4 ms·

So true. People didn't give two shits about the nerds and the tiny useless portion of the world known as computing they occupied 20 years ago - back then it wa

So true. People didn't give two shits about the nerds and the tiny useless portion of the world known as computing they occupied 20 years ago - back then it was less glamorous and less money involved. They scoffed at the morons who not only did computers at work but continued to think, write and do "work" after work! Now theres money involved everyone wants in! Now those same leeches demand to be given the same roles/money as those who worked much harder for it , because its so unfair that people who put have more experience and passion are rewarded while they are not!

sidlls 9y ago
I don't know what's more funny (or sad): that you think engineers are no longer as looked down on or compensated at a lower rate than their "work" should otherwise merit or that you seem to have completely missed the part about "equal experience" in your haste to poohpooh them that desire equal treatment for it as inferior.
- kamaal 9y ago
  >>that desire equal treatment for it as inferior. The kind of equality that you are aiming for is meaningless, it doesn't exist and attempts to create this have lead to far bigger problems than they have tried to solve. This is the equivalent of asking why we don't handover gold, silver and bronze medals to the people who came last in the race instead of the top 3. This isn't discrimination. The sheer concept of effort vs reward in human psychology is designed such that "Humans are unequal by merit of our actions" Also the fact that some people are better than others is here to stay and not just restricted to software. Most of us are not going to be Neil Armstrong or Richard Feynman. That's not discrimination. There is only equality of access and opportunity. Outcomes are not going to be equal.
- zaptheimpaler 9y ago
  Thanks for the condescension sensei. I think your position is equal work experience should merit equal pay. You seem to have missed my point also - experience outside work also counts as experience. And millions of things besides experience determine your salary. So we should not be so quick to assume that 2 people with the same years of experience "should" merit equal pay - its obviously false. If all people with equal work experience are simply equal in the value they bring to the company then why do we conduct interviews or ask for resumes or anything? Lets just set everyone's salaries to "$100K + 10K * (years worked)" no?
  - linkregister 9y ago
    Are you saying that the plaintiffs in this case didn't do side projects?
    - watwut 9y ago
      Well, majority of software developers don't do side projects, especially not those in high paid difficult positions. Those people put all strength they have into work itself. Employers don't even care all that much about side projects. So, it is safe bet. This whole thread is stupid red herring. It has nothing to do with reality of working in corporation. It has zero to do with skills required in those high positions - just about only reusable from teenage years is linux internals. It is basically assumption that a.) women are surely lazier b.) since they are girls they did not played with boy toys c.) if you discovered tech as part education instead of in playroom you can't be good.
      - kamaal 9y ago
        >>Well, majority of software developers don't do side projects Most do. The fact that bulk of the software infrastructure from tools to top notch production software is open source says something. >>especially not those in high paid difficult positions. If its really about money, then there are better ways to get paid in a software company. >>Those people put all strength they have into work itself. Which is often a placeholder for a side project. >>Employers don't even care all that much about side projects. So, it is safe bet. But doing these projects does make you a fairly good programmer, and you tend to gravitate towards valuable work and hence good pay. >>just about only reusable from teenage years is linux internals. Bad news. Starting early matters. Want to build a good retirement fund? Want to play big leagues sports? Want to be a concert musician? Want to be a doctor? In fact want to be big in anything? Most certainly you have to start early. >>It is basically assumption that... Nobody made such an assumption. We only said a particular group A(mostly nerds) starts early and works hard. What the other group is for them to decide. Note, Nerds is a group of people irrespective of gender, race, or other identity(even nationality or religion). It just comes down to one thing. You can't progress beyond a point without work. Reservations only take you that far.
linkregister 9y ago
So true. People didn't give two shits about the ladies and doing the tiny useless portion of the world known as software they occupied 50 years ago - back then it was less glamorous and less money involved. Yes, women used to dominate software development. Until the money and prestige started coming in, then men started dominating the profession. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/computer-programming-used-to-be-womens-work-718061/ http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/computer-programmin...
- kamaal 9y ago
  Not justifying anything. But wasn't early programming two distinct tasks? 1. Writing the Program(On Paper). 2. Feeding the program to the computer. People in 2. were called 'Programmers' because that is what they did literally- 'Program the machine'. Also early programming had all sorts strange situations where a large part of programming was actually getting results by plugging values in largish math formulas. So there were a range of people who did just that. Generating graphs, being the human equivalent of source control etc. The 2. part wasn't exactly a very glorifying role and was more like borderline stenographer. By some definition that is still true. Notice how many programmers there are who probably write MVP web apps for a living copying code from stackoverflow/internet, but there are also people doing all the real work thinking about stock markets, security, medical devices, writing compiler patches, building tools. I've always thought as coding as a mere ritual the real work always happens on the paper.
  - AjithAntony 9y ago
    This was my understanding too. Women were given the the enormous and tedious task of transcribing programs onto punch cards and such. It required a large "typing pool", much like secretarial pools preparing letters dictated by others.
- in3d 9y ago
  The article you cite is fluff and doesn't support the statement that "women used to dominate software development." It mentions the "Computer Girls" article from the 1967 Cosmopolitan, but here is what's in it: "At one point the author speculates, seemingly without irony, about the “ the chances of meeting men in computer work. ”(The conclusion she comes to is that these are “ very good, ” as the field was currently “overrun” with men.)" http://homes.soic.indiana.edu/nensmeng/files/Ensmenger2010-MPM.pdf http://homes.soic.indiana.edu/nensmeng/files/Ensmenger2010-M... Apparently, the best guess is that between 11% to 50% of programmers were women back then. "Mandel suggests that one out of every nine working programmers was female. This is probably overly conservative. The exact percentage of female programmers is difficult to pin down with any accuracy—even figuring out the total number of programmers in this period is difficult—but other reliable contemporary observers suggest that it was closer to 30, or even 50, percent.3 The first government statistics on the programming profession do not appear until 1970, when it was calculated that 22.5 percent of all programmers were women—an estimate more than twice Mandel’s.4" "Of course, computing itself is a very broad term covering a multitude of occupational categories, including high - status jobs like computer programming and systems analysis as well as low - status jobs such as keypunch operator. Women tended to congregate in the lower end of the occupational pool in computing"

