Apparently I'm Dutch! I only work 10 hours a week. And it's really awesome.
My mother is really annoyed that she helped pay for my Ivy education, and is bugging for me to get a full time job. She jokes that I got my "Mrs." But other than that I love it.
Upvoted you, but I would like to add that I'm spitting mad and not afraid of radiation or being naked. I think at least part of it is simply mass hysteria. It's very easy when other people are upset to get swept up into it.
I only taught for 2 years as a graduate teaching assistant, but we were told in training to never accuse anyone of cheating ever. It opened the university up to being sued, and made everyone's life more complicated.
The grains you listed are also not poisonous. I don't see how they can argue that they'd be more poisonous than the other vegetables they advocate eating as part of a paleolithic diet. If anything the opposite is true. Poison tends to be in the leaf or stem of a plant, since this is the part most animals are likely to eat. If those grains those weren't being eaten, there's no reason to evolve defenses against being eaten!
I'd be interested to see if there is any reference to support grains being used as human food 100 000 years ago; as far as I can tell the Nature story seems to indicate roughly 30 000 years for the new findings. Cultivation of grains is usually said to date back about 10 000 years before present. The time perspective to see this in is at least a couple of million years of evolution as what we label the genus Homo, and in the ballpark of 65 million years of evolution as primates.
Seeds are rich in energy and nutrients to supply the plant embryo inside during the beginning of it's growth, and consequently heavily protected, be it by mechanical or chemical means. If this seems difficult to believe, consider the impact on a plant's reproductive success of getting its seeds destroyed versus receiving damage to some somatic tissues.
"Let's look at this question in a way that paints the human history in a relative scale. If we stood on an American football field we could represent a timeline of human history in the following way: If we started walking from one end-zone toward the other we could walk 99.5 yards, and this would represent all of human history except the last 5,000 years or so... 99.5 of the 100 yards.
This is when our genetics were selected for survival in a hunting-gathering lifeway and we were damn good at it. We evolved and adapted to this way of living and the interaction of our genetics and our environment made us who we were, and who we are. Our genetics are virtually identical to those of our early human ancestors from more than 120,000 years ago. The last 10,000 years, the time in which we transitioned from the hunting and gathering lifeway to agriculture, is the last half yard of our timeline."
It's interesting that flour usage may date back 100k years. However the earliest use is not important. What is important is the start of widespread use. This is when our diets shifted and is the absolute earliest that man-kind as a whole could have even begun to evolve for such food sources.
I am a woman, and I subscribe to Wired, and my reaction when I opened my mailbox and found that cover was "Oooh look, honey, boobies!" Quite literally.
I guess I should, as a caveat, mention that I'm very sex positive and not entirely straight. But I personally believe that bodies aren't obscene, no matter what context they're in. Even if that context is an attention-getting cover on tissue engineering.
It's not a matter of obscenity. That is not the author's contention. She is pointing out the disparity between covers featuring men and covers featuring women: Men are presented as people--pioneers, leaders, innovators--but women are presented as objects--sex symbols, characters, models.
Using an anonymous woman's chest makes the objectification even more egregious.
Women in tech fight an uphill battle to be recognized for their accomplishments and not just their gender identity. For the author to say that a media mainstay (Wired) in the tech arena should be trying to fight that imbalance instead of aggravating it is justifiable and welcome.
Men make probably more then 90% of the middle to higher up positions in tech. Women founders of startups make around 4% of the total founder pool.
What are people supposed to do? Invent important women in the tech industry out of thin air? The important women make a name for themselves, and I'd argue that the good ones have it better since it's easier to be acknowledge as an important contributor as a woman, since there are so little of them. I'm sure a great developer probably has a harder time getting some exposure, than a women at the same level (a great woman developer, a woman that's just like 90% of them won't get noticed, and neither will the men) and with the same opportunities.
In my experience, great female developers are always a big deal. Everybody loves them, and they get more exposure than their peers at the same level. The one's that complain are the one's in the trenches complaining on why they have to share a bathroom.
Women tech fight an uphill battle to be recognized for their accomplishments...
Is this really true? To me it seems pretty easy for a woman to get press. Consider, for example, indinero. It was founded by Jessica Mah and some other dude who gets no press. See also Leah Culver, who can barely code and yet is considered a tech icon.
I think it's extremely hard for people not to project their own thoughts and background of abuse (mostly perceived, but also otherwise) on simple things like a picture, a work of art, or a book, while simultaneously invalidating the context it appears in.
