch the sides, they are not equal and it is wrong.
This is just madness. You can give poor black kids a chance by giving them equal rights and rules. Anyway, woman are underrepresented by their own choice and are in no way disadvantaged. I actually feel it is the opposite, that as a woman, I'm in advantage in IT.
[1] https://intelligence.org/rationality-ai-zombies/
[2] http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Rationality_materials