The innovations of Internet Explorer - <AUTHOR> http://www.nczonline.net/blog/2012/08/22/the-innovations-of-internet-explorer <comment><USER3> Say what you want about Microsoft and IE (I'm expecting Microsoft to be bashed as usual in this thread), but for those of us who were developing for the web in the early 2000s IE was way richer in features that any other browser. The event model and the styling capabilities were better and best of all MSDN actually had documentation. There's a reason why IE6 was adopted so much. It "was" good.

Others with better ideas came along and made the web development experience better, but I agree that IE started it all. I have no idea if the web would be better or worst without IE. I would expect that someone else (Netscape??) would have played the role of IE if it didn't exist and we would be stuck in a similar situation. Remember that in the early 2000s developers that called themselves web developers had ZERO experience.

There weren't any standards back then and since many of us had to start writing intranets and websites, and since you could do more with IE6 we used it.

<comment><USER4> IE6 was actually just an incremental improvement on IE5 and IE4 before it. IE4 was the really important leap.

Story time:

IE3 and NN3 both had small amounts of programmability via JavaScript - <USER2> could change the src of an image, you could inspect and modify form values, you could navigate the page, or completely clear its contents and rewrite it as a string. Oh, and also alert(), confirm(), and prompt().

IE4 and NN4 came out at roughly the same time. But in IE4, they took this idea of small amounts of programmability, and generalized it to the entire document. IE4 introduced the idea that every HTML node should be programmable and interactive in a generalized way. If you knew the HTML properties for an element, you already knew its programmatic interface. It was a simple, powerful idea that hasn't been improved dramatically since.

NN4, on the other hand, introduced this ridiculous hack called 'layers'. You could create these floating layers, and write into them using document.write(). That was the only dynamic mechanism in NN4 above what NN3 had.

So IE4 introduced a powerful and simple generalization of the platform, and NN4 introduced an ugly hack. Surprisingly, developers preferred IE. On top of that IE4, was rock solid and NN4 was crashy.

It's true that Microsoft abused their monolopy position, but the part of the story everyone forgets is that they also more or less invented the modern web in IE4.

Sorry.

<comment><USER5> Yup. You toss it off as a short comment, but the stability and performance aspects of IE4 and Netscape 4 shouldn't be ignored. Netscape was super-crashy, and bloated, and slow, and development pace had slowed to a crawl. This was the age of Netscape Communicator suite version 4.2b preview release candidate 3 Gold (you think I'm kidding but this is hardly an embellishment of the reality). IE4 was solid, less bloated, and faster. And better maintained.

Microsoft abused its monopolies in various ways, that's for sure, but it won the browser war by hitting Netscape when stumbled right where it hurt the most, with a higher quality competing product.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I remember asking the web-devs at the company I used to work for several years ago why do they support IE only, and their reaction was that they will not be able to pull off all the neat tricks they can pull off in IE in any other browser. Their reaction to any suggestion of standards was "I don't care about standards, if that means I can't do whatever IE enables me to do".

Is that innovation? Some would say yes. I think that most of these only became innovative once they began to be available to larger audiences, which coincides with the rise of Firefox and later on Chrome. Also, most of the conception of IE as non-innovative and stagnant came from the 5 years gap between IE6 and IE7 (and the added 3 years between IE7 and the real "new IE", IE8), during which Opera and Firefox carried the innovation torch. Most of IE's innovations came when it was fighting the browser wars, pre IE5.

<comment><USER7> There's a big downside here too: by publishing lots of very big and crufty (and ill-thought out) API's, they make it very hard to come up with alternate implementations. And once devs are locked into those API's, it's very very hard to port things to a different engine.

So you might respect XmlHttpRequest, but it's also a fairly small API in comparison to some of the other things MS produced.

And it's _those_ things that are "possible" in IE that were precisely the problem. If your API consists of little more than exposing coincidental implementation details, of course lots of things are possible. They're just impossible to maintain afterwards in the face of any change.

<comment><USER8> that is how things are developed though, people ship them and they become standards or die.

it wasn't just Microsoft, Andreessen invented the image tag by simply shipping it in Mosaic:

[https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.hypertext/fMl2xRqL...](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.hypertext/fMl2xRqLvRk/58RdTW0v3n8J)

TBL was against it, as were others. If he went through the theoretical 'standards' process that you infer is the 'right way' it never would have got done

I am definitely of the view of software first, standards second - because it has been proven throughout history to work

<comment><USER9> I believe this was the reason the WHAT-WG was started. The discontent of browser developers of the slow moving standardisation process of the W3C.

From the WHAT-WG FAQ:

"The WHATWG was founded by individuals of Apple, the Mozilla Foundation, and Opera Software in 2004, after a W3C workshop. Apple, Mozilla and Opera were becoming increasingly concerned about the W3C's direction with XHTML, lack of interest in HTML and apparent disregard for the needs of real-world authors. So, in response, these organisations set out with a mission to address these concerns and the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group was born."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> While praising IE, let us not forget that MS only innovated enough to displace other web browsers, leveraging its Windows near-monopoly to saturate the market with IE. Dominance achieved, competitors obliterated, MS was content to let the world live with IE6 for eternity, and only with the rise of Firefox and Webkit-based browsers did MS finally deign to do something (althought not much) for the web with IE9.

<comment><USER11> IE had its own innovations like VRML, dHTML+TIME, behaviors, HTML Components. Which could not be found else where.

Guess what, IE6 even supports DirectX called DirectAnimation. And MIDI, vector graphics, etc. IE is far more feature rich than any other remote HTML displayers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Almost every major browsers had some kind of contributions that we take today for granted.

Also: [http://www.slashgeek.net/2012/06/08/5-features-opera- browser...](http://www.slashgeek.net/2012/06/08/5-features-opera-browser-did- first/)

<comment> saint-loup Opera didn't invent [modern] tabs [http://allthatiswrong.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/opera-did- not...](http://allthatiswrong.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/opera-did-not-invent- tabbed-browsing/)

<comment><USER13> Even you say Opera did not invent "modern" tabs, so that means they did come up with the precursor. We owe atleast MDI tabs to Opera

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> About two years ago when trying to make a zoomable interface work in IE some colleagues and I discovered it has a wonderful set of transforms you can apply to any element, with a much easier syntax than CSS. I think they were based on / part of VRML? We were amazed that it was so easy to do any arbitrary 3D rotation, stretch or skew, and even more amazed when we read up and found it had been there since about 1996.

And then we found this functionality had been removed in IE8 :(

</comment><comment><USER15> MS stopped others (Netscape) from innovating. IE only ran on Windows* IE 5 on Mac was crap and maybe antitrust avoiding effort. IE was created at all costs to stop the web browser from becoming an application platform that competed with Windows. MS did everything to keep users from using competing browsers. MS tried to make it impossible to uninstall from Windows. MS tried to keep developers from creating rich applications in the web browser and kept IE6 in stagnant mode for almost a decade until competition arrived. Microsoft won. This stuff should be fact entered in Wikipedia.

<comment><USER16> Having been there at the time, IE on Mac was the best browser on that system at the time, by _far_. Netscape 4 looked like a bloated piece of crap that emulated random bits of Appearance Manager, crashed constantly, and had a nasty tendency of not yielding the event loop, which effectively locked the system. IE, by contrast, was fast, stable, used Appearance Manager, looked native _and_ matched the Macs coming out at the time, _and_ had better privacy controls, and other stuff that I don't even remember. Getting IE on our Macs was a _big_ deal when I was in school, and it was pretty much _the_ first thing I downloaded on a new Mac--the second being Outlook Express.

Now, by the time OS X rolled around, IE was aging very quickly, and by the time Safari 1.0 finally came out, anyone who cared about that sort of thing had jumped to Camino. But that was _long_ after the initial IE port, and I don't think you can possibly say that IE 5 on Mac was crap from the antitrust effort.

<comment><USER17> Not to mention that Netscape 4 never really implemented CSS. There was a CSS- to-JSS (JavaScript Style Sheets) translation level that _almost_ worked most of the time, but it couldn't manage markup that resulted in a deeply-nested native object hierarchy (something that was altogether too easy to do in straightforward HTML). Nor did DIV or IFRAME properly translate to LAYER and ILAYER. Element addressing in NS was pretty much strictly hierarchical; one needed to include a tree search for NS to get something similar to getElementByXXX(). (And I had to support that horrid thing until 2005.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is the reason why I'm scared of google pushing chrome so hard

<comment><USER19> Google does not have a conflict of interest with better browsers/internet and its main revenue sources, Microsoft had this problem and resulted this mess.

<comment><USER18> Google does have a conflict of interest. The best case scenario is a better internet, but only for google products for them.

People love google, but it's a for-profit company, not a foundation. Chrome would not be the first abandoned project, either. Anything can happen. Competition is good.