I'm a relatively active HN user. This is a throwaway, because I'm not "out" as a girl on HN.
I have not applied, and I'm not going to, because my husband would never let me spend 3 months in SF by myself (and he has a job where he couldn't come with me.) And this is not a hypothetical, we've discussed it and he put his foot down.
...and this is why I created an alt account, so I could answer honestly.
I would cheat on him. I was dating two other guys when we met, and we agreed when we became serious that our relationship would be exclusive. It was worth it to me. However, I'm not terribly good at resisting temptation.
Add to the fire that my type (surprise!) is geeky males, and there's no way I could resist. A Y combinator class for me would be like tempting an Ethiopian to a buffet.
He's absolutely right; it would destroy our marriage. Some things are more important than funding.
Were someone to ignore their issues or hide them from their partner, I would claim it destroys the relationship more than anything else. But admitting one's flaws? As much as you may judge someone for a lack of self-control, you have a respect the honesty it takes to admit to your S.O. that you lack that self control.
Even moreso, it's a very strong indication of your commitment to the other person when, after admitting your lack of self-control, you consciously choose not to put yourself in those situations because you know how much it would hurt your S.O.
tl;dr; - A relationship where both parties are honest with each other and ok with the situation after being fully informed is the strongest possible relationship.
We both entered into this relationship with a full understanding of our proclivities. I knew that he couldn't stand to see me with another man; he knew that I have the impulse control of flea. Marriage isn't about being perfect for each other, it's about making a commitment to make it work. This is how we make it work.
This is just like using StayFocusd or maxvisit; you know you don't have the willpower, so you use other means to keep yourself productive (or faithful, in this case.)
I think it's good to recognize that every relationship has limits. It's incredibly idealistic/naive to assume otherwise (I wish life worked that way though).
Well, this suggestion is now completely infeasible due to the existence of this thread, but couldn't the two of you hire a chaperone? There are a lot of cultures where there are many people who are used to the chaperone role. I think (albeit, with a bit of effort) you'd be able to find someone willing to spend 3 or 4 months hanging out in San Francisco on an unconventional but free vacation. Just offer them a sizable reward if they catch you. (There is even a fetishist scene from which you can acquire working chastity belts!)
Alternatively, just hire a "virtual personal assistant" to video chat with you once per hour and also go over a once per minute time-lapse film of you sleeping every day. IR sensitive webcams and IR LED lamps are pretty cheap. Even better, you can trade a favor with someone who handles the tech for the house arrest ankle bracelets.
Granted, none of this is foolproof. You're probably smart enough to circumvent any of these measures, but you'd have to make an active effort to do so. This takes an affair well out of the realm of circumstantial "temptation." (Though in your case, given your unusually poor impulse control, the temptation might increase because of the measures.)
EDIT: This gives me an idea for a product. Maybe call this something like "Watchdroid." It would be a battery operated remotely aimable webcam the size of a cell phone, connected over 3G.
If you would cheat on him that easily I'd argue you're with him for convenience or because you settled. In any case, I'd hate distrusting my significant other to that point. I would really not be able to have a relationship like that. YMMV though.
Yeah, I can see how some people would mind having to keep tabs on their partner. It's not for everyone. He doesn't seem to mind.
But it really has nothing to do with settling; some people are just not monogamous by nature. I'm sure you can understand, since people sometimes make that generalization about the entire male sex :).
Oh no I understand, I used to be the prime example of polygamy (well not really since they we're not really relationships). I used to be one of those guys for which every skirt is a new possibility and I had this knack for sleeping around, but once I settled for one I for the life of me can't even think about cheating.
Whatever suits you guys though, if you guys are happy then more power to you. I'd would just find it incredibly difficult.
You don't meet each other's needs and you both know it. Deal with it now, or deal with it later: no blame, that's just how it goes sometimes. If you would cheat on him, then you want something he doesn't provide, but just lack confidence in your ability to find what he does provide somewhere else. This sub-thread exists only because it's an issue persistent enough in your life that you need to get it off your chest somehow. Face up to it.
After a bad first experience I put off marrying again for a long time. When I did marry again, it was we were past those kind of trust questions. It's neither perfect nor predictable, but nor does it feel like a trade-off.
If you would cheat on him, then you want something he doesn't provide, but just lack confidence in your ability to find what he does provide somewhere else.
