"Looks like Edge really will be the new Internet Explorer."
yeah I suspected they've been "Edging" for a while now...
5200 posts • joined 1 May 2015
I think it's a 'Silly Valley Syndrome' of some kind.
Silly Valley companies are becoming too arrogant, too big for their britches, and have (in the past) engaged in immoral practices that were DELIBERATELY keeping wages lower [anti-compete contracts for each other's employees], FIRED PEOPLE over political views (Mozilla, Google, ...), engage in government WAY too much through PACs and contributions, yotta yotta yotta, and now THIS bit with a kind of 'moving target' contract and their sales employees to deny them what was promised because they're being CHEAP.
I used to live in the Silly Valley area, decades ago. I'm glad I left.
Now it seems they've formed a kind of "social bubble", filled with people "just like them", within which they've lost touch with the rest of the world (like Washington D.C., Brussels, ...) and *FEEL* as if it's "just ok" to engage in what everybody ELSE sees as heinous, disreputable conduct, just because they CAN [or so they
"No-one pronounces 'Oracle' as 'OR acle' or 'whore' as 'horr' so it doesn't work."
huh? my brain just froze for a minute... illogical... illogical... obligatory Star Trek reference in progress... illogical... illogical...
'whOracle' works for me. yeah, whatever.
(I still can't figure out how NOT to prounounce them 'OR acle' and 'horr')
"So even in the (probably unlikely) event that Oracle goes titsup (which I definitely see happening some time in the future) then the good stuff (Java, ZFS, Solaris) wouldn't have to go to total waste."
No, they'll be sold off as independent 'business groups' to others, like Google, Micro-shaft, and IBM. Precedents have already been set, for a very, very, long time.
"There's always a bigger fish" (fun Star Wars quote from Episode I)
In any case, "Big Data" is highly overrated. It's a fair bet that IBM's 'Watson' division wants Oracle's data business.
Icon, because, FreeBSD
"It seems really stupid to piss off the very people that bring money into the business via sales."
Yes, it DOES.
And that 'keep working until you pay off your debt' stuff reminds me of an old song:
"Ya move 16 tons, what'da get? Another day older, and deeper in debt! St. Peter don't ya call me cause I can't go, I owe my soul to the company store..."
(Tennessee Ernie Ford and Sam Cooke both did this one, I think)
Oracle needs to re-organize their sales management, and make sure their sales force gets PAID, ON TIME, before all of the good sales people stop working for them.
Silly Valley and their anti-honest-business attitudes. Maybe they should just move to another state where average wages are lower because LIVING EXPENSES (and taxes, etc.) aren't INSANE...
not sunspots, just solar activity - i.e. if the sun puts out MORE light+heat+other_radiation then it kinda tends to WARM the PLANET, ya know?
because, regardless of your model, Mr. Sun will be the heat source.
a big 'thumbs down' for the 'wanker' pejorative. It's as bad as 'denier'.
well, as true as it is that humans aren't DIRECTLY warming the earth, the assumptions of the warmist 'CO2' model is kinda like this: CO2 is assumed to be a greenhouse gas; that is, it absorbs incoming energy (as gamma), converting it to heat, and then keep that heat from escaping the earth at night (by radiation).
So, since the sun is still involved in the process when humans [allegedly] cause the warming, having the sun go out tomorrow would be an unrelated problem. That's where that specific logic breaks down.
ON THE OTHER HAND... since the model centers ENTIRELY on the idea that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then I like to focus my arguments on THAT little problem... because CO2 is a *REALLY* *LOUSY* greenhouse gas! It only works for temperatures below about -50F, or above about 130 or 140F, and even THEN, you have to go pretty far outside of the extremes to get 100% absorption.
When the earth emits gamma radiation at night, it's in the infrared range. "Black body radiation" puts out most of its energy at a wavelength that's close to the 'indicated temperature' wavelength, which has a simple calculation. in short, those thermometers you use with lasers in them simply figure out what the IR emission is, and 'guess' the temperature based on that. And they're pretty good.
So in short, if CO2 doesn't really absorb ANY of earth's emitted radiation between -50F and 100-something F, then CO2 isn't doing DIDDLY SQUAT to affect world temperatures, now is it?
Similarly for solar radiation, it may actually have a BLOCKING effect rather than a warming effect [and the ground absorbs the heat way better than the atmosphere does... so it's not that effective at all is it? Consider a cloudy day, for example, and water absorbs nearly ALL of the infrared, hint hint, being 100 or more times as effect ive as a greenhouse gas than CO2, in my opinion]
In any case, what would happen if the sun went out tomorrow? We'd be totally SCREWED.