<comment><USER20> Google may be motivated to attempt things like Dart and NaCl which help drive forward their own products first and foremost, but they have a consistent reputation of making their web-advancing client-side technologies open source too (Dart, NaCl, WebM, SPDY, Chromium, Webkit, etc are all open source). They also have Mozilla, Opera and Apple pushing forwards as well (though I'd argue that IE9/10 isn't putting much competitive pressure on anyone).

If Chrome is abandoned by Google you're free to fork Chromium, acquire licenses for it's restricted plugins and it'll only slow the web's march forward, not actively hinder it. It's entirely possible for another group to carry the Chromium torch, and Google/Chrome has never yet intentionally damaged the quality of standards-compliant competing web products (though they don't offer quirks-mode fixes for crap tailored only to IE).

<comment><USER21> IE9 and IE10 certainly are putting competitive pressure on others (including Mozilla, my employer). For example, at the time of release IE9's vector graphics performance was far ahead (we're talking on the order of 5x) of any other browser, including Chrome and Firefox, and IE also led the way with background compilation of JavaScript (a very important feature, arguably more important to users than raw JS performance).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This is all true and Microsoft deserves credit where credit is due but here's the thing: just because they spurred innovation long ago doesn't mean they deserve a pass now. That's how this article kind of comes off. Like we should lay off and be thankful for what we have. And we should. But the web is all about innovation and finding better, faster, smarter ways to do things. Your girlfriend doesn't forgive you instantly now when you cheat because you were incredibly loyal in the past. Your boss shouldn't pay you when you don't show up and don't call for work because you had a perfect attendance record in the past. The fact is, IE went to hell and they deserve our scorn. If and when IE10 really does deliver on its promises them we can call be happy with them and start the process of forgiving and forgetting. Though I doubt version 10 will live up to the hype I'll be happy to give them all the praise in the world if they at least catch up to where Firefox and Safari are now. I wish they'd get on Chrome's level but that's a lot to ask right now. What the article says about IE is true but now it's 2012 and what they did in 1999-2001 just isn't enough to give them a pass.

I'd also add that though IE did innovate like crazy in their heyday, if they didn't someone else would have.

</comment><comment><USER23> This reminds me of a coworker who, although generally horrible at his job, despised by his colleagues, and only really concerned about his next pay raise would - on occasion - remind us that HE was the one who wrote a small piece of critical software we still used to this day.

</comment><comment><USER24> That was refreshing. It's good to remember the good points of anything, especially something we may not like. This lesson applies very well to the computing industry's rapid advancement and tendency to outdate technology.

</comment><comment><USER25> When I hear IE, I think about it's own way to render pages. Over all websites ever created, IE has cost a huge amount of wasted development hours.

</comment><comment><USER26> Earlier submission: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4418132>

</comment><comment><USER27> I'm particularly offended by this statement: "we wouldn't have the web as we know it today if not for its contributions".

In a parallel universe where microsoft never existed, the people who came up with XMLHttpRequest did their innovative work at Netscape and the web today is light years ahead.

<comment><USER28> Oh brother. Offended?

While it's true that Microsoft has done it's part to hold up progress, the fact is that much of what you love about the web today can be directly traced back to innovation at Redmond. Let's give them credit where credit is due. Hell, they came up with AJAX so people could access Outlook from the web. Do you remember how obnoxious browsing was before XMLHttpRequest?

<comment><USER29> To be fair, that was kind of an accident. Xmlhttprequest just kind of sat there until somebody else came up with a use for it.

<comment><USER7> It's an accident of history that's it's primarily used for Json and not Xml, but you can hardly argue that the API itself was an accident.

Frankly, the importance of json in this matter is pretty minor anyhow: if it hadn't been around, you can bet some nice JS library would have come up with a different way to easily decode server data into JS objects. The scripted communication was key.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> And Hitler built the Autobahns, shouldn't we say thanks to him for that?

Also the rebels where never able to build something as marvelous as the Death Star :-)

Success, efficiency and morality are three different things. Though many people mix them up all the time. If someone (or something) is efficient and successful that doesn't mean we should overlook the harm (or good) it is doing.

<comment><USER31> Oops, you've gone and invoked Godwin's law:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law>

A cold shower and a drive in a Volkswagen before you can post again.

<comment><USER32> > A cold shower and a drive in a Volkswagen before you can post again.

What an excellent retort.</comment></comment></comment>


An Animated Atlas of The Known World  - <AUTHOR> http://blog.longnow.org/02014/01/28/an-animated-atlas-of-the-known-world/

<comment><USER2> Early in the history of China, they didn't know they existed. It must have been confusing for them.</comment>


Ask HN: What's your self-hosted setup? - <AUTHOR> I'm looking for ideas for apps / systems to self host on a new VPC. I'm particularly interested in setting up a music library / streaming service. <comment><USER2> There was this a while back:

[https://github.com/Kickball/awesome- selfhosted](https://github.com/Kickball/awesome-selfhosted)

[https://selfhosted.libhunt.com/](https://selfhosted.libhunt.com/)

[https://old.reddit.com/r/selfhosted/](https://old.reddit.com/r/selfhosted/)

and possibly some of the options on [https://www.privacytools.io/](https://www.privacytools.io/) that are self hosted

</comment><comment><USER3> [https://cloudron.io](https://cloudron.io) is what I use for self-hosting my stuff. For music library, you can look into emby.</comment>


Explosion and Building Collapse in Harlem,NY - <AUTHOR> http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/03/12/explosion-reported-at-harlem-building/

<comment><USER2> I was on an MTA train passing over it right when it happened. We thought something had exploded on the train. Luckily no one was harmed. We paused for a while. Got an announcement from the conductor, then carried on into GCT. We were the last train in or out this morning.

</comment><comment><USER3> 1644-1646 Park Avenue [https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-7...](https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-73.943159,3a,45y,292.22h,93.7t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sUO4eEzH6wIaeVtxjbK0bEg!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x89c2f60f69edc4e1:0xe150b1db3b7a8e35!6m1!1e1)

</comment><comment><USER4> Also on BBC news with a few more pictures. [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world- us-canada-26549431](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26549431)</comment>


Google is shutting down Zync rendering in the cloud - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/r/vfx/comments/gur4lc/zync_render_will_shut_down_june_1_2021/ <comment><USER2> I feel this is just another example of why (in general) Google cannot be trusted to support anything.

This is why Stadia will fail and land on the [https://killedbygoogle.com/](https://killedbygoogle.com/) pile.

Anyone who is using Stadia and purchasing Stadia games is in for a rude awakening in a year when Google inevitably looses interest as it is want to do.</comment>


Which dating apps are winning the hearts of the world? - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-2e3f0042-75f6-4bd1-b4fe-9056540c65f8 <comment><USER2> After having a few long-term but ultimately unsuccessful relationships via online dating, I'm holding out for some god damn serendipity for the next one.

I don't believe in "the one" or any of that flighty bullshit, but I do feel there is just something different about the bond you make with another human if you just happen to find yourselves in a situation together, rather than the logical omniscience effect of knowing that you sort of engineered to be together, and knowing that they know that you know this, and so on.

Don't get me wrong. The few partners I've had from dating apps were amazing people and I'm glad to have known them. There's nothing wrong with finding partners that way and many people find a lot of happiness through it.

I think I just feel saturated by online dating and the pre-engineered and instant gratification feelings that can come along with it.

It reminds me of a DFW quote:

 _"Both destiny 's kisses and its dope-slaps illustrate an individual person's basic personal powerlessness over the really meaningful events in his life: i.e. almost nothing important that ever happens to you happens because you engineer it. Destiny has no beeper; destiny always leans trenchcoated out of an alley with some sort of Psst that you usually can't even hear because you're in such a rush to or from something important you've tried to engineer."_

<comment><USER3> I think that's less true than Picasso - "Inspiration exists, but it has to catch you working". Or indeed Palmer - "The more I practice, the luckier I get". It's important to be flexible and open to serendipity - but it's all too easy to use that as an excuse to avoid putting in any effort.

<comment><USER2> I speculate that DFW's take on it would be something like: sure, we can reap some rewards by working hard and being prepared, but really the amount that those things affect our lives is really small compared to huge, uncontrollable things, like which genetics you were dealt, or whether your parents were killed by a tornado when you were 5, or what country you are born in.

We spend a lot of time rationalizing that our successes are somehow due to our efforts and our failures are somehow not our fault. We especially idolize high-status successes, like Picasso, and venerate such rationalizations when they come from such people. And we especially despise such rationalizations when they come from the poor, and so we hold silent contempt when we hear the homeless man on the subway explaining why it's not his fault he is so down on his luck.

But [I think DFW might say] in the end it's still really just one fatalistic crapshoot. That's not a good reason to work harder, nor is it a good reason to slack off and just say "c'est la vie." It's not a _reason_ for anything ... it's just how things are.

