Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

December 27 2017



peter parker in the 2002 movie is fuckin…. incredible. he gets bitten by a fuckin jacked red blue spider and he doesnt say “hey someone should take me to the hospital mayhaps?” he just goes home. then the bite swells to the size of a fuckin jawbreaker but he’s like “nah i just need a nap.” then he wakes up the next day and discovers that he DOESN’T NEED HIS GLASSES ANYMORE and he has a fuckin six pack. does he flip his entire Fuck? no. he says, “cool.” iconic.

2002 peter parker had no health insurance

December 20 2017


If having high intelligence feels like everyone else is stupid, does having high executive functioning feel like everyone else is lazy?


Bad news, good news time!

The bad news is I have melanoma, which is the most dangerous form of skin cancer.  This is part of why I haven’t been very active the last few weeks; the news came as a pretty huge blow.

The good news is I just found out it’s Stage 1, which means it has not started spreading to other organs.  This means I’m probably going to be okay – the 5-year survival rate is about 95%.  (That includes people who coincidentally had heart attacks or car accidents in those 5 years, so it’s even less than a 5% risk from the cancer.)

Next week I’m going to have a minor surgery to cut the thing out.  I’m really looking forward to being rid of this.  And then, hopefully, I’ll go on to continue being not-dead for many more years.

I’ve been over a bit of an emotional rollercoaster with all this and didn’t want to share it until I knew what to expect, and right now I’m melting with relief.


Wear sunscreen when you go out in the sun.  Even if you have dark skin, even if you don’t burn, you can still get DNA damage from UV light and that’s a lifetime cancer risk.  Sunscreen is cheap and it’s quick to apply and it can save you and your loved ones a hell of a lot of grief.

December 16 2017

9325 9d60 390






None of those things are violence, dumbasses.

the fact that you think these aren’t violent and oppressive acts shows how effective the indoctrination is. making someone homeless, making someone suffer, is violent. full stop.

Making someone homeless is not on that list.

I repeat: None of those things are violence. To say they are is an unforgeable mark of someone who’s never really experienced violence.

It’d be nice if we had a word for things that can be just as deadly as violence, which has the same emotional impact “violence” does. A lot of rhetoric along the lines of “X does not justify violence” gets to sneak in the implication that violence is an escalation in harm caused, without having to argue that this is the case.

Waaaaait a second. Not being a stay at home mom is violence? Are you shitting me?!

December 15 2017


Reparations, but instead of writing checks the government engages in a mass campaign of lead removal and other remediation.

December 11 2017

the difference between a normal person and an engineer:


(this just happened at work)

colleague 1: Did someone burn something in the kitchen?

colleague 2: No.

colleague 1: Because my eyes are watering and I smell smoke.

colleagues 2, 3, and 4: Huh. I feel normal and don’t smell anything. 

colleague 1: Weird. 

colleague 2: Let me know if there’s anything I can do for you.

colleague 1: It’s not a big deal, just, it bothers me to be smelling smoke if there actually isn’t any.

colleague 2: Well, I can light a fire.

colleague 3: I was about to say, yeah, that sounds like the easiest resolution here.

December 05 2017

9363 450f 390


i am behind you right now

December 01 2017


I wrote a while ago about my baby roommate and novelty. The idea is that people find things interesting and exciting when they have the right amount of novelty. Things that are too predictable, like a children’s book you’ve read to a demanding kid ten thousand times, are boring. Things that aren’t predictable enough, like a long novel in a language you don’t speak, are also boring. It’s the process of forming expectations that are often right but sometimes surprised which makes something fun. So for a baby, repetitive play is fun, because every time the duck lands in the bathtub is slightly surprising; for an adult, those variants all make perfect sense and aren’t a source of thrilling novelty anymore.

But I think adults also vary tremendously in how much novelty they enjoy. There are people who reread books all the time, and people who never reread books, both of whom tend to regard each other with total incomprehension. There are people who like their nice simple job doing mostly the same thing every day, and there are people who’d die of boredom. And people are often attuned to different kinds of novelty - for me, ‘sewing dresses’ sounds like doing the same boring thing over and over again, but I bet anyone who actually does it would tell me that different fabrics and threads and stitches and fittings and other constraints make every project different.

