It looks like the average CS guy went from rather alpha to rather beta. So, the solution is for CS guys to start working out and stop playing video games. Creepy is code for unattractive, so if CS guys took much better care of themselves, socially intelligent women wouldn't be rightfully put off from CS in general.
He's insecure and judges people and himself based on how manly and muscled they are. Read his other comments. Good guy, just needs to let go of things that don't matter.
There are no net downsides to placing a very high priority on becoming more "manly and muscled". I don't think any guy anywhere has ever regretted doing that. To me, it seems like a very obvious and neutral thing to evangelize.
I am really tired of hearing that. I do not think that is what women mean when they refer to someone as "creepy." Closer to "unattractive and won't give up in the face of no" perhaps.
That's true. I don't think that is evidence that "creepy" simply means "I wouldn't hit that." Body language and other things can indicate that a person behaves in a certain way, without anyone saying a word.
It's irresponsible and misogynistic to assume this is true. Irresponsible as it's used as an axiom for powerful political movements, and you as a smart person, should confirm this (and not via feels) before stamping your name across it; there is nothing 'else' going on. Misogynistic because you disrespect a woman's agency to choose her own profession.
"""
Policy makers, academics, and media reports suggest that women could shrink the gender pay gap by negotiating more effectively for higher compensation. Yet women entering compensation negotiations face a dilemma: They have to weigh the benefits of negotiating against the social consequences of having negotiated. Research shows that women are penalized socially more than men for negotiating for higher pay"""
A woman doesn't even have to negotiate to be a money grubbing bitch.
At one company, I switched from W2 to being a contractor such that I could invest pre-tax in a different business. This company offered me a much higher hourly rate then I would have asked for on my own, asked me to work 40 hours/week, and then complained bitterly about how much I cost. What was I supposed to do, negotiate a lower rate?
1. I don't do it enough myself, so I'm projecting my anger/disappointment.
2. In the past months I've come to notice that I respect built men so much more than average guys, and how many social ills could be solved if every guy just lifted heavy weights a few times a week.
Well, I appreciate your honesty. You should perhaps consider that you're projecting your own self-loathing onto other people. One's physical fitness has nothing to do with the quality of one's character, and the world would not magically become a better place if all us fat dudes got visited by the Muscle Fairy.
I don't really see any reason why it couldn't be Turing complete, as long as it was completely deterministic (no "rand()" etc) and the specification included a maximum number of operations (which Bitcoin's Script already does)
What am I missing? Is the idea that without loops the transaction size can be used to estimate the computation required without actually performing it, and thus the appropriately sized transaction fee required?
Nakamoto designed script to be non-Turing complete from the very beginning (it was mentioned in his white paper). I suspect it was for security reasons. You don't want arbitrary complex code running on miners machine. At the very least, it could obstruct the system.
Script is not mentioned at all in the Bitcoin white paper. Perhaps you are thinking of a comment he made elsewhere.
Bear in mind that in the Bitcoin design it's not just miners who have to run scripts, it's all nodes, yet fees accrue only to the miners. Bitcoin does use fees to try and make computationally expensive transactions financially expensive as well, but that's just a basic antiflood mechanism, the fees don't actually get collected by those doing the work.