I'm not saying this hypothetical DFW point of view is right. I'm just saying I don't think it has that much to do with rationalizations about past successes being used as motivation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Anecdotal:

The % of people I know who found a LTR that translated into a marriage via online dating is still significantly lower than the people I know who met their eventual mate through friends/meetups/work. I'd guess in my social network, it's 20% from dating apps, 80% from IRL. Granted I'm in the 20s/30s bracket, which may still be on the horizon of the societal shift.

Since Jan 2016, I've tested going to meetups on Meetup.com vs using daily usage of dating apps.

Through Meetup.com meetups, I've found occasional dates but also made friends with incredible people, expanded my social network, and continued with self- improvement. To be engaged in ways that challenge me and to occasionally meet and date accomplished women is something to look forward to every single week.

Comparatively, online dating has been hugely disproportionate when calculating time invested vs. time rewarded. I either write messages that get ignored. Or login into the app to indicate interest in matches that eventually don't result in a date. It feels like really boring and demoralizing work.

I'm not saying people can't be successful with online dating. It's just for me, I don't find it particularly gratifying.

<comment><USER5> Dating apps favour the top 20% of men, and the top 50% of women. The data says as much. I do think there is a 'cliff' where the amount of responses you get drop at a certain point - whether from height, income level, whatever. In real life it's much more nuanced than that because people sort themselves out gradually and not as much from limited statistics or even just visuals.

The issue for men (and to a lesser extent, women) at the bottom of that cliff is that online dating has the possibility to demoralise the person into not doing actual physical dating. I do think we are entering a period where a significant chunk of the population is going to finish life having never had a real life partner.

<comment><USER4> Your second paragraph resonates.

Were it not for friends, insightful books, and Meetup.com meetups, I'd be a lot more demoralized over the dating process. IRL social settings at least provide something beneficial, specifically meeting people who can become friends/industry connections and level up ones social skills. Thus even with hundreds of hours doing meetups can result in something beneficial even if it no potential is found, whereas solely doing online dating with little results can foster helplessness.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "You spend a few weeks sending lines of text to each other, and you eventually arrange to meet"

A bit off topic, but is this common place? You spend a few _weeks_? Why not just meet in person and not waste everyone's time?

<comment><USER7> Because everyone is different. Some people prefer to meet right away. They're usually upfront about that. Some people are more hesitant (or even afraid!), and need time to make sure the other person isn't "crazy." I've experienced both, and both are generally normal people that approach things differently. But this is also contingent on the people being honest. There are many people that are simply looking for the gratification of interest. Unfortunately those people are very common. But you can weed through them pretty quickly. It all comes down to a somewhat delicate balance of social give-and-take. If that isn't there, then you know to move on. But if you're looking for instant gratification with people, you'll certainly find that with some. But you'll also certainly be missing out on others.

<comment><USER8> > Some people are more hesitant (or even afraid!), and need time to make sure > the other person isn't "crazy."

Exactly this, especially for women, and people looking for a long term relationship. A week or three of conversation weeds out people who are just looking to hook up and impulsive people whose interest isn't that deep.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Well, Badoo's high adoption is probably helped by the fact that they keep acquiring other apps and replacing them with badoo, even if they keep their names (Lulu, for instance).

</comment><comment><USER10> Do older people use Tinder as well?

<comment><USER11> I heard a terrific analogy the other day. "Tinder is a nightclub, OKCupid is a bar, eHarmony is a dinner party."

by the terms of that analogy, sorta, but they're weird

<comment><USER12> I'll second that they're weird.

I'm a little weird myself when it comes to age. I generally do not care about the age of the woman I am dating. If I like her and find her attractive that's enough for me. In terms of numbers, the oldest woman I've dated was 22 years older than me and the youngest woman I've ever dated who was 18 years younger than me and I've dated all ages in-between. (My circle of friends is also widely distributed in terms of age.)

You won't find me on Tinder. Mainly because I see it as a hookup app, and I'm not about that life. But also...

...from what I've seen (with young female friends who have used the app and dated older guys) the guys on Tinder take the opposite approach to age. To them, _age matters more than the person_. They're not out there looking to make a connection with a person. They're on there trying to score with young women, deny their own aging, or both; and their approach makes me think they never had game even when they were younger. Creepy is the only word for it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> it's all crap, built to milk single guys out of money.</comment>


Ways Men in Tech Are Unintentionally Sexist (2014) - <AUTHOR> http://notapattern.net/2014/10/14/ways-men-in-tech-are-unintentionally-sexist/ <comment><USER2> _5\. Describing software or algorithms as "sexy", "hot", etc._

 _By sexualizing something that does not need to be sexualized, you're creating a college-frat-boy type environment, as well as implicitly conflating quality with sexual attractiveness. If I work with you, I want to know that you're enough of an adult to be able to appreciate something (or someone) without wanting to fornicate with it._

What? Are women not sexually aware now? Or are men the only ones who act immature?

I like some of the points, but this one is coated so thickly in irony I can't even tell if there's any substance at the bottom.

Honest to God, what's inherently male about calling an algorithm sexy? Why couldn't a woman do just that? Isn't the mere perpetuating of that idea exactly the type of "oh no think of the poor women" thinking that the article tries to dissuade?

Or is the irony all on me?

Truly I don't understand this one.

EDIT: Just to clarify: I'm not trying to advocate "calling algorithms sexy." If you don't like it because you think it's immature or unprofessional; well, it's not my cup of tea, either. But don't put that in a list about sexism. Conflating the two is precisely the latter.

<comment><USER3> You don't think that needlessly sexualizing things might be insensitive to people who are themselves subject to exactly the same kind of needless sexualizing?

It's no less insensitive just because women are also capable of sexualizing things, or because men may also find it uncomfortable.

<comment><USER4> That argument does not counter his point this isn't a sexism thing.

<comment><USER5> A person can perpetuate sexism without meaning to. It is just a matter of getting people aware and encouraging them to actively think about whether any things they do might be making women uncomfortable, and to try to be considerate.

<comment><USER4> Using sexual language to describe a non-gendered object in the workplace is a different issue to sexism.

"That car is sexy" = Could mean sexy as James Bond. It depends on the car, and the tone of person speaking, and who is saying it. You can't automatically assume it is sexualising women.

You can discuss whether saying such things is appropriate in the workplace but what the original comment say is this issue isn't related to discrimination against one particular gender, unless one is prejudicing one particular gender to be more prone to being uncomfortable with sexuality to begin with.

"It is just a matter of getting people aware and encouraging them to actively think about whether any things they do might be making _women_ uncomfortable"

should be corrected to:

"It is just a matter of getting people aware and encouraging them to actively think about whether any things they do might be making _people_ uncomfortable".

The former is gender discrimination, the second isn't. The former subtly suggests women are more prone to be uncomfortable, and can, for example, worsen the bias a potential employer may have against hiring women, for fear getting into trouble with women being easily uncomfortable in the workplace, because they're women. I am aware of this bias in mind consciously, already.

<comment><USER5> Of course the meaning of any particular instance of language depends on context, but the most common case of a straight man (for this is about behavior by men, and most men are straight) calling something sexy without additional context is unlikely to be interpreted as "sexy like James Bond".

More broadly, on average, men who are used to operating in all-male social groups are less likely to have thought about, and more likely to do, things that would make women uncomfortable in particular than things that would make anyone uncomfortable, because they wouldn't have gotten (as much, or any) negative feedback in the past. Therefore, while one should be concerned with anyone's discomfort, it makes sense for such people to give special thought to the former. That seems pretty obvious; I hardly think it constitutes discrimination. (And of course, you could substitute any common descriptor for "all-male", and stumble on other real issues, but writing like the present article provides evidence that today's tech culture has serious dissonance with gender in particular.)

For the record, one could also argue, like the argument you originally replied to, that people already set on edge by previous discomforting events are more likely to be negatively affected by additional ones - i.e. women (in tech) are more prone to be uncomfortable not inherently, but because of externalities only partially under any given person's control. That is not discrimination either, but a reason to be extra empathetic.

<comment><USER4> I don't know if you've ever met a narcissist in your life, I have been involved with a narcissistic woman before.

And here someone describes the concept of a "mental filter".

"Narcissists install a mental filter in our heads a little bit at a time. Before we know it, everything we do, say, or think, goes through this filter. 'Will he get upset if I do/say/think this? Will he approve/disapprove? Will he feel hurt by this?"

[https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the- self/2014...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the- self/201404/the-vampire-s-bite-victims-narcissists-speak-out)

 _A person can perpetuate sexism without meaning to. It is just a matter of getting people aware and encouraging them to actively think about whether any things they do might be making women uncomfortable, and to try to be considerate._

This sounds like a rephrasing of what a narcissist might tell me, suggesting everything wrong to do with her is my fault and my responsibility.

The suggestions of advocates of feminism remind me of many aspects of that experience.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Although, while I understand the authors concerns on point #1 I think it comes from a misunderstanding of the reason on why so many people use the phrase "you guys". I'm going to go out on a limb here and defend all of us who with use this phrase regularly.

