Given that you'll never see a lone quark (they're physically forbidden - a naked quark is so energetically-unfavorable that attempting to create one would inherently require enough energy to create a second quark to go along with it), and two-quark mesons are both incredibly short-lived (a few nanoseconds at the longest) and act more like force carriers than anything else, then the three-quark baryons - of which protons and neutrons are the only ones that last long enough to care about from an engineering perspective - are the smallest (quark-based) units that could really be called "matter."
Quarks are charged, and thus interact with photons. If reacting with photons is not what you meant by "Given that you'll never see a lone quark", but instead you mean something like, for example, `a single one can be formed as a first order byproduct of a physical interaction`, there is no coherent definition of matter that I am aware of where atoms are the smallest unit, but photons or electrons are not.
I still think the key is raising the collective intelligence. Not that smart people are always productive, but they are capable of being so.
So long as the average human is just barely sapient, we aren't going to be collectively achieving much. It's always exceptional individuals who have great achievements.
Average people don't really do much. Nothing personal against being average, of course, it's just not sufficient for great achievement.
I think intelligence augmentation, such as neural lace and Neuralink, is a step in the right direction.
Seems to be a few as other comments have pointed out. But the female labour-force participation rate at the start of the dataset would make it difficult for individual job categories to switch from majority female to male over this particular time span.
>Between 1950 and 2015, there were 82 occupations out of 459 that flipped from male to female and/or female to male. Out of the 82, 72 shifted from male to female majority. There were 28 occupations that shifted from majority female to male.
Programmers and computer operators did, but I can't find it in the page.
"Computer" used to be a person crunching numbers using slide rules and mechanical calculators and it was an overwhelmingly female profession. When machines appeared, the operators were predominantly the same personnel that were doing it by hand earlier.
There isn't a lot written about that time. So my understanding could be incorrect. But as far as I know, back in the 40s/50s, programmer meant something different and very specific than what people today might mean. Basically, a programmer would have all the algorithms and pseudocode written and chosen by someone else (a man), and your job as programmer was to translate (for pseudocode) or transcribe (when provided more direct instructions) that into the computer.
Even this was not easy though - programmers may have had to debug the pseudocode or a broken computer (not nearly as reliable as our modern ones). Once it was revealed it wasn't a straightforward process, men took over. My understanding is that this happened relatively quickly - in the 50s or 60s.
But, still, it was a job most people on here probably wouldn't care for.
If anyone has any good books on this subject, I would love some recommendations.
It's listed as "Computer Scientists and Systems Analysts/Network systems Analysts/Web Developers" and their dataset starts in 1970.
Their dataset shows it always being a male field - in fact, in 1970, it's even more male than now in their dataset. It shows a rise of women from '70 to '90, and then flat until today.
Since the launch of personal computers (the Altair in '71) was supposed to be the catalyst of the change of programming into a male field, I'm suprised to see the data directly contradicting that.
Perhaps it reflects a difference in job titles - "computer scientists" vs "programmers" if programming (the women's work) was titled separately because it was considered a more menial job.
The usual story (as told in Nathan Ensmenger's "The Computer Boys Take Over") has the change earlier than that. He says in the late 1940s to early 1950s lots of women were hired for "coding" positions, which at the time was seen as a a fairly unskilled, clerical work. In the 1950s, the division between high-level "programmers" and route "coders" disappeared, leaving just programmer-coders who did both, and as a result there was quite a few female programmers. Then in the 1960s the computer industry grew dramatically, but at the same time the image of what a programmer was, and what kind of characteristics made you a good programmer, also shifted a lot, and by the end of the 1960s it had become a very male field.
The personal computer revolution is usually mentioned in connection with a different trend. Throughout the 70s the proportion of female computer science majors was steadily climbing, then somewhere around 1984 this trend broke [1]. It's often said that this has something to do with video games becoming popular toys.
They have "Software Developers, Applications and Systems Software" and "Computer Programmers." The latter goes back to 1970. However, I'm really not sure if there's supposed to be a difference between the two.
I basically went to the circles thing in the middle and started moving my mouse around till I found one that I thought might have been female dominated in the past, then I checked it in the box below.
I was wondering the same thing. "Also the Paper Goods Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders" seems to be more in the female to male category and not fluctuating category.
I didn't see that XKCD is being specifically about open source. That said, the one I posted a few months ago was spot on and yet it was downvoted to death within a few hours, so I don't think it really matters how perfect the fitting is.
Lots of cultures don't class fish in with most meats. In traditional Catholicism the rule against meat on Fridays didn't apply to fish and likewise with Japanese Buddhist rules against meat eating. It's sort of like how most people consider tomatoes to be vegetables even though they aren't, scientifically.
Yeah, in 21st century English fish is a meat but it's non-centrally meat so the meaning is clear when you apply Gricean norms.
Woah woah woah, hold up there. Scientifically speaking, a vegetable is the edible part of a plant. Tomatos are vegetables and fruits scientifically. This is like arguing that a square isn't a rectangle! Okay, carry on <3
Likewise chicken is often not considered 'meat' despite clearly being the flesh of an animal. It's kind of weird, but not as weird as the people who think "a little bit of ham" in a salad doesn't count as meat.
When I was visiting Brazil I met a bunch of people that called themselves vegetarians who would eat chicken and bacon. Turns out "vegetarian" means not eating beef. It led to some pretty funny misunderstandings.
I know you're being flippant, but we'd lose a lot of what makes language beautiful if we beat the looseness and poetry out of conversational exchanges. Pendatic assertions often miss the fact that words drift in an ever-shifting consensus.
No it's more than that; perhaps you haven't discussed with some people, but a great many people actually do believe fish are not animals. It's not mere semantics, they don't actually consider them animals at all, as if animal, plant, and fish are all different categories. Don't dismiss as pedantry what is actually a very interesting topic.
Point generally taken, but that's a conceptual leap to make when talking about what "meat" means in a casual conversation. As an aside, I don't think I've encountered anyone who thinks fish aren't animals (but of course they exist)
Ironically enough, fungi and animals separated later in the tree of life than plants. So, while certainly not correct, there is a kernel of truth there.
It's just a blog post about what he has observed as a common problem with teams falling behind. I think it's a little much to call it worthless.
Excessive focus on unimportant details is a real problem. Everybody probably naturally focuses either too much on details or too little, and this person recently ran into some teams that focused on them too much, preferring to polish features the customer didn't care about rather than finishing the product.
At first, I only saw one ad when I went there (just now). I forgot I had my adblocker on. Then, I tried to load the page again and saw
"Haaretz.com is now inaccessible to visitors using ad blockers"
Wow, someone is actively working to squeeze the incoming traffic.
Haaretz is pretty much the only remaining media outlet in Israel that continues to pursue actual journalism. To that end I support them endlessly.
However, they are also the only media outlet that has paywalls, and I'd be fine with that if it ended there - high quality investigative journalism has a price.
The problem is that they also have a shit ton of third-party malware networks embedded on their pages, and even if you pay for a digital subscription you still get tracked and bombarded with ads. Then to add further insult, they block ad-blockers.
The solution is two fold: the Hebrew EasyList [1] blocks the anti ad-block elements allowing you to continue to view Haaretz without ads and without blocking. Second, if you want to jump over the paywall, there's an addon for that [2].
Capitalism sometimes rewards those who provide value, but more often than not has no problem rewarding people for spouting self-righteousness.
If you think that everyone who gets rewarded in a capitalist society do so because they provide value then you have to ask: What value do scam artists provide?
