I must admit I can not really relate. What about somebody who can not FizzBuzz, but claims they can code? Most whiteboard interviews I had were not much harder than FizzBuzz. I was asked to implement Quicksort once, but they gave me the specification, some time and a sheet of paper.
Why would somebody for whom it is easy consider to hire somebody who can not do a seemingly simple thing?
I can understand if somebody has anxiety issues. Then maybe you can negotiate something else, homework project or coding on site for 30 minutes. But odds are you'll discuss stuff with your colleagues on a whiteboard, too.
What are the options for men who want to have a family/live with their children?
I guess men who just want to have sex might benefit, because they can just sleep with women and then leave, and society takes care of the single moms. Likewise, women can have more sex with varying partners.
The downside is not having a family or having a stressful family life (as a single mom).
And for the absent dads, the state will try to get the money back from them, so their outlook isn't pretty. They'll bend up being poor and lonely.
I'm not saying she is wrong, just asking why is it wrong to investigate her claims?
Although the numbers you cite are not really evidence of a problem imo - there could be any number of reasons. Assuming sexism is the only explanation is heavily biased.
Why is this wrong - or is it? Seems like a pretty normal reaction to being attacked? Is it wrong because a woman's statements always have to be believed?
Or maybe it is/was obvious that there are certain flaws in the US health care system and Obamacare that definitely have a better solution. There are other health care systems in the world, so it is obvious that Obamacare is not the only possible way to do it.
I thought it was meant in another way, that the article blames lazy developers for not providing good privacy solutions. Of course certain developers implemented Facebook and whatnot, and are therefore to blame. But "developers" in general can not influence how big companies handle people's data. I can not change how Facebook or Google work, at least not without some genius idea (which may not exist).
I remember the complaints that he wasn't proposing something specific before the election. So actually I don't think most people are aware that it is complicated. Otherwise they wouldn't have expected a simple solution.
But how can you change the situation, if consumers don't care enough to educate themselves? A government decree wouldn't help in this case, as governments can't be trusted with protecting privacy.
There seem to be many privacy solutions, but little adoption. Sorry, but I have to blame the consumers, not developers. I am actually amazed at how much manpower is being poured into doomed privacy projects. Like how many encrypted messenger apps are there, that never stand a chance against WhatsApp and Facebook?
What if I own a company and don't want my employees to have a voice in how things are done? Why shouldn't that be allowed?
And what if I hire workers to build me a house - should they be entitled to parts of the house after they build it? Or what if they absolute want to put marble into the bathroom, but I don't? Should they be entitled to put marble, because after all they are doing the work?
Meaning what is wrong with making a contract and fulfilling it? You do work x for me, I give you money y in return? Why make things more complicated?
Why would somebody for whom it is easy consider to hire somebody who can not do a seemingly simple thing?
I can understand if somebody has anxiety issues. Then maybe you can negotiate something else, homework project or coding on site for 30 minutes. But odds are you'll discuss stuff with your colleagues on a whiteboard, too.