"You guys" is the most common form of "you" plural used in the mid-west and western United States. For those who were not taught English in a region where "you guys" is standard, I can assure you that we consider "you guys" to be completely gender neutral. I can see how this phrase would seem strange to someone from a region of the United States that uses "you" or "you all" or "ya'll" or "folks", but for us it is simply a phrase that is used by both women and men when addressing a group of people of any gender (all women, all men, mixed).

See you guys tomorrow != See you men tomorrow. Are you guys done yet? != Are you boys done yet?

Now, is the etymology of the word sexist, a la "mankind"? That I do not know (it probably is), but the intent of those of us who use it is simply that it is two words meaning "you all". We do not think about injecting gender at all into the conversation, in fact we use this phrase to avoid it (as silly as that may seem)! I would imagine that this phrase is more likely to turn heads when it is used in a region of The United States where it is not the normal linguistic way of saying "you" plural.

<comment><USER7> Did you read the article that the author linked to, in regards to this? You wouldn't walk up to a woman and say "You're a really great guy!" What would happen if you went into a mixed-gendered room and asked all the "guys" to stand up? If someone said "everyone knows it's a guys' world" what would they mean?

If you went into a restaurant with cutely-named bathrooms, and went into the "guys" bathroom, you would probably be surprised to find women in there. If someone described The Spice Girls as a "group of guys" that would likely be more confusing than someone describing The Beatles as a "group of guys"

It might sound completely normal to your ears to use "guys" in reference to any group of people because you're so used to responding to it (and, yes, I Internet-stalked you a bit to confirm your gender). Having never personally identified with the word "guy," however, I, at least sub-consciously, and sometimes consciously, think it's odd when someone calls me a "guy." I mean, I'll absolutely respond, and won't say anything to the speaker, but I'll feel a tiny bit put-off, and maybe a little self-conscious, because I'm the only person in my company who isn't actually a "guy"

Like the author also brought up, there are plenty of alternatives to "guys"

<comment><USER8> Human languages don't work like programming languages, you can't always derive the meaning of a phrase from its parts. There are large groups of English speakers among whom, men and women alike, "you guys" is an idiom independent in meaning from the word "guy", and is used as a gender neutral plural second person pronoun. If one is in the company of such speakers there is nothing wrong with using it.

<comment><USER7> Sure, it might be well-accepted in some groups and in some contexts. But why would you use it in the workplace, when there is absolutely controversy around the phrase? [https://www.google.com/webhp?q=is+%22you+guys%22+gender+neut...](https://www.google.com/webhp?q=is+%22you+guys%22+gender+neutral) Why would you use it in an environment where women already feel oddly singled- out because they're in the extreme minority, and when there are plenty of other perfectly-acceptable phrases? It's definitely not as bad as a group I'm in being addressed as "gentlemen" (which has happened too many times to count), but it's still annoying, in a work context. I don't mind it when I'm with a group of friends, or there are roughly equal numbers of men and women.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Honestly, criticizing men at the micro-level is quite unrealistic and pointless.

Controlling speech and avoiding saying 'guys' won't do much at the macro-level of women's rights. Hostility has never worked to foster equality.

However, if individuals and organizations promote cooperation, equality and respect, these micro-aggressions become even smaller and, eventually, disappear.

<comment><USER10> I'm the person whose tweet is at the top of the linked article.

My original curiosity was from that of someone who wants to promote "cooperation, equality and respect" \- and, to me, part of doing that is asking for, and being open to, what minor things I might be doing to marginalize others.

So perhaps you're right - in the long run, maybe if organizations promote respect without talking about little things people do wrong, we'll get further on equality. But I do see value in talking about little things that are systemically unequal, and I think we'll get to a better place faster by talking about even the little things.

<comment><USER11> I think the real issue is that no one (including the author) is obeying the issue #9 "Stereotyping women's needs". That's what the author is doing, that's what all these guys feeling bad for putting out "microagressions" are doing. Unless you are a women in tech then you can't speak for any women in tech and even if you are, you can only speak for one women in tech, yourself.

Some women might be offended by saying "guys" but some others might feel that it's a term of endearment (as it is probably intended) and they might feel saying "men and women" is silly. But I don't know, because I'm a dude.

What I do know is that every single successful person puts up with crap. That crap is often months of working on a project with a manager you dislike or putting in extra time to get things done when you'd rather be sitting around eating Cheetos. Work is a constant struggle and if you're throwing in the towel on your passion because someone called something sexy, then you clearly weren't meant to work with people, let alone in tech.

<comment><USER12> Agree with: "Unless you are a women in tech then you can't speak for any women in tech and even if you are, you can only speak for one women in tech, yourself." "What I do know is that every single successful person puts up with crap."

Disagree with implied ideas that: because we can all only speak for ourselves, we shouldn't speak. Because everyone gets crap, we don't need to fight against shit. That guys feeling bad for microaggressions are stereotyping women's needs (?).

We're all jerks sometimes, and often we don't even know it. When we realize we did something that made someone else feel bad, it's natural to feel defensive and at the same time sorry. It's not stereotyping to listen honestly to someone's viewpoint and consider it. And not having time to eat Cheetos is not what women are facing, it's weird stuff like the boss never inviting them to beer or getting sexually explicit trolling. You've read the news; you know what's in the harassment lawsuits: retaliation for sexual relationships had or not had, promotions denied because of "fit", networking events that were male- only, and all the guys in the company going along. If a guy had practice saying, "Hey, let's not call that app sexy and then ask if grandma can use it," he might actually have the practice and the courage to stand up to some of this serious stuff.

<comment><USER11> To your point, everything you mention about things in the news are significant issues. However, they are not small slips by good natured men. Those are bad people actively discriminating against people they deem unworthy.

That being said, I didn't say we shouldn't speak. I said we shouldn't speak for others. This article wasn't written as "here's how I feel when this happens" it was "here's how women feel when you do this". Generalizing in this way is just as sexist as any of the issues she brings up, if not more so, but because she wraps her sexism in good intentions we ignore it.

It's hard to qualify disliking certain adjectives as worse "shit" then anything else you have to go through as a professional. We're specifically talking about microagressions here, not firing someone for not sleeping with you, not excluding women from events, etc. These are not major issues, they are small things that make some people uncomfortable.

I understand it can suck when a company's culture doesn't fit, I deal with a fair share of bad culture fit as I consultant for many companies. I'm a 20yo male bisexual who doesn't drink or smoke. I just spent time with a company where the entire staff went to the bar and I wasn't just invited, but pressured to go and I felt very outside when I had to repeatedly refuse. I had a different client make unwarranted comments about us cuddling and he brought up multiple times who would be the big spoon (I'm unsure if he knew my orientation, I suspect he did). I later had a very negative falling out with him, was it because I ignored his advances? Who knows. My point is that we're all different and you're extremely unlikely to mesh perfectly with every member of a group, but being successful often means putting aside these things and doing business regardless. It sucks, but it's an issue that will always exist and isn't exclusive to women. It's not called work because it's super fun, it's called work because you put up with crap and all these "microaggressions" are on the level of all this other crap.

To your final disagreement about me saying that men feeling bad are stereotyping women's needs/issues, imagine you take what I've just told you about me and imagine we're hanging out one night and we're quite close, so you want to share some story about your sexual exploits from the night before. You start to tell your story but then think "well, he's bisexual, I probably shouldn't tell him this story because he's confused about his sexuality and trying to figure himself out". That's you stereotyping, obviously. It's no different than saying "she's a women, I shouldn't call this software sexy". If you knew me personally and I had said "don't talk about sex around me" then you would have grounds to think that. Similarly if I'm working with a women and she says "hey don't call me a guy" then I say okay and I don't do that anymore. But by assuming she'd be offended, I'm stereotyping.

The goal of communication isn't to make everyone feel great all the time, you shouldn't err on the side of inclusion, you should err on the side of openness, so if you say something that makes someone feel bad or out of place, they can say "hey bud, pls don't". By shuttering communication and wildly speculating about what all people of any group dislike or are offended by, you're belittling their individuality and overall moving communication in the wrong direction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> As with many articles about sexism, it's easy to read this and have an immediate, emotional reaction. If you "cringed" like one of the other commenters (and as I did reading some of the points listed), its worth taking a moment to think more carefully about why that emotional response was triggered.

Few HN users self-identify as "sexist." Yet reading this post, many of us will have done things that the author identifies as subtly sexist micro- aggressions. If you think that that makes you a sexist, well, you're right. All of us are. Sexism, like racism, is a societal problem, engrained in all of us. To try and shift away from our current sexist norms we need to redefine them, and that means recasting behaviors that many of us currently view as completely unoffensive.

Another common reaction is something like "these things aren't important, will never change, and feminists should pick their battles." But that's misguided - you're silencing and dismissing viewpoints that deserve to be heard. Just because a subtle but widespread societal norm isn't likely be fixed in the short term doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed. We certainly have the ability to change own behaviors, and nudge those around us to do the same.

