Not Your Imagination: Twitter Treats Conservatives More Harshly Than Liberals - <AUTHOR> https://quillette.com/2019/02/12/it-isnt-your-imagination-twitter-treats-conservatives-more-harshly-than-liberals/ <comment><USER2> Anecdata: Given the number of left/liberal people I've seen on my timeline/lists suspended for innocuous replies to harassment, the number of posts about Twitter support not suspending conservative harassers (POTUS being a prime example!), and the fairly strong conservative bias of Quillette, I'll be needing a bag of salt and a lot more proof than this article provides.

<comment><USER3> Kathy Griffin literally called for her followers to dox the MAGA kids. When asked about this on Joe Rogan podcast twitter CEO just changed the topic.

Journalist are the lifeline of twitter, so they will always be on the side of the mainstream media. If you are leftist/liberal but out of the media bubble (like some trans-esclusionary radical femminists) then you are worse off than conservatives,

<comment><USER2> > Kathy Griffin literally called for her followers to dox the MAGA kids.

Well, she asked for names, not a full dox, but I would agree that she should have been temporarily suspended for that, yep.

> like some trans-esclusionary radical femminists

They tend not to be leftist/liberal in my experience.

<comment><USER3> "liberal" is a confusing word; for a few centuries leftist/liberal meant very similar things in the west. Today we have strong movements of illiberal/authoritarian on the left while the right (in the US) has strong libertarian movements.

Consider the famous example of the baker and the homosexual wedding. Without judging the standard leftist position is significantly less libertarian than the usual position on the right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Not a big Twitter user (never tweeted and only follow a small amount of people/services) and I've seen this again and again. I didn't really think it was in dispute?

</comment><comment><USER5> Call it paranoia, but I have long felt that twitter suppresses my own tweets on "hot" political topics (I.e. 0 interaction, 0 in-person comments or discussion), whereas literally every tweet a make gets some reactions. It's just too uncanny to miss, yet I have no ability to prove.

I've even paid considerably to promote tweets on a mildly controversial topic that got next to no interactions.. never again will I pay twitter like that.

EDIT- re: the article and I don't see this discussed elsewhere, I wonder if left leaning people are just 4x more likely to use the "flag as offensive" feature, leading Twitter to process and prosecute more conservative viewpoints?

<comment><USER6> It's already quite known to a few people that there are many words that will trigger twitter to push your tweets under the "show more".

For example: Tranny.

If you say that word in any context, your tweet will not show up in many of your followers timelines and if it was a reply it will only show up if you hit show more at least once.

Maybe thats a good thing overall, but I can't help think about the long term effects when the words you can and cannot say can't easily be understood and we end up in some kind of world where only the most sanitized advertiser friendly tweets are the only ones your able to see without having to dig around all the time.

<comment><USER7> Are you certain? In mechanics' circles that has a completely neutral meaning. Doubt Twitter is so simplistic it can't figure out people are talking about drivetrain transmissions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It is worse in other countries without "free speech"-clauses in constitution. Twitter has very active role in general elections in many countries in Europe. Only in Deutschland this issue can be corrected by suing Twitter. Other countries do not even have suitable legislation, because only government (and elected spokespersons) have "free speech".

</comment><comment><USER9> Very shaky methods. He doesn't even tell us who is on his list of 21 unfairly banned trump supporters

<comment><USER5> >> Very shaky methods. He doesn't even tell us who is on his list of 21 unfairly banned trump supporters

he provided his whole database of users tracked

Edited to remove snark

<comment><USER9> The link doesn't work on my phone and he doesn't spend any time discussing the cases. The article is not actually written about the "data", it is simply there to add some kind of impression of rigor.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I don't use Twitter much, but I have noticed the reverse is true on Facebook.

<comment><USER11> Doesn't that entirely depend on who your friends are, and what they post?

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is poor reasoning.

The _average_ Trump supporter may be no more likely to break Twitters TOS, we aren't looking at the average here, we are looking at the outliers.

22 bans is absolutely insignificant compared to the millions of users, you can't extrapolate that out to _all_ Trump voters or even the _average_ Trump voter, therefore his argument makes no sense.

<comment><USER7> True, but let's say a ridiculous ToS had any mention of Marxist ideology as a violation.

That would have an inherent bias against people on the Democratic side.

<comment><USER12> Are you equating Marxism with Nazism???

