@danilocampos - I think it matters for getting to a solution. If there's something inherent in tech, or its male work force that makes the problem worse, then knowing that might help get at the root of the problem a little faster.
We already understand the roots of the problem quite well... comparing to other industries won't make much difference.
1. Male-dominated environment, women are a significant minority.
2. Inexcusable tolerance of sexist behavior - not calling it out when we see it.
3. "Why are you blaming me? I'm not one of those guys. Men might listen to you if you'd just stop the blanket accusations." (extra credit: count how many comments on this thread can be reduced to that sentiment.)
"Have you stopped enabling sexism in tech?". That's what most of the replies sound like to me. Sort of like "have you stopped beating your wife?". Hard to come up with a good response without looking guilty isn't it?
it should be noted that pointing out #3 doesn't make it an invalid point, and it certainly has nothing to do with why the issue exists in the first place.
And after the umpteenth time of someone telling me I'm a terrible person ... I decide to be terrible by not caring about it anymore.
This is why your attitude is actively hurting you. It's driving away people like me, who actually agree with the basic premise that women should be treated equally.
Being part of of the problem (that is, tacitly consenting to bad behavior by staying silent and not confronting it directly) does not make you a terrible person, or even a bad one. It just means that you are part of the problem.
The thing is, you can't expect a cookie for not doing terrible things. Not doing terrible things is the absolute minimum that is expected of you as an adult member of society. Only doing the bare minimum doesn't make you a good person or a bad one, but it shouldn't really be surprising that the great majority of people who are merely not doing terrible things have an inertia that keeps things from improving, and are thus part of the problem.
Logically speaking, since folks with your attitude are a large part of the reason people like me don't bother, wouldn't that also make you, and your actions here, a part of the problem?
And wouldn't that imply the solution is to stop doing what you're doing?
Let's just say that your retort, "well I would have helped if only you didn't make such a big deal about it", is awfully convenient as an excuse to do nothing (and is very nearly the same as the 'tone argument'). Because, of course, if no one makes a big deal about something, that also provides an excuse.
And thankfully that isn't what I said, because I agree that would be a ridiculous argument.
What I said is that after getting blamed constantly for no other reason than being born with a cock I've stopped caring what the people doing the blaming think.
Another way to look at it is like this:
Men are not stupid. They know if they've been sexist or not. When you blame them for shit they know they are not involved in, it means they cannot trust you when you blame other men for shit they didn't witness.
How can I be more clear about this? You are not a terrible person, and are not to blame.
Being part of the problem, or more precisely, part of a problematic system) does not mean that the problem is your fault, or that you have a duty to fix it.
Congratulations, you have met your basic societal obligations. You are off the hook. You are free to look the other way rather than confront or condemn sexism when you encounter it, in person or online.
That's black/white thinking. Folks do a lot of things in a lot of spheres. Not doing one terrible thing doesn't imply they're doing nothing else at all.
Take off the blinders - there're a lot more issues in the world than this one. Lots of people just don't have the emotional energy to invest in all of them, or even in very many of them.
That article doesn't seem like retaliation, it seems like a response. JAH herself has responded to that article and simply said the things mentioned aren't relevant and only brought up because she was female.
Minor nitpick: I went back to find the links in the article, and it wasn't clear on the first read that the 'this is what happens...' sentence was a whole slew of individually linked words.
A few of them work across many browsers actually. For example, if you enable the right tags you would get Regions in Chrome. Clip paths, canvas paths should work by default, while canvas blend modes should work on Canary and most of these should also work on WebKit Nightlies. Canvas Blend Modes should work in Firefox too.
I could have posted a screenshot but I thought it was nice to have people play with the demo within the browseer, probably will stick to screenshots next time.
Well, the point is how do you even tell whether some of them are working? Supposedly Canvas Blend Modes are working in my copy of Firefox, but how can I tell? What's it supposed to look like?