<comment><USER14> > Sexism, like racism, is a societal problem, engrained in all of us.

Are you trying to somehow imply everyone is racist? Are you further implying that everyone is sexist?

> ... a right to complain and be heard

I'm curious, who (in the US anyways) doesn't have that right. At this point I feel like I can get sued for calling a stop sign red. It's getting a little absurd.

<comment><USER13> > Are you trying to somehow imply everyone is racist? Are you further implying > that everyone is sexist?

Yes and yes. Much of our context for judging people comes from society, and society is both sexist and racist. Numerous studies have shown that even people who identify as being non-racist will shoot a black person more quickly, dismiss a resume if it contains a black-sounding name, etc:

More here: [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/28/opinion/nicholas- kristof-i...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/28/opinion/nicholas-kristof-is- everyone-a-little-bit-racist.html)

The same applies to sexism. You can Google your way to plenty of similar studies.

> I'm curious, who (in the US anyways) doesn't have that right. At this point > I feel like I can get sued for calling a stop sign red. It's getting a > little absurd.

It's true that people (mostly) have the right to free speech in the US. But there are two ways to prevent people from expressing their views: you can literally disallow them from saying something, or you can "silence" them by making them feel uncomfortable for having spoken at all. I'm talking about the latter.

<comment><USER14> I didn't ask about society. Everyone, is every single individual racist and/or sexist?

> Numerous studies have shown that even people who identify as being non- > racist will shoot a black person more quickly, dismiss a resume if it > contains a black-sounding name, etc...

Did those studies talk to every single person in the US? Or are you only concerned about white people being racist towards black people? That's how you're coming across, just so you know.

You can't acknowledge that you think 'everyone' is racist and then pivot back to society. You've just blanket accused every single person of being racist, and sexist. Are black women racist and sexist? Middle-eastern women? Its easy to stand on a soapbox and quote a study. It does not seem as though you've run this line of thinking to its conclusion, you stopped in the middle.

> It's true that people (mostly) have the right to free speech in the US. But > there are two ways to prevent people from expressing their views: you can > literally disallow them from saying something, or you can "silence" them by > making them feel uncomfortable for having spoken at all. I'm talking about > the latter.

Mostly have the right to free speech? Can you elaborate about that? I'm not sure if you're aware of how controversial the issue of 'free speech' has become. [0] Once again, its easy to soapbox and pick the parts you agree with.

We must not live in the same US (or perhaps you don't) if you think people are shamed into not talking out against racism and sexism. They're both wrong, and, compared to even 20 years ago, the US is making forward progress, leaps and bounds of forward progress. Then people come along and say things like you did, as if there isn't change.

It literally takes generations to wipe out hatred in the manner you're concerned about. Making blanket statements about everyone being a horrible, shitty person on the internet doesn't speed things up, and makes you look silly.

[0] [http://legal- dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Freedom+of+Spe...](http://legal- dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Freedom+of+Speech)

<comment><USER15> Racism/sexism aren't binary states but continuous ones. And, sure, everyone probably had non-zero degrees of both racism and sexism. And, yes, that includes black and middle-eastern women -- not uniquely so, but in the same way as it includes people of every race and sex. And, yes, people of races that are generally viewed poorly by the dominant sectors of the society they live in often have internalized some of the dominant society's racist views against their own race.

I'm not sure by you think acknowledging that is problematic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I am male. When I was in school I was on a project with two women. I asked them if the term "guys" bothered them. They both said no. I even used it when there were only women in the group. Guys is the plural of you in some dialects of English.

"Hot" has many many meanings other than "sexy". When not referring to a person's attractiveness, it means "popular, being paid a lot of attention to" or "high in temperature", or "fast" or "contains a lot of energy".

<comment><USER16> You are implying that a few individual women you know being okay with a thing implies that it is alright / not sexist / shouldn't be offensive to other women. I'm not necessarily sure that that follows. (This is independent of whether or not the term 'guys' is sexist or offensive to women or anything else).

<comment><USER8> I will accept many corrections for the benefit of diversity, but when even the majority of the disadvantaged group uses the word in a non-hostile way, I stop feeling like I'm being asked to be helpful and start feeling like I'm being micromanaged and controlled by people who refuse to take into account the obvious intent of my words that the majority of listeners understand.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You#Informal_plural_forms](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You#Informal_plural_forms)

      Informal plural forms
      Despite you being both singular and plural, some dialects
      retain the distinction between a singular and plural you
      with different words. Examples of such pronouns sometimes
      seen and heard are:

         ...
      you guys – U.S.,[2] particularly in the Midwest,
                 Northeast, South Florida and West Coast;
                 Canada, Australia. Used regardless of the
                 genders of those referred to
         ...

(I live, work, and went to school in Northeastern U.S.)

<comment><USER17> If you explain your intent and they still feel offended, I do wonder how one should react to that. It feels to me like someone who is being pedantic who thinks they are "right". Who knows, maybe it does offend enough people that this usage will decline.

<comment><USER8> Well, it's judgement call, but offense alone is not enough to change behavior IMO. There was a case where a person reading a history book about the KKK in the presence of blacks was accused of harassment because the picture on the cover depicted: the KKK. That's just ridiculous.

<comment><USER17> I just realized that my wording was pretty vague. I would err on the side of not changing your attitude. I say this primarily because using one persons reaction (or even a few peoples reactions) to something you do as a test for deciding if you should reevaluate yourself would make you chase your tail like a dog: there would be no end to it. But yeah it is mostly about intent, in my mind. Disagreement is necessary but not sufficient for change.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> None of these things seem like problems that need to be corrected (within reason [1]). Part of being a member of a minority group is that members of the majority group will never speak or behave in exactly the way you would like. That's the nature of living in a heterogeneous society.

There will never be equal proportions of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or culture in any group. In the interest of everyone being able to work together effectively, we all have a responsibility to draw a line between preference and abuse. People who become abusive should obviously be castigated or removed for the good of everyone. But if we place too much emphasis on appeasing the preferences of every group or individual, we'll be too busy focusing on choosing just the right word in every situation to get things done. Effective communication is hard enough as it is. Parsing every word because it might potentially offend someone only makes the problem worse. Everyone has a cross to bear and no one will ever feel that they fit in perfectly. Some times toes get stepped on, and that's ok.

I think the term "unintentionally sexist" says it all. There was a time when open and aggressive *-ism was common, but that kind of thing is generally no longer acceptable in polite or professional society. It seems like the best thing for all of us would be to focus on what we have and common and what we can do to get along, instead of publishing lists of "I hate it when group X says thing Y".

[1] clearly numbers 6, 9 and 10 on this list are right out. there are several others that might not be acceptable depending on the context/wording

<comment><USER3> You're assuming a very extreme context and using it to throw out the real value that's being offered to you in this article.

It's completely reasonable for a person or group to describe behaviors that make them uncomfortable, and it's especially valuable for them to do so when those offenses aren't immediately obvious.

Listing these behaviors doesn't involve some fantasy that they'll all be eradicated tomorrow with subsequent violators ostracized and sent to prison. It's just sharing a real problem that's really experienced by someone.

In point fact, there's almost certainly debate to be had within a community about which items have broader import and which might just be personal issues to the individual who composed the list.

The value being offered to you is that you can read this and identify a few behaviors that do hurt some people, some times. And that -- as you're available and ready to exercise them -- you have a few specific changes you can make so that the people around you are more comfortable.

<comment><USER19> > In point fact, there's almost certainly debate to be had within a community > about which items have broader import and which might just be personal > issues to the individual who composed the list.

Which cannot be had as long as people feel justified in making personal attacks on the character ("racist!" "sexist!") of anyone who disagrees with them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I am sorry but I cringed while reading this.

"Mom" as an example of a non-technical user.

Describing software or algorithms as "sexy", "hot", etc.

like lol, I am not sexist and I would love to have more females in engineering, but these pseudo-intellectual feminists do nothing but whine about the stupidest things

<comment><USER21> If you wanted more females in engineering then you'd listen to their complaints about what's keeping them from entering it and address them. You're being sexist through trivialising their objections by saying they 'do nothing but whine about the stupidest things'. What position are you in to argue whether their objections have merit?

You could argue, as others have, that some of these objections aren't inherently sexist because they can apply to both genders (i.e.: sexualising things is a trait performed by both genders), but dismissing this list as you did does nothing except undermine your own statement of wanting more women in tech.

<comment><USER22> You can listen to the concerns of the group (all women) and still trivialize the objections of a minority (psuedo-intellectual women) without being sexist.

The position he has to argue whether the objections have merit is that he's a thinking, rational human who can objectively consider whether something is sexist or not.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> > 1\. Using "guys" to mean "people".

Everytime I see this sentiment I always wonder how the author, and others like the author, feel about Spanish speakers and the language.

<comment><USER24> "los y las programadoras"

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> My wife addresses her team of mostly females as 'you guys'. Granted, she's also not a man or in tech, but I am having a hard time seeing how this is sexist.