"This issue really revolves around energy, the energy needed to run modern civilization. Like it or not, the vast bulk of that energy comes from carbon burning right now."
if it weren't coming from carbon burning, then you'd STILL see GRIPES from various enviro-wacko groups, along all of the "religious claims" and chicken-little fear mongering that goes with it.
a) Nuclear energy - not a carbon in its footprint, yet NOBODY seems to be asking for more of it. why not?
b) Fusion energy - if we had it working [instead of just working on 'research' - you get what you pay for!] there'd be SOME kind of griping going on about THAT, too.
c) wind farms kill eagles and condors, and take some of the energy out of the wind, affecting "something" if you search hard enough to find it.
d) dams for hydro power flood the landscape and it's no longer "pristine". oh well.
e) black solar panels heat up from solar energy, causing localized "hotter" weather if there are enough of them collecting sunlight in a given area, kinda like the "concrete jungle" effect.
In short, no matter WHAT kind of "sustainability" you have, SOMEONE is going to gripe about it, throw a tantrum, get a bunch of activist types to join their cause, make a CRAPLOAD of noise, and generally disrupt society and try to force EVERYONE (except themselves) into a 3rd world quality of life.
"Personally I can chip that a lake I hike to every so often had a glacier all the way down to the shore in the summer. A glacier, not just snowpack. 20 years later, that glacier never reaches it anymore."
this deserves separate commentary.
2040: cold <--- your glacier should reappear by then
also consider that some effects are 90 degrees out of phase with this cycle, quite possibly your glacier being one of them. The reason is 'heat up rate' vs temperature. Yeah, it's a calculus thing. It's also why late summer is hotter than early summer, even though days are longer in early summer.
Anyone else have a better explanation? Mine's based on recorded temperature data in the northern hemisphere... and one projected estimate based on the apparent cyclic trend
"We're experiencing gradually increasing climate events in many parts of the world"
No. we are not. Check out some of the data on storms of the early 1900's for example.
You said "Irma is showing up as pretty much the strongest Caribbean storm on record." Recent hurricanes are NOT necessarily "the strongest on record". Consider the 'labor day hurricane' of 1935
Additionally, humans cannot cause "global climate change" in any significant amount from burning fossil fuels. You would have to completely ignore 1) chemical equilibrium between atmosphere and ocean, 2) biological equilibrium involving algae and other plants, 3) precipitation of CO2 as carbonates on the ocean floor, 4) geothermal effects on measured CO2 in key locations, and 5) the actual IR absorption spectrum of CO2 in order to come up with "a computer model" to show out of control climate change. However, REAL science in the REAL world WILL INCLUDE all of those things in the analysis, and as such, would easily demonstrate that CO2 from human activity does NOT cause global climate change in any significant amount, even any MEASURABLE amount.
If climate is changing, it is because of the earth, the sun, or something similar. Humans couldn't do it even if we WANTED to.
ack on "let's put a skeptic in charge".
<quote from article>
Meanwhile, on NASA's own website you can find data showing human civilization has likely had a profound effect on our world's climate.
</quote from article>
And _THIS_ is why we want A SKEPTIC in charge, and NOT an ACTIVIST!
[because the idea of man-made climate change is PURE BULLCRAP, and I can easily prove it, and have done so on multiple occasions already, so I'll spare this article's responses from me repeating myself again]
than Micro-shaft shipping 'Windows Lame" with Surface, and oh-by-the-way it'll cost you another $49 toll to run things that aren't CRapps from "the Store".
Except, maybe, a SUBSCRIPTION version of Win-10-nic, for which you MUST pay annual money to be able to run Win32 appLICATIONS or something YOU wrote yourself.
[NOT self-fulfilling the 'Linux Prophecy' from the first post, heh]
minimal eyestrain comes from black text on #FFFFE8 background.
This is based on its similarity to PAPER, and the fact that blue light depletes the orange pigment in the macula, resulting in macular degeneration. It's why you should never use 'cool white' or 'sunlight' lamps in your workspace, but only "soft white" [which is like an incandescent light].
now, if El Reg could fix the font size in the edit box for comments [it's TOO FRICKING SMALL] I'd make fewer mistakes and wouldn't have to re-edit everything I type all of the time... but if I hit the alt+ to zoom, then the document text is way to freaking big. cannot win...
I'm seriously wondering what is meant by a "flat" UI.
simple explanation: all 3D effects are eliminated. The buttons in the upper right corner have degraded into a plain underscore, box and X with no effects around them to indicate they're buttons. And they're farther apart so that fat fingers can mash them more easily on a touch screen.
Additionally, the borders around various 'boxes' are gone, including THE WINDOW ITSELF. If there is a border, it's a 1-pixel-wide line, barely distinguishable from the content surrounding it. White-on-white is NOT uncommon. Usually the UI item has a different color, but doesn't always. Sometimes a button has no border or color, and is merely text placed "wherever".
