The problem with the founder's wife sounds like a very one sided account of your standard interpersonal conflict. Everyone who has ever been in one of those has at some point claimed themselves to be a saint and their opponent a demon.
The alleged sexism seems to be primarily imaginary.
The anonymous posting that so upset her and precipitated all of this said:
> has a history of RAGINING against any professional criticism. Leadership has stood idly by while she lied about contributions and threw hardworking coworkers under the bus (again and again)[1]
To be honest, it seems to me that such could very well be true.
A good thumb rule to apply to verify whether something is about sexism is to think whether things would have played out differently if the sex of the victim was different. Do you still think in this case the alleged sexism is imaginary ? Hard to say but I'd lean towards thinking that is Julie was a guy the problem with the founder's wife wouldn't get this bad - so, IMHO, yes, this is about sexism.
You might want to see a counselor about your crippling interpersonal inadequacy. I think after you clear up your mental health issues you might be less insanely fixated on shoehorning meaningless occurrences into the framework of your delusions.
It's so crippling to the point that I can't stand that some stranger's thigh is touching mine at a tech event even though I shifted in my seat to avoid it the first time. And WTF, the worst part is I managed to shake hands and talk to other/new people at the same event and those assholes were so NICE!...they just didn't do the thigh touching. I really need to get over it, whatever. And WTF is up with hacking at an event, I really need to talk to people instead. Except I have one hell of an uncontrollable bronchitis+asthma cough right now so I'm trying to take it easy.
Yup.
My old therapist before I moved to SF actually thought I was kind of nuts for staying in the tech industry because I used to tell her everything because her son wanted to go into the industry too. Maybe she has a point. And my new one most definitely knows what harassment and uncomfortable situations are, she spent a while asking me questions about my fiancé to make sure I wasn't being abused at our very first session. (And no, no truly crippling problems other than not so hyperactive ADHD, so sorry.)
How can you believe or not believe without any information at all (that applies to both sides here)?
Sometimes our society recognizes a problem. It becomes a sensitive, emotional topic. Racism, sexism, all real problems.
And when a society is in this sensitive state, some formerly (or even currently) oppressed people take advantage. The oppressors become the oppressed and the oppressed become the oppressors. It's a real thing, and it's quite natural, if undesired.
You don't know what the situation is here. I don't. No one commenting from aside knows.
Um, how CMU:SCS has a gender ratio higher than average is because they accept more women. In 2000 the acceptance rate for women was 39%, for men it was 9% [1].
This is completely boring, MIT could make it so its CS class was 100% women if it wanted to, and because loads of very intelligent people apply to MIT I am sure that class of 100% women would do well. But, this is not a tactic that your average school who struggles to get qualified applicants at all can utilize.
I take it from your comment that you infer that it was 39% because they had lower standards for women. Therefore, they are affirmative action babies who shouldn't be there.
I think it is more likely that their outreach programs (through CS AP teacher training etc.) that encouraged the best and brightest women to apply were successful, so that the pool of women were significantly more qualified.
Also, I wonder what the more recent numbers look, as 2000 was a long time ago.
> I think it is more likely that their outreach programs (through CS AP teacher training etc.) that encouraged the best and brightest women to apply were successful, so that the pool of women were significantly more qualified.
That is entirely implausible. Those straws are miles away, dude.
That could perhaps explain a 20% difference, not a 330% difference.
I think most answers here are over thinking it; I do not think he wants a website that can defeat the NSA, just one where the service provider could get subpoenaed and not lead them to him.
So, just buy webhosting with Bitcoin at somewhere that does not require contact details.
That women of lose more than expected when they play against men of equivalent rating is entirely consistent with regression towards the mean [1].
Because elo ratings contain error and men are on average better at chess [2], the average true value that elo ratings are trying to measure will be lower for women than men at equivalent elo ratings.