Now, some of the items on the list are quite good. My mom, for example, is just as technical, or more so, than my dad. She is not a good archetype of the non-technical user.

<comment><USER16> You are implying that one woman doing a thing implies that it is alright / not sexist / shouldn't be offensive to other women. I'm not necessarily sure that that follows. (This is independent of whether or not the term 'guys' is sexist or offensive to women or anything else).

<comment><USER8> Well, OP is implying that a single woman finding something sexist or offensive makes it so. I've presented two counterexamples upthread and grandparent here presented one, that's three. OP presented only two, and one of them is a man who makes his point by conflating the singular and plural forms of "guys".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Man, I'd love emery boards as conference swag (#9). I've got enough shirts and 256KB USB keys to last me a lifetime. And I guarantee, even as male who isn't all that obsessed with his manicure but likes smooth nails, I'll see sponsor name much more often than I would on a dated USB key that sits in a box until electronics recycling day comes.

I'd preface my next statement with "all kidding aside" were I actually kidding, but as a male manager who has actually chastised males on my team for refererring to the females on that team as "the girls" (#2 on the list), I have to say "good luck" with getting that list implemented. I say that because even though I obviously agree with some of the items, I just internally sigh when reading half those items. Pick your battles, as the saying goes, and this list has a lot of metaphoric hills that aren't worth dying on.

<comment><USER27> As another man who likes smooth nails, I agree with you. I'd much rather get a decent nail file than an ill-fitting T-shirt at a conference. In fact, I'd say thinking that Emery boards are female-only is in itself...

      RuntimeError: maximum sexism accusation depth exceeded

<comment><USER28> There is no feeling worse than typing all day with overgrown nails.

Source: I'm a man who programs all day.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> > 6\. Assuming women they meet are in non-technical roles.

I like to think I am not a sexist person (intentionally or not), but this is one I have to make an actual silent effort to get right. It's just that the statistics are unfortunately very skewed. Some 80%+ of software engineering roles at big companies go to men, but for non-technical roles it can be 50% women or more. So if you meet a woman it is more likely that she is not an engineer. But statistics don't make assumptions acceptable. I try to make sure I don't assume anything about people I meet around work (don't assume a man is an engineer, don't assume a woman is not).

Makes me cringe when I hear this conversation: Man: "So what do you do here?" Woman: "I'm a SWE on _______" Man: "Oh really?"

</comment><comment><USER30> 1 is a feature of the English language. English uses male pronouns as genderless personal pronouns. This is not a Tech thing.

2 is a result of the fact that English diminutives apply to adults as well. I often say to my male friends "what's up, boys?"

For 4, UX designers should set this based on their expected userbase.

For 5, just because something is sexual does not make it sexist. There is nothing wrong with using sexual metaphor unless you have puritanical Victorian-era morals.

For 7, this goes for both genders... People use "cock", "dick", etc. as derogatory terms all the time.

10: This has nothing to do with gender. This might be the most tenuous claim in the entire article. Privacy is a good UX practice, but a lack of privacy doesn't hurt women in particular.

</comment><comment><USER31> > [instead of referring to "Mom" as an example of a non technical user] ideal > nouns will refer to non-human or purely technical categories, such as cat, > non-technical user, Ubuntu user, or "newbie."

The persona for which you are designing your software is a cat? Are they going to chase the cursor? Are they illiterate? Do they lack color vision?

Similarly, "newbie" means something completely different from "my mom". A newbie is new to your software, or perhaps this class of software, but may be quite technical otherwise.

An Ubuntu user is far more technical than average.

This is an absurd level of political correctness that gets in the way of design by forcing designers to use language that's inconsistent with their thoughts. If this is really such a big issue, you can create a male persona and use his name to refer to this class of users.

> Describing software or algorithms as "sexy", "hot", etc.

Describing someone or something as sexy is by no means male-specific language.

</comment><comment><USER32> I don't think we can teach people to do or not do a dozen different things at once. Caring fatigue kicks in, people nitpick the lesser issues, etc. It would be nice if people could agree to end one specific behavior at a time.

Edit: Before more people react negatively... Have you tried explaining microagressions to someone who has never exprienced any before? It is not easy.

Edit 2: Focused campaigns such as Beyonce and co against the word 'bossy'.

Edit 3: want to see nitpicking in action? Read the other comments.

<comment><USER33> > Have you tried explaining microagressions to someone who has never > exprienced any before? It is not easy.

It's hard because the term itself seems designed to make it hard, in my opinion.

A microaggression is unintended, while aggression is very much intended. "Micro" \+ "aggression" should mean "a small aggression", but it means actually something very different. It's confusing.

I think avoiding overly academic terms like "microaggressions" would help here. Instead of explaining terms, just talk plain and to the point:

> "When you say 'Usually girls don't like [some geeky thing]', it can make the > woman hearing it uncomfortable. It's factually true that few women are > interested, but it's not cool to point it out, better to avoid saying it and > not look like a jerk."

No need for new theoretical terms with confusing meanings.

<comment><USER32> I agree with you one hundred percent. We need better words than privilege and micro aggression. Even the fucking hr rep laughed at me when I used those words.

<comment><USER34> Maybe "microtransgression"? As pointed out upthread, "aggression" suggests intention, whereas "transgression" suggests a violated boundary, but does not assume intent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> It's not the harmful stereotypes, it's the mundane.

Is anyone else waiting for a woman to point out the obvious stereotype of women (and then some men) writing tons of this stuff at similar points of mainstream integration in similar emerging industries... so men are finally free to mention it too?

</comment><comment><USER36> This is one of the best descriptions of microaggressions that I've come across. It also explains well the idea of unintentional-but-still-harmful; I love the comparison to accidentally stepping on someone's foot, and will totally use that as an example in future.

</comment><comment><USER37> >Don't do the "guys and girls" thing

>either, which is marginally better but

>still makes it feel like an afterthought.

>Try: "folks", "y'all", "everyone",

>"team", "channel", or just "awesome

>people".

Yall is too ghetto

Team is too corporate

Awesome people diminishes the value of the word awesome and also too long

Everyone would mean you're addressing everyone who can hear you say it...

Folks is too official.

Why not just people?

Also, girls/women even say dude and guys to each other. Would seem weird to not say it that way after they say it themselves. If someone acts too PC, people stop hanging around them.

</comment><comment><USER38> "Yes, most people intend this in a gender-neutral way; no, it is not actually gender-neutral."

Wrong.

<comment><USER39> If words mean what people agree that they mean (and I don't really know how else it could be!) then if enough people say "guys" isn't necessarily male then it's like an election. You might not like who won, but it got enough votes to be a legitimate thing.

</comment></comment><comment> vezzy-fnord I think equating the so-called "dark patterns" in user interfaces with sexism is a little far-fetched, but the rest I can agree with (other than #13). I have yet to hear about any "hot and sexy algorithms", however.

</comment><comment><USER22> For her #2 point, (using "girls"), I think "girls" is not actually the closest thing to "guys."

I think you say "boys & girls" or "guys & gals," traditionally. Gals has fallen out of common use, but it's probably the most appropriate word if women are taking offense to "girls."

</comment><comment><USER40> Reading the article linked in point #9... [http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/T-shirts](http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/T-shirts)

Wow. Women's clothing is so broken. (Maybe clothing in general.) The dual requirement of non-sexualizing women (or paying undue attention to their bodies) but also being able to provide flattering perfectly form-fitting t-shirts as swag.. wow.

I'd say just drop t-shirts entirely and go to patches, everyone brings their own blank shirt or vest or jacket or whatever that they like and have someone on hand at the event with a sewing machine to sew the patches on.

</comment><comment><USER27> Some things I agree with.

> 6\. Assuming women they meet are in non-technical roles.

Yeah, monumentally stupid. I don't even understand the reason for this -- usually at any event I just straight up ask people what they do. Assuming something is pretty weird.

> 7\. Fetishizing "hot geek girls".

> 8\. Denigrating things by comparing them to women or femininity.

Common sense. A desperate man slavering over a "hot geek girl" looks ridiculous, as does a man who talks about "manning up" or "hitting like a girl" in the workplace in 2015. Stop it.

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--

Some rebuttals, or at least different perspectives on some of these points.

> 1\. Using 'guys' to mean people

The majority of girls/women in college do this. In fact, anecdotal, but I have seen this used much more often by women _outside_ the tech field. I cannot count the number of times I have heard "So where are you guys going out tonight" amongst an all-female college group. So I don't think men who use this term are being micro-aggressive, unless you count female usage of this term as a "micro-aggression" as well.

> 2\. "Girls" for "women"

Similarly, unless older women are being micro-aggressive when they use this term, I don't see why this is micro-aggressive. One of my biggest surprises was hearing my 50+ female co-worker telling me "I'm a good girl, I pay all my bills on time."