I think we tend to talk about jobs as if everyone wants high novelty (art! research! acting! travel!) and some are forced to settle for the mindless drudgery of accounting or marketing or human resources or middle management. But that’s not how it works. Things that are an exciting and satisfying amount of novelty for some people are above the satisfying threshold for other people, and they’re just stressful and demoralizing. Things that would have some people grinding their teeth with tedium have lots of hidden novelty of just the right type for some other people.

But we don’t give kids a lot of opportunity to discover if they’re someone who would find accounting delightfully rewarding minute-to-minute. We don’t even tell them that anyone finds accounting delightfully rewarding. There isn’t really a chance, ever, to try forty things and figure out which one of them hits the right spot in your brain. Which is too bad, because I suspect that getting this right (and noticing when your job has ceased to offer it) is a major contributor to day-to-day happiness.

November 25 2017

9380 4ca6 390


The best machine translation fail I’ve seen in quite a while. (source)

November 22 2017



Here’s an off-beat but interesting feminist proposal: All people who take care of children or other dependants full-time (who are hugely disproportionately women) should be paid, and paid well, by the state. They are doing socially necessary and valuable and really hard work–which deserves compensation on the basis of the value of reciprocity, and yet which is tremendously socially under-valued (arguably because it’s “women’s work”–but the proposal in and of itself need not insist on this). Also, a paycheck for doing it would help give caretakers financial independence from, e.g., abusive husbands. (It would also benefit male breadwinners, who could then keep more of their money, and also benefit the minority of male caretakers.)

Finally, the proposal would help close the gender wage gap–while simultaneously bypassing the whole loaded topic of whether the gender wage gap is “because of sexism” or not. Even someone who doesn’t think the gender wage gap is “because of sexism” could in theory argue that caretakers should be paid. (So, it could be attractive to both the “gender wage gap is sexist” feminists and the “gender wage gap isn’t sexist” non-feminists.)

All in all, I think it’s an important feminist topic of discussion that doesn’t get talked about enough in the mainstream.

I do not know whether it’s a good idea or not all things considered–because the full analysis surely involves really complicated economics arguments! However, I think the principled moral case for it is solid, and it is at least an important goal to aspire to or to find close approximations of.

I think maybe some European countries (and/or Canada) do things like this?? Not sure.

So, if you want to dedicate a large portion of your time to studying one particular feminist issue, I might recommend that one. It’s interesting, important, not talked about enough, and a plausible case can be made for it.

There are some academic articles on the topic.

Elizabeth Anderson has discussed this in her seminal article “What is the Point of Equality.” Admittedly, she only discusses it there in passing, in the midst of a larger argument about equality. Control-F the phrase “caretak” (to see all references to “caretakers” and “caretaking”) to find the sections where she gives her argument for the proposal.

Christie Hartley and Lori Watson discuss the idea at some length, and cite several other papers, in the second-to-last chapter of their forthcoming book Equal Citizenship and Public Reason: A Feminist Political Liberalism.

What about the genetic implications? Civilisation brings advanced healthcare, but it also means that no longer do the most economically successful, most intelligent people have the most children. That means that for decades now, birth rate trends have been dysgenic - lowering the genetic component of IQ on average. To reverse this, we need child-based income tax reductions, not flat rate subsidies. Those who earn the most (a relatively noisy proxy for intelligence, but still correlated) should get the most reward for having children. Those who earn the least, or nothing, should receive enough to meet their children’s basic needs but no more.

November 20 2017

9401 62aa 390


my condolences to anyone who slept with kyle

November 17 2017

Play fullscreen

George Monbiot: This government hates you and your country

November 14 2017

it keeps happening and it’s a surprise each time



“Hey, you know Rapin’ Bob?  The guy who’s always joking about being a rapist and everyone is always joking about him being a rapist?  The guy we all sorta knew was “rapey” but that’s not the same thing as rapist, right?  The guy who was always pestering women/men/children in a sexual sort of way, but not a rape sort of way precisely?  You know him?  Rapin’ Bob McRapeface, we always called him?”

“Well, I just saw the news and I am completely shocked what just came out about him.”

I once saw an article about a guy who used to farm gold in Word of Warcraft. The other gold farmers “joked” about how they would ostracize anyone who stopped being a gold farmer. Then he stopped being a gold farmer, and they all ostracized him.

I’ve decided it’s simpler and more accurate to assume most of the things people say as “jokes” aren’t actually jokes. When I assume they don’t really mean it, I’m wrong way more often than I’m right.

