Sterilizing tomorrow’s mothers

This comment from an Alpha Game reader should suffice to explain why all the efforts to push girls into technology careers are destined to fail:

Recently had an opportunity to observe an event specifically designed to expose high school girls to programming and coding. The event had corporate sponsors and top flight IT professionals. Workshops were designated for Code Divas and Design Duchesses.

A team of 20something women – ostensibly there to either relate and demonstrate how STEMMY girls wound up being successful or serve just to serve as relatable emotional conduit for the girls – were on hand. They primarily passed the time on phones checking Facebook or whispering about how living arrangements with Mr. So-and-So were frustrating them. Or so I overheard.

The high school girls with high SMV followed the basic directions in the workshop assignments, played with their hair, and generally looked bored. A couple of achiever girls actually thought outside the box and did some coding options that didn’t need hand-holding by the instructor.

When visiting information kiosks set up by local colleges and universities, the institutional reps asked the girls what their plans were for college. Of those I heard one-third didn’t know, one-third were entering health care (i.e. nursing), and one-third wanted to start their own business. Out of 60+ girls, less than 3 were actively interested pursuing anything programming or coding.

What could be taken from this event? The young women enjoyed the day, learned a few things, took the free stuff laid out to them, and less than 1% of them will become programmers or coders.

An effective use of resources, no doubt. The planners could probably get better results by recruiting from the stoners smoking behind the trash bins. The college plans indicate that 90 percent of these young women would be happiest becoming wives and mothers, as its the one profession that combines nursing with entrepreneurial activity. It’s interesting to see that teaching, which was once a young woman’s preferred form of ersatz motherhood, has become less popular as the schools become ever more vibrant.

This sick thing about our society is that we are actively dissuading these young women from doing what they want to do, what they are designed to do, and what society needs them to do, in favor of trying to coerce them into doing what they don’t want to do, what they’re not very good at, and what society has absolutely no need of them doing.

We’re seeing more women, like the policewomen in the UK and the female marine in the USA, angrily pointing out that they were set up for failure. And that is exactly what is happening to these “Code Divas” and “Design Duchesses”. Pushing careers they don’t want on them isn’t a way to empower or liberate women, it is a cruel means of turning them from the domestic queens they were meant to be into sterile, sub-par worker bees chiefly employed as office sex toys.


An appeal to reinstall Firefox

I was asked to reconsider my position on uninstalling Mozilla products and refusing to use them in the future:

You are probably here because you have been advised to consider reinstalling Firefox. You may, in fact, have uninstalled Firefox as a result of a recent campaign protesting either Brendan Eich’s being appointed CEO of Mozilla, or his supposedly being fired or forced by Mozilla to resign from that position as a result of a donation he made in favor of proposition 8. Brendan Eich did, in fact, resign; however, he did was not fired or forced to resign by Mozilla. Mozilla does not discriminate based on an individual’s personal political or religious beliefs. If you have been told otherwise, I encourage you to evaluate the evidence for yourself. First of all, I would like to point you to Mozilla’s official FAQ on Brendan’s resignation. I realize that some people will insist that this is just a cover story and that he was really forced to resign, in spite of whatever Mozilla may say to the contrary. So I would like to share some additional corroborating evidence. There are many inside sources who corroborate this, but the one I find particularly credible and compelling is Gervase Markham. He is in a unique position as an outspoken Christian and supporter of traditional marriage who works at Mozilla. Gerv has stated that he has it from sources he trusts that Brendan did step down of his own accord and was not forced out. You can read his full statement on his blog. Finally, I want to remind you of what Mozilla, and Firefox, truly stands for.

