There's a lot of effort going into this, actually. My father was a nurse for 30 years and in his nursing school graduation photo, and his retirement photo with his colleagues, he was still the only male. It's possible men view these fields as female dominated and resist applying. It also raises the awkward question of how men are treated in female dominated fields. Would a man be treated better in a female dominated field, than a female in a male dominated field, or the same? I've not seen research on this, unless someone knows of any?
Exactly. No one's worried that we have too few female coal miners or garbage collectors. These are physically demanding, not prestigious and often low-paying jobs.
Hell, no one's worried that we have too few female oil rig workers and these ARE (in my understanding) high paying jobs.
If you talk to men who worked as primary school teachers (within the last 20 years) and then changed careers, you'll hear a lot of interesting stories of discrimination.
There were more men in these roles when it was more respected and well paid. As the relative wages and notarity declined, men started targetting ‘higher jobs’
Not everyone at Apple is a coder.
Not every job is the same.
Note how designers and architects work in teams, in open work spaces.
I have seen communication in a PM group go to shits because of a move from an open layout to a walled cubicle garden. PMs were avoidig their cubes, sitting in the cafeteria as they enjoyed the "coffee shop hum".
Exactly the same as explaining to a paying, non-technical customer why you haven't found the bug at the core of his issue yet and thereby given a fixdate is not possible right now.
It's clearly broken, so why the hell is it not simple to know whats wrong and how to fix it?
And this is for software you've written and you have the full source code for.
Yea. It wouldn't surprise me if there'd be value to having a medical concierge who would help you integrate info from different doctors. But, on my reading, the main thing being complained about in the article is uncertainty and doctors being unable to quickly issue definitive diagnoses. Trouble is, that's the nature of science. Insofar as the process approximates an ideal sequence of Bayesian updates, it has to look like an unpredictable (unbalanced) random walk.
Nothing is scarier than birth-defects. Radiation causes very visible birth defects.
Hence people are very, very scared of radiation. And rightly so.
A windpark will not cause disfigured babies. Hence wind is better.
And: Nuclear is the most expensive energy source, by FAR. safety, waste, clean-up - super, super expensive. dismantle a wind park and it is gone, poof. dismantle a reactor and now you have a new problem.
Also very hard to weaponize wind or solar. Blow up a wind park and well, the wind park is gone. Steal a rotor and now you have a rotor.
Seems like Job websites like Indeed Prime and Google's new job product are serious competitors to LinkedIn.
LinkedIn is almost entirely worthless without the occasional good lead from a recruiter. I find it's mostly drowned out by the huge amounts of insignificant skin peddlers who dole out one worthless lead after another, looking for some fresh skin to peddle.
This is not what they are offering, look at the premium offerings: https://premium.linkedin.com/ do you know the ROI of using LinkedIn Premium (e.g. InMail) to just contact people using a zillion of methods available, and then adding them to your LinkedIn...
below the marketing language this is exactly those 2 points. guess it is easier if you work in enterprise, this business speak is a different language. pretty verbose, low information density.
Exactly, this is like when I thought a start up I was at half women until I counted and realized it was more like 35%. I can't believe I'm being downvoted on HN for suggesting that this particulate anecdote isn't exactly reliable.