I'd accept a Stalism/Nazism (or maoism) equivocation.

Marxism is not like Nazism.

<comment><USER7> No. I'm saying _if_ they instituted an unfounded TOS against Marxism, that would have an inherent bias. I purposely left Maoism and Stalinism out due to their fascist nature.

Let's say they were owned by Exxon, their TOS had that talking the negative aspects of fossil fuels was a violation, that would have an inherent anti Democrat bias, even if they didn't have a stated anti Democrat bias.

<comment><USER12> Ok, sorry.

Was anyone accusing them of having an anti right wing TOS?

In general I agree with you, but I think you'd have a hell of a time teasing apart the politics of it. Eg if a rule said all statements had to be scientifically proven, is that anti right wing? Is that even wrong in and of itself? How would you balance that out?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > Are prominent Trump supporters more likely to break neutrally applied social > media terms of service agreements than other voters? Perhaps. But are they > four or more times as likely? That doesn't seem credible.

That seems perfectly credible.

<comment><USER6> If so, wouldn't that mean that twitter is credibly bias towards progressives?

<comment><USER14> The null hypothesis here is that Twitter is biased against users who violate their terms of service, and that if conservatives violate Twitter's terms of service more often than progressives, they appear to be subjected to "harsher" treatment, which is interpreted by conservatives as an organized campaign of anti-conservative bias and suppression, rather than Twitter simply enforcing its policies.

What needs to be demonstrated, to me, is that the majority of banned provably conservative accounts were not banned for violating Twitter's terms of service, but for their political views, and that an equal or greater ratio of provably liberal accounts with equal or greater following which violated Twitter's terms of service were _not_ banned, in order for political bias to be the more likely reason for the treatment of conservatives.

<comment><USER6> What if I told you that twitters TOS itself is bias against conservatives? Your whole argument seems premised on the idea that twitters TOS is completely neutral.

<comment><USER14> >What if I told you that twitters TOS itself is bias against conservatives?

Here is Twitter's TOS[0], I'd ask you to prove it.

[0][https://twitter.com/en/tos](https://twitter.com/en/tos)

<comment><USER6> > We reserve the right to remove Content that violates the User Agreement, > including for example, copyright or trademark violations, impersonation, > unlawful conduct, or harassment.

So Kathy griffin doxxing and sending a hate mob after children is not harassment but alex jones having a minor encounter with a CNN journalist is an instantly bannable example of harassment.

I'm pretty sure your just arguing out of bad faith at this point.

<comment><USER13> Interesting. So which part of that do you feel is intrinsic to being a conservative, that would make the part of the TOS you quoted biased against conservatives? Is it the harassment, maybe? The unlawful conduct?

> I'm pretty sure your just arguing out of bad faith at this point.

You have no idea what that means, do you?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


A neuroscientist had his brain scanned for a year and a half - <AUTHOR> http://priceonomics.com/the-first-quantified-brain/ <comment><USER2> Thanks for the interest in the study (I'm the first author/experimental subject). I seem to have survived with no lasting effects - at least small pieces of metal are no longer clinging to me :-)

<comment><USER3> This is awesome, would be great to see you speak at one of the Quantified Self meetups in SF! - [http://www.meetup.com/quantifiedself/](http://www.meetup.com/quantifiedself/)

<comment><USER2> would be happy to - I talked about it a few years ago at a QS meetup in Austin when we were just starting

<comment><USER3> cool - I'll do some work with the leaders of the SF meetup to see if we can coordinate and be in touch!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Poldrack's team found more connectivity in certain networks of the brain -- particularly between systems associated with movement and vision -- if he didn't have breakfast and coffee. Poldrack says that's surprising: "If anything we would have predicted that if you're tired and caffeinated, connectivity would have gone down." Figuring out why this effect occurred might be a fruitful avenue for research."

It is very intriguing and interesting that neural connectivity in systems of movement and vision is increased when one is fasting. My speculation is that those neural activities are handed down from our early ancestors. Perhaps when we were hungry, our brain is actively scanning our surrounding areas for ways of obtaining sustenance.

<comment><USER5> It made me nod in agreement when I read that. Anyone who has fasted for a minimum amount of time, at least 10 hours or so can attest that you end up with an incredibly clear head, powerful sense of smell and very "switched on" vision system where everything seems sharper and clearer.

It's a well known effect and this shows one mechanism behind it.