If you are still not convinced, I’d like you to consider one more thing. Consider for a moment, the possibility that Brendan really did step down of his own accord and is not interested in coming back. What more can Mozilla possibly do that would persuade you? Is there any further evidence that would change your mind? It makes sense to treat them with a good faith presumption of truthfulness unless and until there is evidence to the contrary. Why? Because if your mind can not be changed by anything, then they may as well ignore you anyway. There are always people who cannot be swayed by reason or any amount of evidence. Since their minds can’t be changed anyway, we all might as well ignore them and focus on those who can be persuaded by reason. If you are not open to any reasonable evidence, then you make yourself irrelevant to the debate. Don’t be do that. Evaluate the evidence fairly, and when in doubt, treat others with a good faith presumption of truthfulness. Then if evidence persuades you to change your position, it will mean something.

I read this. I read Markham’s piece. I have evaluated the evidence and I am fully informed concerning the relevant facts. And my answer is a staunch and resounding no. I reject Mozilla. I reject what it now stands for.

I am aware Eich stepped down of his own accord. I am aware he was not fired, that his resignation was not demanded by the Mozilla Board, and that fewer than 10 Mozilla employees publicly demanded his resignation.

I am also aware that Mozilla’s executive chairwoman Mitchell Baker issued this official statement on April 3rd: “Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it. We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves. We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast
enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry.
We must do better.”

For what is she apologizing, precisely? To whom is she apologizing?

I am aware that Mozilla claims to “support equality for all.” This is a blatant lie on multiple levels. Mozilla might as reasonably proclaim that it supports unicorns for all or a chicken in every pot. Mozilla clearly does not support the Constitutional right of free association or the right of free speech on the part of those harboring views it considers incompatible with its mission statement.

I am aware that “Mozilla Supports LGBT Equality”. I don’t and I will not support any organization that claims to do so.

I am aware that Mozilla has ignored tens of thousands of negative comments from current and former Firefox users and has refused to provide any statement in response to them. I am also aware that it responded quickly and publicly to a much smaller amount of criticism that threatened much less damage to the corporation.

A supporter of the move to ostracize and oust Brandon Eich declared: “I do think that any individual is free to choose to resign their own job
or otherwise not conduct business with someone whom they know has taken
an action that they consider unjust.” I agree. That is precisely why I no longer want anything to do with Mozilla and I continue to recommend that everyone #uninstallfirefox.

Prior to the #uninstallfirefox campaign began, Mozilla Firefox represented 34 percent of the total pageviews here. That percentage is currently down to 20 percent, so based on last year’s traffic, Mozilla can expect to lose at least 1,835,637 pageviews from the readers here on this site alone, in addition to the pageviews those readers generate on all other sites and whatever pageviews my household machines generate on an annual basis.


#uninstalled

Firefox on Vox Popoli: 20 percent, down from 34 percent.
Firefox on Alpha Game: 22 percent, down from 30 percent.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the Eich debacle turns out to be the biggest negative for Mozilla since Google introduced Chrome. Chrome is actually down one percentage point, from 27 to 26 percent, as Pale Moon now accounts for 7 percent of the traffic here and 3 percent at AG.

There are even some suspicions that Mozilla is attempting to mitigate the size of the negative reports by manipulating its feedback reports: “C’mon Mozilla, I KNOW the UNHAPPY count exceeded 23,000 yesterday (8th),
others saw 50K for 7 day total. You can manipulate your own feedback
forum if you choose to do so, but you cannot manipulate your market
share. You COULD publish a full and unreserved apology, and reinstate
your fine ex-CEO. That might POSSIBLY stop the rot, and save your
organisation from going under.”

And that is why it is important to #uninstallfirefox. It is the best way to prevent Mozilla from controlling the narrative in a friendly mainstream media, which has been much quieter about the backlash than about the initial criticism of Eich.


Fumigating the Firefox

Since Pale Moon is built upon a Firefox base, it still reports itself to be Firefox to web sites by default. Fortunately, it is trivially simple to turn this off and cause the browser to correctly report itself as PaleMoon.

  1. Create a new tab.
  2. Type “about:config” into the Address Bar as if it were an internet site (URL).
  3. Type “compatMode” into the Search box that will appear right below the Address Bar.
  4. On the line general.useragent.compatMode.firefox there are three settings: user set, boolean, true. Click on “true” and it will change to false.
  5. Close the tab.