sidlls 9y ago

I don't know what's more funny (or sad): that you think engineers are no longer as looked down on or compensated at a lower rate than their "work" should otherwise merit or that you seem to have completely missed the part about "equal experience" in your haste to poohpooh them that desire equal treatment for it as inferior.

kamaal 9y ago
>>that desire equal treatment for it as inferior. The kind of equality that you are aiming for is meaningless, it doesn't exist and attempts to create this have lead to far bigger problems than they have tried to solve. This is the equivalent of asking why we don't handover gold, silver and bronze medals to the people who came last in the race instead of the top 3. This isn't discrimination. The sheer concept of effort vs reward in human psychology is designed such that "Humans are unequal by merit of our actions" Also the fact that some people are better than others is here to stay and not just restricted to software. Most of us are not going to be Neil Armstrong or Richard Feynman. That's not discrimination. There is only equality of access and opportunity. Outcomes are not going to be equal.
zaptheimpaler 9y ago
Thanks for the condescension sensei. I think your position is equal work experience should merit equal pay. You seem to have missed my point also - experience outside work also counts as experience. And millions of things besides experience determine your salary. So we should not be so quick to assume that 2 people with the same years of experience "should" merit equal pay - its obviously false. If all people with equal work experience are simply equal in the value they bring to the company then why do we conduct interviews or ask for resumes or anything? Lets just set everyone's salaries to "$100K + 10K * (years worked)" no?
- linkregister 9y ago
  Are you saying that the plaintiffs in this case didn't do side projects?
  - watwut 9y ago
    Well, majority of software developers don't do side projects, especially not those in high paid difficult positions. Those people put all strength they have into work itself. Employers don't even care all that much about side projects. So, it is safe bet. This whole thread is stupid red herring. It has nothing to do with reality of working in corporation. It has zero to do with skills required in those high positions - just about only reusable from teenage years is linux internals. It is basically assumption that a.) women are surely lazier b.) since they are girls they did not played with boy toys c.) if you discovered tech as part education instead of in playroom you can't be good.
    - kamaal 9y ago
      >>Well, majority of software developers don't do side projects Most do. The fact that bulk of the software infrastructure from tools to top notch production software is open source says something. >>especially not those in high paid difficult positions. If its really about money, then there are better ways to get paid in a software company. >>Those people put all strength they have into work itself. Which is often a placeholder for a side project. >>Employers don't even care all that much about side projects. So, it is safe bet. But doing these projects does make you a fairly good programmer, and you tend to gravitate towards valuable work and hence good pay. >>just about only reusable from teenage years is linux internals. Bad news. Starting early matters. Want to build a good retirement fund? Want to play big leagues sports? Want to be a concert musician? Want to be a doctor? In fact want to be big in anything? Most certainly you have to start early. >>It is basically assumption that... Nobody made such an assumption. We only said a particular group A(mostly nerds) starts early and works hard. What the other group is for them to decide. Note, Nerds is a group of people irrespective of gender, race, or other identity(even nationality or religion). It just comes down to one thing. You can't progress beyond a point without work. Reservations only take you that far.