<comment><USER6> > Anyone who has fasted ...

I don't find that at all

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> A link to the data: [http://results.myconnectome.org/](http://results.myconnectome.org/) \-- pretty interesting, IMO!

</comment><comment><USER8> As a note, there is a longer study, weekly for 3.5 years, that has been published, in part, at: [http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0140134).

The results in this paper relate to the functional MRI aspect of the study.

</comment><comment><USER9> I wonder if there are any risks to spending a cumulative 20 hours in a MRI machine other than the loud noise he mentioned?

<comment><USER10> None that are known or expected, although I don't believe effect of high field and high field gradients are really well understood.

For what its worth there are people who have been in for far more than 20 hours (e.g. hundreds of cumulative hours).

<comment><USER11> There can be one effect during diffusion-weighted scanning, which is muscle twitching due to induced depolarization when the gradients are ramped hard. I've had that happen a few times and it was a fairly weird sensation, but not discomforting enough for me to stop the scan. No long-term issues that I'm aware of though.

<comment><USER10> This is called peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS), and isn't specific to EPI (e.g diffusion scans). This

That's fair though, I really should have been more specific: You can certainly harm a human being with the piece of machinery known as an MR scanner. Much more so than just PNS, you are dumping energy into the body via RF, so there is a specific absorption rate (SAR) limit applied to avoid going into ranges that will damage tissue.

What I was refering to was limited only to the effect of exposure to _fixed_ magnetic fields in an MR, and gradients and RF coils as they are constrained for clinical use.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Tldr: he had an MRI twice a week. Cross referenced with other data about mood, diet, blood. Didn't find much out because sample size = 1.

<comment><USER13> Also interesting to know that someone can go through 104 MRI per year safely.

<comment><USER14> MRI magnets primarily interact with the nuclear spin of protons, which can align with or against the field. Adjusting the orientation of the spin should not change any reaction chemistry, so there is no significant hazard. The nuclear spin orientations shift back into their normal equilibrium once the magnetic field is removed.

The radio waves generated for the technique can cause heating when the energy is absorbed. This should be limited by how the MRI is designed, however I am not familiar with the detailed design of MRI instruments.

More research could be done in this area for very long term effects, but I haven't seen any convincing evidence for concern.

<comment><USER15> Won't the strong magnetic field squish the electron orbitals somewhat, causing a minor effect on chemistry? (an even stronger magnetic field would be toxic, in a way)

<comment><USER14> This might be possible but I don't think the effect is significant. Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy is used extensively to analyze molecular structure and monitor reactions. NMR instruments commonly have about 7-14 tesla magnets.

<comment><USER15> Yeah, we might not be capable of producing magnetic fields strong enough to noticeably alter the chemistry of anything. I'm not sure at what intensity the effects would begin to be noticeable.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Banking on fuel-sweating flora - <AUTHOR> http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/banking-on-fuel-sweating-flora/?ref=business

<comment><USER2> Algae-based production is incredibly exciting to me. The hacker in me loves the solution of utilizing the waste by-product of grid power production as a significant input in the process.

It doesn't solve our petroleum needs, but it's a hell of a first step. It's going to be an interesting couple of decades, in terms of fuel technology.

</comment><comment><USER3> I can see it now, if this ends up working we will have tons of these: <http://www.treehugger.com/20090514-algae-bioreactor.jpg> i guess its time for me to complete myself an old turbo diesel benz.</comment>


Is music recommendation difficult? - <AUTHOR> http://thebreakfastpost.com/2012/01/13/is-music-recommendation-difficult

<comment><USER2> I think it is a difficult problem. Much of the difficulty is just framing the question in a philosophical sense.

The article talks about music recommendations based on a user's previous music-listening habits but what about recommendations based NOT on previous listening habits? I guess it depends on if the point of music recommendations is to "drill down" on a particular genre or related sub-genre.

In general music recommendations can also be made based on interests in literature or aesthetics or even historical topics. They can also be based on absence of experience-- how do you know if you've optimized globally if you haven't seen the spectrum of possibilities?

Finally, there's the question of what constitutes "success". Is it possible for someone to appreciate a recommendation even if they don't like it (as in "thumbs up" like it)? Aesthetic tastes are far more complex than like/dis- like.