That’s it. Web sites will no longer incorrectly attribute your pageviews to Firefox. If as many people have switched to Pale Moon as have switched to Chrome, the decline in Firefox usage may actually be twice what I originally estimated.


A tale of two responses

Obviously the Firefox Input tool is not the only way in which people communicate their dissatisfaction with Mozilla. But by any measure, it should be readily obvious that the firestorm of criticism directed at Mozilla for forcing Brandon Eich’s resignation and the #uninstallfirefox movement, which is growing by the day, is considerably greater than the criticism aimed at the organization in response to Eich’s promotion to CEO.

It is both remarkable and telling that while Mozilla’s board and its employees were quite willing to speak out when their new CEO was supposedly a tremendous PR disaster, they have remained silent in the face of considerably greater public outrage. This is despite the Happy/Sad metric registering all-time highs and the number of messages running nearly 10x higher than normal and nearly all of them being negative.

Mozilla has made it clear that its values directly contradict those of Christians as well as everyone who believes in the separation of work and politics. As John C. Wright said: “No lover of liberty will continue to use Firefox after this day.”

If you haven’t switched yet, I encourage you to do so. Pale Moon works very well, and if that doesn’t work for you or if you are looking for greater privacy, I would recommend giving Epic Browser a look.

On this blog, Firefox use is already down by more than one-fifth, from 34 to 27 percent of readers. On Alpha Game, it is down by exactly one-fifth, from 30 to 24 percent.


Under a Pale Moon

I got rid of Mozilla Firefox yesterday and replaced it with Pale Moon. Verdict: I probably would have done this for technological reasons, not ideological reasons, if I had known about Pale Moon before. Basically, it feels about 10-15 percent faster than Firefox, which has become increasingly crufty over the last few years and was offering new beta updates literally every week.

The installation process was two-part, the first being the usual download and install, the second being the download of the bookmarks importation tool that also migrated my various preferences and passwords. A little clunky, but no bother, and everything works, including NoScript. After about 2 hours, I was confident enough in Pale Moon to go ahead and remove Firefox from the system. If you are considering #uninstallfirefox, Pale Moon is definitely a preferred alternative if you are on Windows.

Plus I am amused by the fact that there are no plans for a Mac version. The developers are open to Linux, but Macintosh. No. Just no. Also, Linux users should note that Pale Moon runs under WINE; due to its superior speed and efficiency emulated Pale Moon may well run better than native Firefox.

For Android, I’m using Opera Mini for now, but I’m not particularly fond of it, so further investigation is required. I’m also going to start looking for a Thunderbird replacement.

NB: The all-time percentage of Firefox is 34 percent here and 30 percent at Alpha Game. It’s already down to 28 percent here and 26 percent there.


The easiest boycott

It would be hard to recommend a boycott of OK Cupid given that I have no need of it an I don’t know anyone who is so unfortunate as to require using:

Hello there, Mozilla Firefox user. Pardon this interruption of your OkCupid experience.

Mozilla’s new CEO, Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples. We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access OkCupid.

Politics is normally not the business of a website, and we all know there’s a lot more wrong with the world than misguided CEOs. So you might wonder why we’re asserting ourselves today. This is why: we’ve devoted the last ten years to bringing people—all people—together. If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we’ve worked so hard to bring about would be illegal. Equality for gay relationships is personally important to many of us here at OkCupid. But it’s professionally important to the entire company. OkCupid is for creating love. Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure.

If you want to keep using Firefox, the link at the bottom will take you through to the site.

However, we urge you to consider different software for accessing OkCupid:

This is possibly one of the dumbest business stunts that I have seen in a long time. But, on the off chance that you are a Christian or even a secular person who doesn’t believe in the politicization of business, I would encourage you to consider using a different web site for the purposes of meeting members of the opposite sex.