November 13 2017


I think a big part of how I see the world is that -

In college I was sick. In particular I was anorexic, and I nearly starved myself to death. I never accomplished anything, made commitments I couldn’t keep, lost track of time, and struggled with the most basic life tasks. I was anxious (mostly because I correctly knew that everything was going horribly) and lazy (because I could not possibly do enough things to matter, and doing things was hard and hurt) and unreliable and terrible. I ended up owing people a lot of money (I have since paid them all back) and failing at things that were really important to me and to other people.

And now I am in a good environment for me. I live with people who I can be reasonably assured don’t hate me and will tell me when they need me to do things differently, and I am no longer anxious. My work has clear expectations and is bite-sized and doesn’t pile up on me, and I reliably deliver it and do a good job. I have enough money I don’t have to deal with the mental overhead of deciding whether to buy the food I want, and I spend that mental overhead on better things. I am still messy and I am still bad at getting places on time, but I’m never late on rent. I am mostly a productive, honest, trustworthy, reliable person and I’m getting better at those things. I have friends and kiss girls (and the occasional boy) and I make a positive difference in peoples’ lives.

Some of the difference was immaturity and lack of skills; much of the difference is that I had starved my brain until it stopped functioning; much of the difference was that I was in an environment that was not shaped to my strengths. But living through it gave me this powerful sense that the difference between a “lazy” person and a “successful” person, between a reliable person and an unreliable person, between a “good” person and a “bad” person, is a lot about whether they are in an environment shaped to their strengths. That almost everybody will be great in the right environment and really really struggle in a bad one. And some people have never ever encountered a bad one and think they’re just inherently great; and some people have never encountered a good one, and think they’re just inherently miserable and hard to get along with and unreliable and untrustworthy.

I absolutely think people are still accountable for the things they do in bad environments. I’ve worked really hard to fix the things I fucked up at when I was sick, and I don’t mean “it’s all the environment” to mean “it’s not you”. Just - the same you who was miserable and did bad things will be happy and do good things, in better circumstances, and lots of the human project is building those circumstances. 

I don’t know how to give everyone an environment in which they’ll thrive. It’s probably absurdly hard, in lots of cases it is, in practical terms, impossible. But I basically always feel like it’s the point, and that anything else is missing the point. There are people whose brains are permanently-given-our-current-capabilities stuck functioning the way my brain functioned when I was very sick. And I encounter, sometimes, “individual responsibility” people who say “lazy, unproductive, unreliable people who choose not to work choose their circumstances; if they go to bed hungry then, yes, they deserve to be hungry; what else could ‘deserve’ possibly mean?” They don’t think they’re talking to me; I have a six-figure tech job and do it well and save for retirement and pay my bills, just like them. But I did not deserve to be hungry when I was sick, either, and I would not deserve to be hungry if I’d never gotten better.

What else could ‘deserve’ possibly mean? When I use it, I am pointing at the ‘give everyone an environment in which they’ll thrive’ thing. People with terminal cancer deserve a cure even though right now we don’t have one; deserving isn’t a claim about what we have, but about what we would want to give out if we had it. And so, to me, horrible people who abuse others all the time deserve an environment in which they would thrive and not be able to abuse others, even if we can’t provide one and don’t even have any idea what it would look like and sensibly are prioritizing other people who don’t abuse others. If you have experiences, you deserve good experiences; if you have feelings, you deserve happy feelings; if you want to be loved, you are worthy of love. You flourishing is a moral good; everybody flourishing is in fact the only moral good, the entire thing morality is for. Your actions should have consequences, sure, and we should figure out how to build a world where those consequences are ones that you can handle, and where you can amend the things that you do wrong. When you hurt people, that can change what “you thriving” looks like, because part of thriving is fixing, and growing from, things you have done wrong; but nothing you do can change that it is good for you to thrive.

I reject that I ever deserved to starve, and so I reject that anyone, ever, deserves to starve. I reject that I ever deserved to suffer, and so I reject that anyone, ever, deserves to suffer. Happiness is good. Your happiness is good. And without a single exception anywhere I want you to thrive.