I realize that these considerations aren't necessarily amenable to a pure computational approach. Perhaps the answer lies in using human decisions and computation together, like last.fm scrobbling?</comment>


We should use the electric scooter boom to rethink our streets - <AUTHOR> https://www.curbed.com/2018/8/30/17797818/electric-scooters-urban-planning-sidewalks-organization <comment><USER2> Really? We had a bicycle boom for years ( much healthier, too). Nobody rethought anything because of it.</comment>


Ten Simple Rules for Better Figures - <AUTHOR> https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003833 <comment><USER2> Rule 11: don't use PPT, PNG or TIFF formats for inherently vector content.</comment>


Burning a NeXT Cube - <AUTHOR> http://simson.net/hacks/cubefire.html

<comment><USER2> It's wierd, I read long articles like this, and think "This is more readable than modern webpages" even though it's a HUGE article. Is it possible people aren't writing as well as in 1993?

I'm guilty too - I used to write 20,000 word web-based articles in 1997 which my friends read without saying "It's too long!". Now I can barely write a blog entry (although I can write long emails).

<comment><USER3> It's because people are so goddamn awful at design.

There's so much _bullshit_ in the average design calculated to leech a few more clicks out of people. Archive trees on the side, tag clouds, lots and lots of numbers calculating I-don't-give-a-fuck, share buttons. People stick colors and borders where colors and borders have no reason being. On top of that, people have no clue how to make readable typography. None. I'm shocked at how many people go along with ugly text without once learning to make it attractive. Good designers, too, that just never thought to look at making their text fit into their page.

When you have ugly layouts, people won't tolerate reading as much, and you learn that your "best" writing is much shorter. There're some exceptions. I don't think it's surprising that the best longform writers I know all have very attractive-looking longform designs. Certainly that's what I put effort into this week, designing my new portfolio.

<comment><USER4> See also, Merlin Mann's "noise-to-noise" ratio: [http://www.flickr.com/photos/merlin/sets/72157622077100537/d...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/merlin/sets/72157622077100537/detail/)

<comment><USER3> Thank you for the link! That's a brilliant set.

I sometimes feel autistic online, because I don't understand how people come up with the need to clutter the way they do. When I design, I start feeling cramped if I've got more than seven distinct stylistic elements. My portfolio includes a header and a footer, and looking at it a a part of me still feels like that's too much to have on a web site.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> That makes me sad. It's a significant piece of computing history that should be preserved.

If, for nothing else, to prevent future computer makers from using cast magnesium in their cases.

</comment><comment><USER6> This is absolutely brilliant writing. Great use of dialogue, 'showing' rather than 'telling', painting good pictures of the various characters involved (Burt, 'jolly' director),etc.

</comment><comment><USER7> Interestingly they say that they posted the pictures to Flickr which appears to be Picasa after all.

</comment><comment><USER8> That's awesome. Next time I go camping I'll bring some flint and a bit of NeXT Cube.

<comment><USER9> [http://www.amazon.com/Coghlans-7870-Magnesium-Fire- Starter/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Coghlans-7870-Magnesium-Fire- Starter/dp/B0000CE2D8/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Ah, yes. Magnesium. Also means NeXT cubes are great for starting a thermite bomb.

</comment><comment><USER11> Makes me want to burn an iPhone.

<comment><USER12> Unfortunately, the iPhone isn't made from cast magnesium. It wouldn't burn nearly as well.</comment></comment>


The Bateson Building (2016) - <AUTHOR> https://jsah.ucpress.edu/content/75/4/469 <comment><USER2> Wow. Just Wow.

I'm a 56 year old software engineer who grew up in London and now lives in a tiny village in New Mexico. This article manages to somehow cover a huge part of the culture that so influenced my life growing up - Bateson, Van Der Ryn, Brand, Alexander, and so many more - even though I lived thousands of miles from the putative "new age state" it describes. My subscription to CoEvolution Quarterly, my prized copies of Domebook 2, Shelter, the New Alchemists, newsletters from the Farallones Institute - odd source material for a teenager living in the middle of the punk explosion, but well, that was what I did.

The ideas that were circulating then form part of a semi-coherent body of knowledge that I tend to feel is insufficiently visible, especially to today's younger people currently exploring the same questions and dissatisfactions.