> 3\. "Mom" as an example of a non-technical user

I always use my dad as an example, even though my mom is the more non- technical person. But if "mom" is used way more often, maybe I can go along with this. Still, the suggestion therein to use "cat, non-technical user, Ubuntu user" is pretty silly in my opinion.

> 4\. Using a default male avatar

How do you decide if an avatar is male? Jeans and T-shirts do not a male make in this day and age. I am not quite certain how you would distinguish between a non-gendered and gendered avatar.

> 5\. Describing software or algorithms as "sexy", "hot", etc.

According to the author, this creates a "college frat-boy environment". I would argue that outlawing normal adult words like "sexy" and "hot" creates more of an infantilized classroom environment where you are essentially saying "Hey, don't say that bad word in front of the girls, or you'll get punished." Using "sexy" to refer to a well-designed, sleek new website is, in my opinion, perfectly reasonable.

> 10\. Using dark UI patterns.

This is a problem for all users. I don't see why this should disproportionately drive women off. If it is, the solution lies in more privacy education and outreach, not bashing people who write the software.

<comment><USER12> The article itself notes that not all of these things are problems to/for all women/people. At some point you have to take that at face value. The writer finds these to be problems. Take it as a point of information.

Similarly, your 50+ year old coworker's use of "girls" is a point of information. I find it very weird and creepy when an older female co-worker calls me a "girl" in front of my boss, or says something like "We girls just need to do things a little differently, you know!" Weird and creepy, and no less sexist because it's from a lady.

(Apparently women her age, on the other hand, find "lady" somewhat... inappropriate....?)

Re: dark UI patterns and more, making things better for women makes things better for all users. Glad you seem to have noticed that. If you don't see why it should disproportionately drive off women, you should read/listen up a bit. For instance, direct messages on Twitter are different experiences for women and men: [http://blog.ameliagreenhall.com/post/the-hand-on-the- knee-a-...](http://blog.ameliagreenhall.com/post/the-hand-on-the-knee-a-guide- to-twitter-dm-etiquette-for-men)

<comment><USER27> > The article itself notes that not all of these things are problems to/for > all women/people...The writer finds these to be problems.

Excellent, looks like we all agree. These are specific problems faced by the writer. Then why on earth is the article titled "Ways Men in Tech are Unintentionally Sexist", rather than "Problem I have Faced in Tech and that Made Me Specifically Uncomfortable"?

> I find it very weird and creepy when an older female co-worker calls me a > "girl" in front of my boss,

Yes, and I find it vaguely disquieting that feminists are trying to ban the word "sexy" in the workplace. That doesn't mean I'm going to write a hyperbolic article titled "Why Feminists in Tech are Extreme Puritans".

> (Apparently women her age, on the other hand, find "lady" somewhat... > inappropriate....?)

Haha, one place where we agree totally. I have no idea. My quick guess is, being an older lady, it gives her a comfortable sense of youthfulness to say "Us girls", when she is slowly heading towards 60, and being called "Grandma" at home. But I think it's her choice, and I accept it as such.

> making things better for women makes things better for all users. Glad you > seem to have noticed that.

Nope, I said quite the opposite. All users face these problems.

> For instance, direct messages on Twitter are different experiences for women > and men: [http://blog.ameliagreenhall.com/post/the-hand-on-the- > knee](http://blog.ameliagreenhall.com/post/the-hand-on-the-knee)

That post in itself opens a can of hornets, so I'd like not to go too deep into it. Twitter has an option to stop DMs from people you don't follow, and that article does nothing to educate people about that option. Instead, it makes the sexist, ageist, Puritanical statement that "older men DM'ing younger women on Twitter is 'creepy'" with quasi-religious fervour.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> > _1\. Using "guys" to mean "people"._

I agree with the author that a guy is a man is a guy. Using 'guys' is a micro- aggression. A rather minor one, in my opinion, but if it's contributing to an unwelcome environment then we should try to cut it out. However:

> _Relatedly, avoid assuming male users in your documentation. Just stop > worrying and embrace the singular "they"._

I mean, no I'm not going to do that. Which is to say, I will not and do not assume male users in my documentation, and I will use singular _they_ when appropriate. However I will _also_ continue to use generic _he_ from time to time, because this is a legitimate feature of the English language.

Singular _they_ has been around for a really long time - for a lot longer than anyone has cared about feminism certainly (i.e. 600 years or so at least). So it is not, as is sometimes claimed, some sort of recent invention by feminists to change the English language from the top down. Rather, it has existed alongside the generic _he_ for about as long as people have been speaking English. I use them both freely: in speech I probably use singular _they_ about 95% of the time, in writing more like 75%. Sometimes one sounds better, sometimes the other does.

If _he_ is a pronoun which is used by English speakers in both a gender specific sense _and_ a gender neutral sense, then that's what it is. The argument against generic _he_ seems to presume that in fact there is no generic _he_ , and that all instances of generic _he_ in speech and writing are in fact instances of presumed maleness. I've never really seen this argued though, it's just always taken as a given. I do not take it as a given - is it really so hard to imagine that a word would have two functions? Most languages do this all the time, and English is no exception.

When there are instances of sexism ingrained in our language we should make the effort to remove them, but this often-cited example of same does not foot the bill in my opinion. I will go to great lengths for the cause of feminism, but I will not needlessly degrade the beauty of my native tongue.

<comment><USER19> > I agree with the author that a guy is a man is a guy.

This depends on dialect, and saying that some dialects are wrong, or sexist, is bigoted in a "regionalist" fashion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Well this fell from number 5 article pretty quick. I've noticed this happening heaps with articles about sexism. Why is that?

<comment><USER43> Users flag-killed it. In such cases (where the article isn't spam or off- topic) we usually unkill the story so that ongoing discussion can continue, but don't override the flags altogether, meaning the story's rank is still penalized.

We're open to overriding the flags altogether if people feel that the article and/or thread is particularly good.

Edit: Based on user feedback via email, we've overridden the flags. We've also closed the threads to noob accounts. I hate doing that, but sometimes it's the only way to deal with trolls. Anyone with a new account who wants to participate civilly in the thread is welcome to email us.

<comment><USER44> Dang, I have the highest respect for what your moderation has done for HN.

That said, unkilling this is just wrong. This sort of drivel is what I'd expect on Tumblr -- nit picking minor things, focusing on people's phrasing rather than meaning, not accepting common terminology as if that advances some sort of social justice, and asking people (inherently Bayesian creatures) to ignore their priors for the sake of "equality".

These articles detract from the real issues, and serve only to further separate women in technology, rather than integrating them. There's a reason this was flag killed (and it was not sexism).

<comment><USER41> > people (inherently Bayesian creatures)

If only this were true.

<comment><USER41> _sigh_ downvoting my post is not going to turn humans into Bayesian creatures. And, if you think humans are _inherently_ Bayesian, I am _very interested_ to hear your reasoning, since it would be: 1. wonderful news and, 2. fly in the face of thousands of years of human history.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> > Using "guys" to mean "people"

I do this accidentally all the time and really need to stop it.

<comment><USER34> I actually hear a lot of women doing this too - referring to mixed sex groups or even all-female groups as "you guys".

I assumed it was just a change in the language, where "guys" was changing from meaning "men" to meaning "y'all" or "you people".

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Good writeup. Women in tech are faced with a constant barrage of microaggressions.

I see many men taking a stance of "I'm not sexist, this is not my problem", but really this is every man's responsibility. And it needs to stop. What are YOU doing about it?

</comment><comment><USER32> when i worked in retail my gay friends and i made fun of each other for being gay all of the time. i dont see why i cant make fun of other gays. /s

thats essentially half of the comments in here.

</comment><comment><USER47> Are you serious? Opinions like these are exactly why women are having a hard time in tech in the first place. If I have to spend every waking moment at work obsessing about whether a single comment will make my female coworkers label me as a sexist asshole, then you bet I'll avoid working with them as much as possible.

<comment><USER48> Perhaps you should consider what happens when a colleague has to spend time thinking about whether or not the comments you've failed to police yourself are actually threatening, creepy, or indicative of other much more harmful behaviors you may be capable of?

<comment><USER49> >when a colleague has to spend time thinking about whether or not the comments you've failed to police yourself are actually threatening, creepy, or indicative of other much more harmful behaviors you may be capable of

If they have to spend time thinking about whether or not it was actually threatening or creepy they might be digging a little too deep to find those meanings.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What online tools you started using after going remote? - <AUTHOR> After going remote, what are some of the online tools you started using that you weren't using before?<p>For us:<p>- Google Meet for video calls<p>- FunRetro for online retrospectives<p>- Clockwise (Slack App) for letting others know what we are doing at the moment <comment><USER2> notion.so</comment>


Retina Macbook 2015 Teardown - <AUTHOR> https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Retina+Macbook+2015+Teardown/39841 <comment><USER3> Worth noting that this device, typical for Apple, gets the worst "repairability" score:

>The MacBook 2015 Repairability Score: 1 out of 10 (10 is easiest to repair)

There are several reasons why this happens; the optimist says that to save space Apple had to glue and solder so much, the pessimist says it's so that Apple can charge more for repairs/replacements.