Dumbing down tech

An old school programmer points out the way in which even programmers are being taught to be glorified power users rather than actual computer engineers:

If I may be so brash, it has been my humble experience that there are two things traditionally taught in universities as a part of a computer science curriculum which many people just never really fully comprehend: pointers and recursion.

You used to start out in college with a course in data structures, with linked lists and hash tables and whatnot, with extensive use of pointers. Those courses were often used as weedout courses: they were so hard that anyone that couldn’t handle the mental challenge of a CS degree would give up, which was a good thing, because if you thought pointers are hard, wait until you try to prove things about fixed point theory.

All the kids who did great in high school writing pong games in BASIC for their Apple II would get to college, take CompSci 101, a data structures course, and when they hit the pointers business their brains would just totally explode, and the next thing you knew, they were majoring in Political Science because law school seemed like a better idea. I’ve seen all kinds of figures for drop-out rates in CS and they’re usually between 40% and 70%. The universities tend to see this as a waste; I think it’s just a necessary culling of the people who aren’t going to be happy or successful in programming careers.

The other hard course for many young CS students was the course where you learned functional programming, including recursive programming. MIT set the bar very high for these courses, creating a required course (6.001) and a textbook (Abelson & Sussman’s Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs) which were used at dozens or even hundreds of top CS schools as the de facto introduction to computer science. (You can, and should, watch an older version of the lectures online.)

The difficulty of these courses is astonishing. In the first lecture you’ve learned pretty much all of Scheme, and you’re already being introduced to a fixed-point function that takes another function as its input. When I struggled through such a course, CSE121 at Penn, I watched as many if not most of the students just didn’t make it. The material was too hard. I wrote a long sob email to the professor saying It Just Wasn’t Fair. Somebody at Penn must have listened to me (or one of the other complainers), because that course is now taught in Java.

I wish they hadn’t listened.

The real reason the courses are being dumbed down, of course, is so that women can pass them. But they’re not only being dumbed down, they are being prettied-up and sparkle-ponied in an attempt to make the girls feel as if they’re actually able to do something meaningful. This isn’t the case, of course, but the programs are being designed in such a way that the young women won’t figure out that they’ve been sold a very expensive course in self-esteem until after they graduate and realize they can’t actually do any real programming.

This isn’t good for anyone, not for the girls who should be majoring in something else, the girls who could handle the traditional programming curriculum, or the young men who would be better off teaching themselves to program instead of paying tens of thousands of dollars to not learn the more rigorous aspects of the discipline.

I started out as a CompSci Engineering major myself. In the first semester, I realized that I didn’t enjoy the level of detail required to succeed and immediately switched to Economics. I am very, very glad that my university didn’t make the course more to my liking, as I now know that I would not have made for a good programmer, much less a great one. This isn’t a case of old school guys rhapsodizing about the good old days either, the situation is materially detrimental to practically everyone concerned except the universities and the banks profiting from the student loan system.

As an employer, I’ve seen that the 100% Java schools have started churning out quite a few CS graduates who are simply not smart enough to work as programmers on anything more sophisticated than Yet Another Java Accounting Application, although they did manage to squeak through the newly-dumbed-down coursework. These students would never survive 6.001 at MIT, or CS 323 at Yale, and frankly, that is one reason why, as an employer, a CS degree from MIT or Yale carries more weight than a CS degree from Duke, which recently went All-Java, or U. Penn, which replaced Scheme and ML with Java in trying to teach the class that nearly killed me and my friends, CSE121. Not that I don’t want to hire smart kids from Duke and Penn — I do — it’s just a lot harder for me to figure out who they are.

Universities should be making the entry STEM courses harder, not easier, but as it stands, both their financial and their PR incentives run in precisely the opposite direction.