linkregister 9y ago

So true. People didn't give two shits about the ladies and doing the tiny useless portion of the world known as software they occupied 50 years ago - back then it was less glamorous and less money involved. Yes, women used to dominate software development. Until the money and prestige started coming in, then men started dominating the profession. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/computer-programming-used-to-be-womens-work-718061/ http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/computer-programmin...

kamaal 9y ago
Not justifying anything. But wasn't early programming two distinct tasks? 1. Writing the Program(On Paper). 2. Feeding the program to the computer. People in 2. were called 'Programmers' because that is what they did literally- 'Program the machine'. Also early programming had all sorts strange situations where a large part of programming was actually getting results by plugging values in largish math formulas. So there were a range of people who did just that. Generating graphs, being the human equivalent of source control etc. The 2. part wasn't exactly a very glorifying role and was more like borderline stenographer. By some definition that is still true. Notice how many programmers there are who probably write MVP web apps for a living copying code from stackoverflow/internet, but there are also people doing all the real work thinking about stock markets, security, medical devices, writing compiler patches, building tools. I've always thought as coding as a mere ritual the real work always happens on the paper.
- AjithAntony 9y ago
  This was my understanding too. Women were given the the enormous and tedious task of transcribing programs onto punch cards and such. It required a large "typing pool", much like secretarial pools preparing letters dictated by others.
in3d 9y ago
The article you cite is fluff and doesn't support the statement that "women used to dominate software development." It mentions the "Computer Girls" article from the 1967 Cosmopolitan, but here is what's in it: "At one point the author speculates, seemingly without irony, about the “ the chances of meeting men in computer work. ”(The conclusion she comes to is that these are “ very good, ” as the field was currently “overrun” with men.)" http://homes.soic.indiana.edu/nensmeng/files/Ensmenger2010-MPM.pdf http://homes.soic.indiana.edu/nensmeng/files/Ensmenger2010-M... Apparently, the best guess is that between 11% to 50% of programmers were women back then. "Mandel suggests that one out of every nine working programmers was female. This is probably overly conservative. The exact percentage of female programmers is difficult to pin down with any accuracy—even figuring out the total number of programmers in this period is difficult—but other reliable contemporary observers suggest that it was closer to 30, or even 50, percent.3 The first government statistics on the programming profession do not appear until 1970, when it was calculated that 22.5 percent of all programmers were women—an estimate more than twice Mandel’s.4" "Of course, computing itself is a very broad term covering a multitude of occupational categories, including high - status jobs like computer programming and systems analysis as well as low - status jobs such as keypunch operator. Women tended to congregate in the lower end of the occupational pool in computing"