Understanding why these efforts failed, and when they didn't, seems to me an incredibly useful effort. This article was written in 2016 ... it would be nice if there turn out to be more critical but highly informed analyses of the evolution of and outcomes from the ideas of the "movements" (whatever you call them) that were surfacing in the 75-85 period. The Observer (UK) had a similar though less in-depth study of the New Alchemists recently:

[https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/ng- interactive/2019...](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/ng- interactive/2019/sep/29/the-new-alchemists-could-the-past-hold-the-key-to- sustainable-living)

Putting on my old(er) person hat: you kids who want to change the world, go back and understand why the efforts of people 2-4 times your age turned out the way they did.

And now ... I need to get back to working on my own install of a 6.6kW solar array, and my New Mexico garden (featuring sub-irrigated beds, and idea that should have been in CoEvolution Quarterly, but wasn't) and our old adobe house, as I get ready to release version 6.0 of Ardour. Meanwhile, Stewart Brand's friends (Shel Kaphan) and his intellectual children (me) helped build that e-commerce website we all increasingly love to hate. Funny how things turn out.

</comment><comment><USER3> Thanks so much for sharing. I've been fascinated by Bateson for a long time, but i didnt know much about the environment he did his thinking in, nor how/if his ideas had ever had any political influence. This article was very illuminating.

Im 30 and living in Denmark, and reading Bateson its always been baffling to me that his ideas (or ideas like them) have not had a larger impact. It seems like my generation is talking about many of the exact same issues that Bateson have written about so brilliantly. I cant tell whether his ideas are genius or just so outdated that they seem new to me.

Do you know of any more articles that put this ecological movement into historical perspective? I'd love to read more.

</comment><comment><USER4> To bring this all the way through to 2020 and HN, I'm currently employed at a startup[1] cofounded by Peter Calthorpe, one of the architects of the Bateson Building named in the article!

I happened to be in Sacramento with him a few years back for a meeting and we dropped by the building for a quick tour and verbal history lesson.

1\. [https://urbanfootprint.com/](https://urbanfootprint.com/)</comment>


Guys, stop sexualizing women in your mockups - <AUTHOR> http://blog.wells.ee/guys-stop-sexualizing-women-in-your-mockups/ <comment><USER2> I don't get the argument here. Look at a fashion magazine geared towards women, what do you think the ads look like in those magazines?

Marketing copy with attractive people tends to convert better than marketing copy with unattractive people. Are we just supposed to sabotage our own marketing material in order to... what exactly?

If sex sells its not because IT is a male dominated industry, its because sex sells to the population at large. Why don't you go to Hollywood and tell them to start hiring more unattractive actresses in star roles, I'm sure that would have a much larger and more immediate impact than changing the marketing copy on a few landing pages.

You can't honestly expect IT to be the ones that pioneer more 'ethical' marketing practices.

<comment><USER3> What's unethical about using sex to sell?

Our society is really fucked up and repressed about sex.

I'm really glad there's a man around to tell my partner that if she wears bathing suits to the beach and a man sees her backside that she's a victim instead of advocating she wear whatever the fuck she wants (including nothing) to the beach.

When my partner and I go to the beach we have to travel an extra 15 minutes because she'd rather go topless, that's fucked up and repressed. I can go around where ever I want with my top off, but thanks to white knights like the writer of the article she has to travel an extra 15 minutes lest a man (who is uncomfortable with naked pictures of his own gender) have to see her tits.

I'd be more impressed if people like the author could look at a woman wearing a bathing suit with out immediately thinking about sex than any blog post he could ever write about how women are sexualized. It's really fucked up that he can't think a woman at the beach in a bathing suit is doing anything other than being sexualized.

<comment><USER4> I agree with the second part.

I think this example is unethical because of the standards it creates for women. It makes women think that their primary role is for sex, which is shitty.

I don't like the standards placed on men either, like how we're supposed to be emotionless, or the current trend of "idiot men" in commercials.

[http://www.askmen.com/top_10/entertainment_300/327_top_10_li...](http://www.askmen.com/top_10/entertainment_300/327_top_10_list.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Only the first photo really comes across as sexualized (Messages by Ramotion) -- I think a different photo should have been picked. The other two designs just have photos of pretty women smiling.

Also, the UIfaces service seems to be almost entirely pictures of men. Should we only have pictures of men in our mockups?

</comment><comment><USER6> Images of faces and people aren't neutral placeholders - they will affect how attractive the whole mockup (and the advertised product) will be perceived.