November 07 2017

November 02 2017









ive been reading a book that basically explains how so-called “brain differences” between the genders is the result of gendered socialization and not the cause of it. i honestly expected the book to be very cis-centric but its actually the opposite, the author stresses that testimony from trans ppl is actually indispensable because we’ve, in a sense, “lived both experiences”

more cis feminists should have this mindset

one of the first examples that she uses to introduce her point about how perception by others can shape a person’s performance actually uses a trans woman. it explains that as a certain trans woman became to be seen as a woman more and more frequently, the ppl arond her eventually started viewing her as being ill equipped for tasks that they did not bother her about pre-transition. eventually she even found herself underperforming in these tasks herself.

whats the name of the book

Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine

Here’s a pdf, babes <3

Can testify that Fine’s new book Testosterone Rex is equally excellent and also reasonably friendly to gender variant folks. Would also recommend the shit of out of her colleague Rebecca Jordan-Watson’s book Brain Storm, particularly for anyone interested in where all that information on intersex kids actually comes from and how that data on “gay genes” and “masculine versus feminine brains” is generated–and how, generally, the scientific sausage gets made. 

(I’m seriously tempted, frequently, to hand out those three books plus Stephanie Coontz’ Marriage, a History, Emily Nagoski’s Come As You Are on human sexuality and Joan Roughgarden’s Evolution’s Rainbow to anyone who is interested in biology, sexuality, and gender. All but Evolution’s Rainbow have been terribly influential to me, and that one mostly just suffers from the fact that I’d run across most of the data in Roughgarden’s book before I read the book itself–and the part where as an evolutionary biologist I’m pretty skeptical of the lengths to which she goes re: promoting cooperation-based theories vs competition-based theories of animal behavior. Of course, I don’t think she’s entirely wrong, either: you ought to consider all potential reasons as you design your studies. And her book is a fabulous deconstruction of the idea that sex and gender in biology can ever be considered a single, simple binary. 

Anyway, all are very thorough and with the exception of Marriage, a History they’re close enough to my field that I can personally verify that they are solid and based on good data, techniques, and analysis. The five books specifically about biology (and in Fine’s case, neurological research framed in a sexist context) are as trans- and intersex-inclusive as they can be given the data available. 

Nagoski, for example, apologizes in her preface for not having the data to really talk about how genderqueer and trans* folks’ sexuality differs on average from cis women’s, because the studies haven’t been done. Jordan-Watson’s piece talks in depth about the abuse perpetuated on intersex children by the scientific establishment and how the intense focus on their gender identity growing up can create difficulty in interpreting the effects of things like prenatal hormonal exposure; she’s notable for considering the subjects of studies on intersex children as human, and humans who are watching the researchers right back, at that. Fine . And Roughgarden is, of course, openly trans herself and has been blazing trails in behavioral ecology for a good long time.)

Reblogging on request.

Thanks =)

Worth noting that Fine’s books have been heavily criticised. For a critical view of Testosterone Rex, check out http://quillette.com/2017/03/21/cordelia-fines-testosterone-rex-a-review/

See also her Wikipedia page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordelia_Fine?wprov=sfla1 for some more critical views.

October 29 2017


So GiveDirectly is a charity that gives money to the poorest people in the world who have access to reliable financial infrastructure. The idea is that no one knows better than an individual family what that family needs most - a new roof, school supplies, food, clothes, medicine, chickens - so instead of giving them chickens or giving them school supplies or giving them food, you give them money and they can choose what to do with it.

GiveDirectly is rated among the most effective ways to help people living in extreme poverty. A few direct medical interventions seem to be even better, because the medical interventions can be delivered at scale, but giving people money is definitely one of the most powerful ways to help them.

So I was really interested to read this blog post by GiveDirectly announcing that they’re branching into hurricane relief. The idea is the same: lots of natural disaster relief gets wasted or stolen or spent on things that aren’t what the people affected need the most; if we just directly give people money, then they can figure out what their most urgent disaster relief needs are, instead of us trying to decide from far away what they deserve. And GiveDirectly has a reputation for being highly efficient at identifying poor people and just giving them money, a reputation which might mean they can become a trustworthy source of disaster relief.

I have a couple concerns. One is that the people GiveDirectly currently help are people who live in extreme poverty. The average recipient lives on $.65 a day. Money goes really far in helping such people - $1000, the average GiveDirectly grant, is more than a year’s income. If GiveDirectly donations which would otherwise go to people living on $.65 a day go instead to people in the United States, the money won’t go nearly as far or empower nearly as many people. On the other hand, it might be that people who donate to the global poor will keep right on donating to the global poor, and that people who donate to U.S. hurricane relief will donate to effective hurricane relief instead of the Red Cross - which means more money going to poor people. Maybe some people will even hear about the GiveDirectly model of giving through their hurricane efforts and then later choose to give to the global poor. I assume GiveDirectly expects that their venture into hurricane relief will not decrease how much money they get for tackling global poverty - and if they’re right, then I’m glad they’re doing it.