But I think both can agree that this generates more e-waste than necessary, and I wonder whether this may be an incentive for the EU to step in. They've already standardized mobile chargers - starting 2017, all mobile chargers in the EU have to be of the same standard to reduce electronic waste.

I wonder whether a similar law for PC/laptop components could work and how it would look like...

<comment><USER4> My understanding is that Apple is one of the leading companies when it comes to eWaste. Also, this is the one of the rare Apple product that that _only_ has industry standard ports/power chargers on it.

You can't critique them on building a product that is hard to repair (and wow, this one looks next to impossible for your average non-technician) - but the ewaste/standard charger concerns don't appear to be valid.

<comment><USER5> Only if your understanding of "leading companies in ewaste" is that their products tick a bunch of boxes for materials used to be easily recyclable.

But that is not the _essence_ of the term. To avoid ewaste, you should avoid creating any in the first place. Creating products that will be useful for 10+ years instead of _until the next model cycle_.

<comment><USER6> > Creating products that will be useful for 10+ years

Well that's just a matter of opinion, isn't it? Nothing's going to stop you from running this laptop 10 years from now just like nothing's going to stop you from running a PC laptop 10 years from now. The question is _are you going to want to_ continue using a 10 year old laptop? That's an eternity in technological terms.

Sure you can upgrade a PC laptop to squeeze a longer life out of it, but there are practical limits to that to (i.e., it's unlikely that a 10 year old chipset is going to support the amount of RAM that we would consider "bare minimum" in 10 years, likewise for the CPU).

I agree with your argument in principle but "10+ years lifetime" is not really a good point to argue.

<comment><USER7> Then we software developers need to get better at using hardware resources efficiently, so that the amount of RAM that's considered adequate today is still adequate 10 years from now. As I've said before, why isn't a PC with a 366 MHz processor and 64 MB of RAM (the laptop I used in college) good enough any more?

<comment><USER8> Why should it be?

You present this as a normative argument, that things _should_ be a certain way. But do you have a cogent argument for why we should be retarding the growth of memory and speed with our personal computing devices?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm not sure why this is an issue any more. It was a nice ideal when laptops were just PCs put into smaller boxes, but as manufacturers put the effort and investment into satisfying our demands for smaller, faster, lighter, I don't think the expectation of poking around inside them is reasonable.

We don't see people complaining about the repairability of their R-Pis, Chromecasts, SoC systems etc. That's the way hardware is going - <USER2> that's what we've asked for.

<comment><USER10> > It was a nice ideal when laptops were just PCs put into smaller boxes, but > as manufacturers put the effort and investment into satisfying our demands > for smaller, faster, lighter, I don't think the expectation of poking around > inside them is reasonable.

A big part of the annoyance with Apple is their tendency to explicitly take steps against repairs: insane amounts of glue, multiple "weird" screws (the macbook here uses pentalobe, torx, philips and tri-wing in a single machine), non-standard formats & connectors (I don't expect them to ever swap their non- soldered SSDs for M.2, even though they've altered the connector and format multiple times).

Having the machine be "hard to repair" because it's highly integrated is one thing, taking decisions which deliberately hinder repairability and have basically no other advantage is quite another.

> We don't see people complaining about the repairability of their R-Pis, > Chromecasts, SoC systems etc.

Nobody complains about the repairability of an RPi because no specific step to make it harder to repair for no value were undertaken.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Seems that the major unknown is about the SSD controller [1] to know if it uses a custom controller or not.

[1] [http://www.anandtech.com/show/9173/more-pictures- of-2015-mac...](http://www.anandtech.com/show/9173/more-pictures- of-2015-macbooks-applebuilt-ssd-controller)

<comment><USER12> Look at the size of it compared to the Intel CPU. That thing is huge. What are the usual node size SSD controller manufactured in? 28/40nm

<comment><USER13> Here's something that might be surprising to some: package size is related to the number of pins mostly, not to the size of the silicon - and more pins if the consumption is higher

(Usually bigger silicon has more pins, and vice versa, but not necessarily)

<comment><USER14> Usually yes. There is even a little PCB between the mainboard and the chip to get enough area for the thousands of pins.

But this is not the case if they stack the flash chips with the controller chips. Then only a few external pins are needed for communication and power. But the flash chips actually need the silicon area for all those tiny flash cells.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> For New Yorkers reading this: interesting to hear about the New York Digital Right to Repair bill. Didn't realize that the support provided to non manufacturers was being stifled.

Read more here: [http://newyork.digitalrighttorepair.org/](http://newyork.digitalrighttorepair.org/)

</comment><comment><USER16> "NXP 11U37 microcontroller; 128 kB flash, 10kB SRAM" [1]

Does anyone have an idea of what this is used for?

[1]: [https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Retina+Macbook+2015+Teardown...](https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Retina+Macbook+2015+Teardown/39841#s89811)

<comment><USER17> Based on location and size, I'm guessing it's used for the USB type C port - specifically implementing the CC sideband communication protocol.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I really appreciate the use of a NVM SSD Controller. I wonder if and when Apple will release Bootcamp driver for those.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> The submission to the original iFixit article only has five points:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9384791](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9384791)

Something is badly broken here, and it's not just the fact that you can't repair the new MacBook. :-(

<comment><USER19> Too many submissions appear on HN for randomness not to be a leading if not dominant factor. That's why a small number of reposts are ok, if the article is good for HN and hasn't had attention yet. See [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html).

We changed the URL on this submission from [http://arstechnica.com/apple/2015/04/surprise-ifixit-says- yo...](http://arstechnica.com/apple/2015/04/surprise-ifixit-says-you-cant-do- much-to-fix-or-upgrade-the-2015-macbook/) to the article it points to, as we normally do.

<comment><AUTHOR> But now I am getting the submission credit that rightfully belongs to chaostheory, who originally submitted this link. (And to top off the irony, my comment is being downvoted into oblivion despite the fact that it's my own submission I'm criticizing!)

Here's a constructive suggestion on how to fix the problem:

1\. As long as the article is not on the front page, give the Nth upvoter K/N karma points, where K is the number of karma points the article eventually gets.

2\. When an article not on the front page gets an upvote, put it back at the top of the New page (i.e. sort the New page based on most recent upvote, not submission time).

This would provide an incentive for people to browse the new page and be early upvoters of quality articles. In order to prevent people from simply upvoting everything, you would need to:

3\. Charge one karma point to upvote an article

and in order to start everyone on a level playing field

4\. Give everyone 100 free karma points (or allow karma to go down to -100 before users lose their upvoting privileges, at which point they can only redeem themselves by submissions)

and to prevent submission spam:

5\. Limit users with low karma to 1 submission per day or something like that

I'll even offer to implement this for you if you think you might make this change.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> $1300, what an absolute joke.

<comment><USER20> Aaaand lovely proof that HN is broken. It's a $1300 netbook but this comment is not allowed to be seen.

<comment><USER21> Netbooks typically used Atom (OEM price: ~$30). This uses a Core M (OEM price: $281). That's more expensive than most netbooks all on its own; it's a slightly different class.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> читать в России!

</comment><comment><USER23> >Apple has opted to transition from using a row of LEDs with a light guide panel, to installing individual LEDs beneath each key.

That's progress. Now, Apple, please replace each LED with an infra-red or a visible-light sensor, so that someone can write software to put a representation of the keyboard onto the screen that shows which keys have a finger hovering over them, so that the user never has to look at the keyboard except when the keyboard needs cleaning.

<comment><USER24> > so that the user never has to look at the keyboard except when the keyboard > needs cleaning.

The user should learn to touch-type.

<comment><USER23> So you can hit the - key or the ] key without looking at the keyboard as quickly as someone who is looking at the keyboard?

You just reach over and press the key and you never press an adjacent key by mistake?

<comment><USER24> Pretty much. I never look at the keyboard, and rarely mis-type. If I do then I don't need to look at the keyboard to correct myself, as I know the position of every key, I just backspace and hit the key I intended to hit in the first place.

And, as another commenter also mentioned, I don't use the layout that's printed on the keys anyway, so looking at the keyboard would not help.

None of this is particularly uncommon for anyone who can touch-type.

<comment><USER25> What's actually funny is, a lot of people who look at the keyboard actually can touch-type, they just don't realise it. They continue to look out of habit more than necessity. If you've used a computer for ten years and you still look, you too might fit into this category.

You can fix it, it just takes a few weeks, just cover your hands with a cloth or other barrier so looking down won't help you reposition, and fix any typos using touch rather than looking. If you're in a real rush do the same thing, but now spin up a copy of Typing Of the Dead or similar typing tutor.

PS - Also, yes, your speed will decrease initially. It slowly returns and will eventually overtake your looking speed.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>