In almost all cases (barring special messaging/targeting), using pictures of attractive people will give better results - if you're using pictures of average people for no good reason, then you're hurting the outcome, putting out suboptimal product; it would be just like using a less-than-readable typeface for your marketing copy - unprofessional.

Gender of the pictures matters - it should be adjusted for target message and audience, but more often than not (2/3?) a picture of a woman will be more effective (attract attention and positive emotion) than a similar picture of a man. Take a look at magazine covers - both men-targeted and women-targeted magazines will prefer to have women on their covers, since that is what will get them more sales.

And that is not an arbitrary bias of publishers, this is a reflection of the true bias of the viewers, and it probably will stay that way until we're not entirely homo sapiens anymore.

</comment><comment><USER7> So, a few things. I'll start with the nit-picky. I think the Blurred Lines parody should be removed.

I've never seen it before, but decided to watch it (discreetly as I could at work), and I don't see the author's issue with it. That paragraph, instead of coming off as "we wouldn't sexualize men, so we shouldn't sexualize women" instead comes off as "I am slightly homophobic and don't like seeing nearly naked men".

Honestly, I dug the video and thought it was pretty clever and funny. If the author has an issue with nearly naked men and their junk, perhaps that's a personal problem the author should address outside of the context of how to treat women.

Now, on to the actual message of the article. I get how sexualizing women in a workplace is bad. But to say "remove sexuality from marketing materials" (mockups are marketing materials, after all) is just dumb. Sex sells. That's all there is to it. It doesn't matter what you're selling. That's why Fruit of the Looms commercials have buff men in underwear (they're marketing to wives/girlfriends who actually do the cloth purchasing) and why beer commercials have women in bikinis (marketing to men who buy beer).

So, sorry, but the sheer economics of it means that there's going to be sexualized materials in marketing (with both men and women being sexualized depending on the target audience).

</comment><comment><USER8> I'm not intending to offend or be sexist here but...

Do women actually have a problem looking at pictures of other women?

Whenever I see some media 'designed' for women, usually a magazine or a newspaper article, it's invariable about another woman. Either about fashion, health or just some celebrity gossip. The men that do appear tend to be unusually good looking.

The only conclusion I'm going to draw from this (and there are many), is that women don't seem to have a problem looking at pictures of other women.

</comment><comment><USER9> It doesn't look to me like any of the women in those examples were forced to pose a certain way.

It's a problem if you make it a problem.

<comment><USER10> Yea, I like how you glossed over the shot of the woman in the bikini looking out to the ocean.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, there's no way a woman would go out to the beach unless a man forced her to.

<comment><USER10> Why do you think they chose the shot of her from behind?

<comment><USER11> Couldn't you make the same argument about them taking a shot from the front?

<comment><USER10> You clearly see the issue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I found The Hawkeye Initiative to be a pretty hilarious response to this issue (more geared towards representation in comics), not sure many people know about it. [http://thehawkeyeinitiative.com/](http://thehawkeyeinitiative.com/)

</comment><comment><USER13> _I can't stand this video. Watching toned men parade around with their junk sticking out makes me feel very uncomfortable._

Obviously the author is not a fan of men in glittery pants, but I suspect that the video may not make quite the point intended.

<comment><USER14> My first thought was the author didn't understand the point of the video, but reading the next paragraph showed that he absolutely did. He's saying he was extremely uncomfortable watching the video, but _this is what women have to deal with all the time_. As uncomfortable as that video makes him, the original Robin Thicke video is just as bad for women (editorializing here: it's probably worse for women, because of the rape implications).

<comment><USER7> Can you explain why men should feel uncomfortable with that video?

I'm a man, and I watched it, and felt zero feelings of discomfort about toned men in revealing underwear and junk. If anything, the absurdity of it all was pretty entertaining.

So what, exactly, should men feel uncomfortable about here?

<comment><USER15> If it could be explained the world would be a far better place.

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. So we have to rely on empathy when we hear people different than ourselves say something makes them uncomfortable.

<comment><USER16> I think at some point, his reaction is more about him than the video or culture at large.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Sex sells and it does attract more attention (and more clicks and impressions and buys) whether you like it or not.

</comment><comment><USER18> Stopped reading at 'I'm a white male' as if it's some sort of a handicap (in the words of George Carlin - "happens to be").