Please just knock off the amateur psychiatry. Human beings aren't naturally wired to be monogamous[1]; that's why cultures have to exert tons of social pressure on people to be monogamous. Wanting to have sex with people who aren't your partner doesn't mean something's wrong; it's the natural state of the human being. A lot of people repress this with tons of social pressure and denial, but it's still there for probably a lot of people.
If you're one of those people, I think acknowledging it and choosing to avoid temptation for the sake of accommodating a partner is, if anything, even more loving than living in denial.
[1] If you doubt me, you can start with all the literature about sperm competition in humans, or about the high incidence of adultery.
You seem to be implicitly assuming that everyone can resist temptation through sheer force of will. Even if you're that way, a lot of people aren't; they have to carefully engineer temptation out of their lives. (There's a known cognitive bias for assuming everyone else is psychologically like yourself, but for the life of me I can't remember what it's called right now.)
Why are you determined to identify a subtext in my remarks? First monogamy, now self-denial - you're disputing ideas which I don't hold. There are a good many people in open or group relationships who are happy, stable and committed to each other as they are, rather than on a conditional basis. People generally don't carefully engineer temptation out of their lives by signalling in such detail.
The belief that others' cognitive processes are essentially similar to one's own is called projection bias, BTW.
Why are you determined to identify a subtext in my remarks?
I'm interpreting your comments as straightforwardly as I can.
In the general case, though, it's a dick move to criticize the merits of a complete stranger's marriage. The exact substance of your criticism is a comparatively minor issue.
You're all so anti-sexist it sickens me. Whenever a female posts, you put away the boxing gloves and take out the kid skin gloves. The only people that actually say negative things are the unapologetic sexists, and no, I don't like that either. But it doesn't bother me as much.
So it might just be my imagination, but just to be safe I prefer to be one of the guys for my recreational forum activities.
I support your right to portray yourself in whatever light you can muster, but there's no shortage of critical thinkers on Hacker News.
The phenomena that you're describing is often called "othering" and it generally sums up nicely as "a room full of dudes bending over backwards to be so accepting to a woman that it's creepy". It is a real problem.
However, I know I'm not the only person on here who couldn't care less what your gender is. I want to respect you for what you produce, and I'm not going to mince words if I think something is goofy.
Being a radical is tiring and it's not cool to put the onus for change on women, who I suspect get worn down demanding equality. I know that I would.
Yet, there are times and places where major gains come only from sticking your neck out once in a while. Being a woman on HN might be one of those places.
I doubt I have much to gain from being a female on HN, unless I a) wanted to take advantage of my rarity and b) wanted to apply to HN. In which case they would find out I was female when I submitted my application, anyway. And I'm not applying.
This is really unfortunate. Can you point to threads that you thought were sexist? I'm really curious because it's sometimes hard for a guy to empathize.
I don't know about others but I don't generally associate a gender with poster's nick unless they're very well known.
As a case in point, it wouldn't have occurred to me that the OP (limedaring) was female if I saw her posting in another thread, even though I recognize her name from elsewhere and could tell you she was female if I thought about it.
I can see that. The problem I see is that everyone gets labeled as one extreme or the other. As much as I hate sugar-coating what I say to someone because of their gender or other quality, I'd rather get labeled as an anti-sexist than a sexist.
Also, I see that happen a lot more not because of gender, but because we're discussing gender issues. Anytime someone brings up a sensitive issue people are going to tip-toe more, regardless of the attributes of anyone actually bringing it up.
Refreshing viewpoint. As a woman in this kind of community you it would be difficult to avoid special treatment, for better or worse, and it definitely takes focus away from whatever it is we come here to accomplish.
Wow, I’m so sorry to hear that. My husband is actually quitting his awesome, well-paid job so we can move back to SF because he really believes in me and my business. Long distance relationships are initially scary, but you can pull it off by staying in daily contact. We have been long distance four times, ranging from three to eight months each time (Toronto-Montreal, Toronto-Paris, Toronto-San Francisco, San Francisco-Los Angeles). We both work in tech and we’ve never wanted to deny each other the opportunity to succeed. It has meant moving cities and countries multiple times, but it has actually made our relationship stronger and our careers much more interesting.
My mother is really annoyed that she helped pay for my Ivy education, and is bugging for me to get a full time job. She jokes that I got my "Mrs." But other than that I love it.