[zzalpha]

Then, after spending 4+ years in college studying surface friction losses or CRDT applications without tombstones, and n+ years in industry trying to debug someone else's too-clever binary-flag-in-ruby code, a large number of them ... realize they really don't enjoy this work

So... on average you believe men just like engineering more than women?

Because of... what... genetics or something?

[loco5niner]

Seems to me that genetics is a perfectly acceptable answer.

[zzalpha]

It was a perfectly acceptable answer to justify segregation, too... using "genetics" as a basis for justifying social bias is a very dangerous road to go down unless you're certain you're on extremely firm ground.

[loco5niner]

> It was a perfectly acceptable answer to justify segregation

Actually, no. It was not an acceptable answer to justify segregation.

[rimunroe]

I believe the other commenter was saying that at the time people believed it was an acceptable answer, just as now you're saying it's a plausible explanation for this problem.

[loco5niner]

Yes, I understood he was referencing "at the time", that's why I included the word _was_. My point still stands. Although many people did accept it, it WAS not an acceptable answer, and IS still not an acceptable answer to justify segregation.

[rimunroe]

So wait, do you reject the possibility that this situation couldn't be the exact same as the one in the past? It seems like you're saying, "Yes, genetics was not an acceptable answer then, but it is now."

If that is what you're saying, then what makes it different now?

[zzalpha]

Yes, thanks, I didn't think I'd actually need to be that explicit... lesson learned!

[loco5niner]

No need to be explicit. I understood your intended meaning just fine.

[rayiner]

If there was any evidence supporting that answer, sure.