Tired of white male guilt permeating every other non-technical post. To me this colors the author is too extreme in their worldview, hence I am unlikely to seriously consider whatever he says after that.

</comment><comment><USER15> "Men can be our best advocates because the men who don't respect women do respect men."

I've never actually said that phrase, but if I did it wouldn't pertain to something as silly as this. Using super beautiful people in mockups or sexualized woman is immature but I'm far more concerned with people who think that woman 'just aren't smart enough to be programmers'.

Maybe this would have worked better in a more specific example. I interviewed at a place where there were so many little things like this that I didn't think I'd be comfortable working there. Sexualized images + servers named after porn actresses + the poster for the company holiday party included a scantily clad woman.

</comment><comment><USER19> I don't get it. He gives the woman on the beach as an example of.. quote offending work unquote.

> the men who don't respect women do respect men

There are people that don't respect anybody. If someone's being an asshole to a woman it doesn't necessary mean it's about sexism.

Btw, sexism != the discrimination of women. It's a discriminations based on person's sex - so it's discrimination of men as well e.g. implying they have to have particular qualities and behave in certain ways.

</comment><comment><USER20> I don't know how I feel about the content of the article, but I do know that finding UIFaces is a winner. What a neat service.

</comment><comment><USER21> Wow... if you actually click the link to Meng To's "From Design To iOS7 Prototype" design post, you'll see that at least 1/2 the images are of men. You perniciously decided to cherry pick one example that happens to have a woman, and assert that he's sexualizing women.

Also, it's clear that you are projecting your own homophobic prejudices onto women when you write: "I can't stand this video. Watching toned men parade around with their junk sticking out makes me feel very uncomfortable."

You assume that, because you feel uncomfortable looking at the skin of same sex individuals, all women must therefore share your prejudice. I think this article reflects more about your own assumptions and prejudices than it does about the difficulties women really face. You are contributing to the problem, good job.

</comment><comment><USER22> This is almost like saying that fashion models should be short, fat and ugly.

</comment><comment><USER23> Sometimes people just want to climb up on their soap box. In this case apparently based upon one single example (although even that one is arguable if you live in a progressive society).

The others look like my Facebook feed. Are we to believe that smiling women = sexualized? That is simply ridiculous, and rather than seeing this post as a reasoned petition for equality, it seems to almost turn women into need-to-be- protected caricatures, and sounds remarkably like something you would expect to hear in Saudi Arabia.</comment>


A lesson in customer retention from Blizzard. - <AUTHOR> http://i.imgur.com/jVSbk.jpg

<comment><USER2> Isn't this last chance sort of page just as open to A & B testing as a sign up page? Your just checking to see how many users are leaving instead of entering. To answer my own question, it seems a little different, since making it hard to leave your site is probably decreasing your sites usability rather than increasing it. If it is easy for your customer to get started that is much different than making it hard for them to leave. I suppose I've come full circle while making this comment. I started thinking that you should optimize for keeping people and now think you should just try to make it easy for a returning user to get back into using their account.

Almost didn't post my thoughts, but here it goes anyways.

</comment><comment><USER3> This really isn't a lesson in customer service, it is a lesson in that "last chance" attempt to keep you paying money when you really don't want a service anymore. It is canned text based on two list boxes.

<comment><AUTHOR> I wonder how much money that "canned text based on two list boxes" saves/makes Blizzard every year.

<comment><USER3> I get the feeling people treat it like any other long computer message or dialog box (scan, ignore).</comment></comment></comment>


Songs for your girlfriend - <AUTHOR> http://songs-for-girlfriend.herokuapp.com/ Time saver app. Don't worry to select the right song for the right time. Still in development but you can try and use. <comment><USER2> > Dying</comment>


Chris Sacca: Couldn't be happier for Omnisio - <AUTHOR> http://www.whatisleft.org/lookie_here/2008/07/couldnt-be-happ.html

<comment><USER2> He says that Omnisio was part of his "portfolio". I assume that means he had stake in the company, so by being acquired, he made bank. Of course he "couldn't be happier". If I just cashed out for bank I couldn't think of a way to be happier either.</comment>


Windows 10 Best New Feature #6: Updated Command Prompt - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WAHFsAboTY

<comment><USER2> That's Powershell though. Easily resizing the window and selecting text are probably the least significant changes it brings.

</comment><comment><USER3> F I N A L L Y!!! I just might spend a little more time on Windows now.</comment>