Programmer-prostitutes #icanprogramming

In the end, that’s what the result of GRLZ CAN 2 CODE and pushing more women into pseudo-programming degrees is going to be. Using their sex to sell software to real programmers. Consider the function of the “developer evangelist”:

Developer evangelists are definitely a different
breed. You have to, on the one hand, have the technical chops to be able to
code software, and on the other hand, have the ability to talk about it. I know
a lot of people that are knee deep in their technical savvy, but when it comes
to explaining it to someone who’s never used it before, they fall short. You
need someone that can not only walk the walk, but talk the talk and communicate
it to the community.

Developer evangelists should also
be forward thinking. You need visionaries who can assess the developer
community and see how you should be steering the ship. Otherwise, the developer
program might not necessarily take off. Developer evangelists need to be community
focused. This means elevating the developer community. It means being present
and going out there and working with the developer community.

As
it happens, I was an developer evangelist back in 1990, back when Apple
first popularized the concept. The formal title on my card was
“Transdimensional Evangelist” and my job was to visit the various hardware
manufacturers and computer game developers and convince them that they should be focused
on 3D-acceleration hardware, not MPEG-decompression hardware, for their
next generation of video cards and games. I was initially unsuccessful, but as I had been telling them, the superior technology won out in the end. It may be almost impossible to imagine now, but at the time, the vast majority of the industry was convinced that accelerated 2D video was the future, because 3D was flat-shaded, processor-intensive, and ugly… never mind that one could do so much more with it.

Now, unlike
most “evangelists”, I was actively involved on the strategic development
side; as it happens, I was the individual solely responsible for a chip
designed for the CAD market also having the critical features required
for the game development community; namely, accelerated Gouraud-shading
and texture mapping. I even named the chip: the 3GA. It’s not an accident that Creative Labs didn’t hold the original trademark on “3D Blaster”. However, (and this
is the relevant part), I was under no illusion that being the industry’s
first evangelist for the inevitable move from 2D to 3D made me an engineer, much
less a chip designer.

You may recall that I’ve said one
reason women are unlikely to succeed in programming per se is because
they tend to have an allergy to being held responsible for their own work.
This is mere anecdotal evidence, not conclusive proof, but consider what
sort of “technical chops” are required for this “developer” to “walk
the walk”:

I’ve had issues where my code
didn’t necessarily compile on the first try, and it’s great, because, all
of a sudden, you see them trying to figure it out with you, and it becomes an
engaging activity, as opposed to walking through a bunch of slides.

Isn’t that great? When you can’t do your job on your own but can get someone to help you figure out how to do it? And isn’t that totally unexpected and not at all anticipated by anyone who is sufficiently familiar with the female approach to technological responsibility?

This
is not to say there isn’t a place for women in technology. Nor is there
anything wrong with saleswomen actually knowing what they are talking
about; in fact, this is actually a highly desirable development. But what is
wrong is the pretense that this is not the probable outcome of a computer science degree, or that the
evangelist, (which is a function that combines marketing and strategic
sales), is even performing a production-related job at all.

And this part cracked me up:

Right now, some of the most interesting mobile app developers I know are people who started programming just two years ago. But they’re able to plug stuff together now in such a way to make something that’s cool.

Developers who aren’t Gamma programmers and didn’t study computer science engineering at university are always the most interesting, are they not? And they must be bang-up programmers to have picked it up so quickly!


A tale of corporate torture

Any society that believes it to be vitally important to get more employees like this in the tech industry would appear to be one that is unlikely to maintain its technological advantage over the rest of the world:

In other words, her colleagues didn’t think well of her work, she was having an inappropriate and unprofessional relationship with at least one male colleague,  her presence caused the performance of another male colleague to go downhill, (possibly through no fault of her own), she pissed off the founder’s wife, spent considerable time on a project of no possible use to the company’s bottom line, spend much of her time at the office in the bathroom crying, the founder has now been “put on leave”, as has one of the engineers, and the company has inadvertently become the focus of considerable media attention.

How good does a female coder have to be to make her employment worthwhile if all that is the potential cost?

Read about the grand saga of the persecution of Miss Horvath at Alpha Game. It’s like something out of the Black Legend of the Spanish Inquisition.