The other concern is that a disaster situation might not be the best situation for money, even though usually giving people money gives them much more flexibility than giving them specific things which we think they’ll want. If you can’t buy electricity, clean water, or shelter for any price, then being rich doesn’t help you, and making disaster victims rich won’t be as useful as figuring out how to effectively deliver aid. And maybe people will just end up bidding up the fixed supplies that do exist.

But on the other hand, there are tons of organizations trying to effectively deliver aid. And they suck at it, because it’s really hard. There’s not a lot of reason to join them without some reason to expect that you’d be uniquely good at it. There are not many organizations that are trying to just give disaster survivors money, and there should probably be some. Secondly, the thing I wrote above? “Being rich doesn’t help you?” I don’t really believe that. I think rich disaster victims do fare better than poor disaster victims, and that if most people got $1000 in their bank account the moment that a crisis hit, they’d have more options. For one thing, some people don’t evacuate because they can’t afford to lose their jobs. For another, if they do evacuate they might not have anywhere to stay and end up temporarily homeless. I think that money really does help with the problems associated with a catastrophe like Harvey or Maria, and that it probably would help disaster victims to get money - if it happens fast, ideally before the storm even hits. I don’t know if GiveDirectly has the resources to do that. They probably don’t - people donate in the aftermath of a disaster, not in the days when the hurricane is bearing down, and we don’t know exactly who will be affected until it hits.  But I think they have the right idea, and I think this approach to fixing disaster relief - just giving the affected people money - is a really great one as long as it doesn’t distract them from their important work in Kenya.

October 28 2017

The rules about responding to call outs aren’t working


Privileged people rarely take the voices of marginalized people seriously. Social justices spaces attempt to fix this with rules about how to respond to when marginalized people tell you that you’ve done something wrong. Like most formal descriptions of social skills, the rules don’t quite match reality. This is causing some problems that I think we could fix with a more honest conversation about how to respond to criticism.

The formal social justice rules say something like this:

  • You should listen to marginalized people.
  • When a marginalized person calls you out, don’t argue.
  • Believe them, apologize, and don’t do it again.
  • When you see others doing what you were called out for doing, call them out.

Those rules are a good approximation of some things, but they don’t actually work. It is impossible to follow them literally, in part because:

  • Marginalized people are not a monolith. 
  • Marginalized people have the same range of opinions as privileged people.
  • When two marginalized people tell you logically incompatible things, it is impossible to act on both sets of instructions.
  • For instance, some women believe that abortion is a human right foundational human right for women. Some women believe that abortion is murder and an attack on women and girls.
  • “Listen to women” doesn’t tell you who to believe, what policy to support, or how to talk about abortion. 
  • For instance, some women believe that religious rules about clothing liberate women from sexual objectification, other women believe that religious rules about clothing sexually objectify women. 
  • “Listen to women” doesn’t tell you what to believe about modesty rules. 
  • Narrowing it to “listen to women of minority faiths” doesn’t help, because women disagree about this within every faith.
  • When “listen to marginalized people” means “adopt a particular position”, marginalized people are treated as rhetorical props rather than real people.
  • Objectifying marginalized people does not create justice.

Since the rule is literally impossible to follow, no one is actually succeeding at following it. What usually ends up happening when people try is that:

  • One opinion gets lifted up as “the position of marginalized people” 
  • Agreeing with that opinion is called “listen to marginalized people”
  • Disagreeing with that opinion is called “talking over marginalized people”
  • Marginalized people who disagree with that opinion are called out by privileged people for “talking over marginalized people”.
  • This results in a lot of fights over who is the true voice of the marginalized people.
  • We need an approach that is more conducive to real listening and learning.