The run-time of that particular implementation of the Knuth-Plass algorithm is quadratic in paragraph length, which is too slow for web browsers (which might have to deal with very long paragraphs). However, the algorithm can be implemented to run in O(n) for large n, or O(n log n) with smaller fixed constants. Though you might have some issues with the line breaks made by the browser.
I'm not totally sure, but I think the linear time papers I've read sacrifice some of the aspects of the original Knuth and Plass algorithm. I think some of those are going to be necessary to properly implement the Knuth and Plass algorithm in browser (also, floats are going to be interesting.)
The performance isn't actually that bad, I can perform line breaking in JavaScript on some very large documents, with the only performance bottleneck being DOM node creation (which native implementations won't suffer from.) If necessary the linebreaking could also be done incrementally, with a first first-fit pass and then the Knuth and Plass algorithm.
I could be mistaken, but I'm fairly certain Internet Explorer implements the Knuth and Plass algorithm when using `text-justify: newspaper`. Unfortunately, I can't check because it isn't open source. The output however is pretty much identical to what my JavaScript version generates, so I'm inclined to believe it is the Knuth and Plass algorithm.
The typophiles here will surely yell at me for getting the terminology wrong, but my experience is that fonts are heavier on OS X and whenever I see a site with whisper-thin text like the above I suspect it was tested on OS X only.
Edit: removing the font-weight CSS attribute makes the page legible. The issue is that you specified a font-weight under 400 ("normal"), and different font engines snap in different ways.
But I bet that the text you're looking at right now on HN is easier to read than the screenshot. Now consider that people might have dense screens, or sit further away from the screen than you do, or have poor eyesight.
Nah, it’s still too light on OS X with Safari. And on a Retina screen, no less. If this would work anywhere, it would work on that combination of screen, OS and browser. But no, it does not.
I can read it comfortably if I lean in, but I'd rather not. The text here on HN is smaller than your site, and it's perfectly readable from my normal position.
I think you've parsed that sentence incorrectly. The issue is that some sites are selling "likes" on Facebook -- e.g, you pay them $X and a site of your choice gets some large number of FB likes driven its way. The way many of these sites probably operate is presumably by way of a a bunch of Facebook users with malicious Chrome extensions.
I have no issues with the process, but only concerned with the way this change was made. The issue keeps referring to https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=55584 for "details", but there is nothing there except statements asserting how much of a "big problem" this is.
I think this is a bigger problem with large open source projects in general where implementors are oblivious to which functionalities developers cherish and value. Any change in such features would require a more thorough explanation.
It may be an issue of having multiple channels of communication, and the bug tracker is only one of them.
For example, though I work for Mozilla, I'm not terribly good at keeping up with the mailing lists, so every so often something pops up in Bugzilla (which I read more frequently) that seems to have come out of nowhere.
And of course stuff happens in our IRC channels that never makes it to a bug; same with internal emails. There's a lot of effort involved in making sure your communication is clear and accessible when you have several different modes of it.
This is very similar to issues in W3C specifications. I just think a bug tracker should be the primary reference material to track discussions around a specific bug. I wish there was a way to link to IRC channel discussion around this bug and otherwise if possible.
But nevertheless, I think it would be better if implementors summarize discussions outside of the bug tracker into the issue itself.
We mention a whole slew of 'what happens when you report harassment' incidents:
- http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/12/4693710/the-end-of-kindnes...
- http://archive.today/20130110113908/jolieodell.wordpress.com...
- http://blog.nerdchic.net/archives/705/
- https://medium.com/@geeekcore1/d96f431f4e8e
- http://borderhouseblog.com/?p=5698
- http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/07/image-based-harassm...
- http://kateharding.net/2007/04/14/on-being-a-no-name-blogger...
- http://www.buzzfeed.com/rachelzarrell/blogger-writes-about-b...
- http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/07/image-based-harassm...
- https://medium.com/@geeekcore1/d96f431f4e8e
- http://blog.nerdchic.net/archives/705/
- http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/12/4693710/the-end-of-kindnes...
I also want to mention that we were super scared of publishing our individual experiences for this exact fear and questioning of our lived experience.