This version of the rule also leaves us open to sabotage:

  • There are a lot of people who don’t want us to be able to talk to each other and build effective coalitions.
  • Some of them are using the language of call-outs to undermine everyone who emerges as an effective progressive leader. 
  • They say that they are marginalized people, and make up lies about leaders.
  • Or they say things that are technically true, but taken out of context in deliberately misleading ways.
  • The rules about shutting up and listening to marginalized people make it very difficult to contradict these lies and distortions. 
  • (Sometimes they really are members of the marginalized groups they claim to speak for. Sometimes they’re outright lying about who they are).
  • (For instance, Russian intelligence agents have used social media to pretend to be marginalized Americans and spread lies about Hillary Clinton.)

The formal rule is also easily exploited by abusive people, along these lines:

  • An abusive person convinces their victim that they are the voice of marginalized people.
  • The abuser uses the rules about “when people tell you that you’re being oppressive, don’t argue” to control the victim.
  • Whenever the victim tries to stand up for themself, the abuser tells the victim that they’re being oppressive.
  • That can be a powerfully effective way to make victims in our communities feel that they have no right to resist abuse. 
  • This can also prevent victims from getting support in basic ways.
  • Abusers can send victims into depression spirals by convincing them that everything that brings them pleasure is oppressive and immoral. 
  • The abuser may also isolate the victim by telling them that it would be oppressive for them to spend time with their friends and family, try to access victim services, or call the police. 
  • The abuser may also separate the victim from their community and natural allies by spreading baseless rumors about their supposed oppressive behavior. (Or threatening to do so).
  • When there are rules against questioning call outs, there are also implicit rules against taking the side of a victim when the abuser uses the language of calling out.
  • Rules that say some people should unconditionally defer to others are always dangerous.

The rule also lacks intersectionality:

  • No one experiences every form of oppression or every form of privilege.
  • Call-outs often involve people who are marginalized in different ways. 
  • Often, both sides in the conflict have a point.
  • For instance, black men have male privilege and white women have white privilege.
  • If a white woman calls a black man out for sexism and he responds by calling her out for racism (or vice versa), “listened to marginalized people” isn’t a very helpful rule because they’re both marginalized.
  • These conversations tend to degenerate into an argument about which form of marginalization is most significant.
  • This prevents people involved from actually listening to each other.
  • In conflicts like this, it’s often the case that both sides have a legitimate point. (In ways that are often not immediately obvious.)
  • We need to be able to work through these conflicts without expecting simplistic rules to resolve them in advance.

This rule also tends to prevent groups centered around one form of marginalized from coming to engage with other forms of marginalization:

  • For instance, in some spaces, racism and sexism are known to be issues, but ableism is not.
  • (This can occur in any combination. Eg: There are also spaces that get ableism and sexism but not racism, and spaces that get economic justice and racism but not antisemitism, or any number of other things.)
  • When disabled people raise the issue of ableism in any context (social justice or otherwise), they’re likely to be shouted down and told that it’s not important.
  • In social justice spaces, this shouting down is often done in the name of “listening to marginalized people”.
  • For instance, disabled people may be told ‘you need to listen to marginalized people and de-center your issues’, carrying the implication that ableism is less important than other forms of oppression.
  • (This happens to *every* marginalized group in some context or other.)
  • If we want real intersectional solidarity, we need to have space for ongoing conflicts that are not simple to resolve.

Tl;dr “Shut up and listen to marginalized people” isn’t quite the right rule, because it objectifies marginalized people, leaves us open to sabotage, enables abuse, and prevents us from working through conflicts in a substantive way. We need to do better by each other, and start listening for real.

Play fullscreen

Pisk - Jungle Swing

October 24 2017



seriously though the life of Ada Lovelace is some next level Mary Sue bullshit

oooh I’m the daughter of Lord Byron, I’m a countess, I get Dickens to come to my house to read me bed time stories in person, I’m learning mathematics from De Morgan, I know calculus, I take tea with Charles Darwin, I’m the world’s first computer programmer, I display a depth of understanding that won’t be reached in the software industry for another hundred years, la de fucking da

lady, chill

an even bigger observation that must be made from Lovelace’s story is that she is the WORLDS FIRST COMPUTER programmer, and in today’s world so many women in tech are harassed or made to feel inferior by men in the field…. IT ALL ORIGINATED FROM A GIRL, BASTARDS!

No, she wasn’t the world’s first computer programmer. That’s a myth. Her Wikipedia article, despite saying it over and over, eventually admits that the historian of computing Doron Swade and other experts have refuted the claim.

In any case, I would argue you can’t be a programmer if you don’t have a real working computer to test your programs on, and no-one did back then.

Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!