So in short, the old visual cues of a 3D-looking border, combined with a standard color scheme, are gone. They were typically replaced with BRIGHT WHITE [which is hard on the eyes; they need to use #FFFFE8 instead], with sometimes grey or other "hard to see" color text on the UI elements, and NO BORDERS [or in a limited case, a light grey border on white, which is also difficult to see].
I'm not bilnd, but I'm old. my eyes don't easily distinguish certain colors with similar luminocity, at least not without causing them to hurt a lot. They look like "blur" to me. And a lot of the "bright bluish on white" combinations that Micro-shaft seems to like so much are EQUALLY HARD TO SEE. And this is what you get a LOT of in Win-10-nic. It hurts 'old eyes'. [ultimately it will cause eye strain on YOUNG eyes, so those young whipper-snappers better get a clue, or get glasses at an earlier age].
If the new would-be trend setters had even bothered to read old facts they'd have ignored them because, you know: OLD!
(mega-thumbs up for that)
You are SO right! The millennial generation decided "it's OUR turn, now" and, like a copy of Arthur C. Clarke's "Superiority", they went on to re-invent *EVERYTHING* and "do it THEIR way".
with predictable results.
What does surprise me is that "creatives" just follow the trend like zombies when its obvious its a step backwards.
> You don't spend much time with "creatives", do you? Mindless trend-following - it's what they do. Well, 99% of them, anyway, to be fair.
yeah, like "academic arrogance" at its WORST.
I bet that MOST truly creative people spend time CREATING, and it's their "creative" BOSSES that tell them to "do it that way". At least, that's how _I_ see it. (In effect, they're rewarded for 'bad behavior' and therefore are encouraged to propagate it).
"Just imagine having a room with an invisible touch sensitive sensor instead of a clearly visible light switch."
I know EXACTLY what you mean.
I'm currently working on a project that has 'an interface' that requires users to do something specific with it, in order to control the device (while simultaneously rejecting 'accidental' activation of the user interface). However, the amount of feedback that could previously be given to the users [to help them 'get it right'] was inadequate. I recently fixed this, after making some architectural changes to support it (priorities, priorities), so that the feedback was a LOT more intuitive (and gives more information to the user to help him use the interface). NOW it's much easier to use, and hopefully will be acceptable to the end-users. That's the goal (usability).
So yeah, it's extremely important for the UI to be as intuitive as possible. Otherwise people will have a hard time using it, and are likely to complain or "just not use it".
And, naturally, any influence I have over web design, icons, etc. WILL contain more 3D skeuomorphic and veer away from the 2D FLATSO and 'hamburger' menu. And I'm passing a link to the article along to "the powers that be" to help justify it.
Slower is NOT better. FASTER is _ALWAYS_ better!
Besides, the article clearly points out that eyeball focus went to things that weren't "productive", like looking longer at titles [maybe to recognize it as a title?] or buttons or other things that are NOT content, apparently to recognize them for what they are. You know, those thermal plots near the center of the page...
So this "extra time on the page" is just inefficiency, and is NOT an indicator that your page is better, or more important, or more interesting. It's just HARDER TO READ when it's 2D FLATSO FLUGLY, vs Elegant 3D Skeuomorphic. (if you ask me, I want EFFICIENT design so I can get more done).
As for the article itself:
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!
It's ABOUT DAMN TIME that the TRUTH about this 2D vs 3D came out, and I have instinctively HATED the 2D FLATSO since it was excreted from the evil bowels of Redmond's "force the world to change" department. I particularly blame THIS person, though ti's possible that not ALL of it was her fault, directly. Sinofsky was merely a convenient scapegoat, and being male, easier to fire.
"Except when they run out of generation capacity and need to lose some load."
this is the core of the problem: 'running out of generation capacity'. This is the 21st century. A shortage of generator capacity should NEVER happen, It seems CONTRIVED to me [in order to avoid doing things the RIGHT way, maybe, like has happened in Cali-Fornicate-You with Grey-out Davis, for example]
So yeah I've heard this song before. It sucked then, and it sucks NOW.
If they do the smart meters correctly, it would work like this: when capacity requirements are such that it costs more to generate electricity [because peaker plants come online], then the cost should simply vary based on demand and the actual cost of production. And they would LET YOU KNOW when the price goes up, maybe an indicator you could remote-install on certain outlets and switches, or something.
If instead they're being used to DROP YOUR POWER, like you aren't smart enough to turn a few appliances off and wait until after-peak, then it's ANTI-FREEDOM.
But warning you when the price goes up might be a necessary part to making this work... and I don't see ANYONE out there trying to mitigate the STICKER SHOCK that could result when your electric bill arrives, if the smart meters are simply used for 'Time Of Use' billing.
Last week we had a nice heat wave in Cali-fornicate-you, probably the last one of the year. The usual 'flex alert' warnings were out there. I didn't run certain appliances and kept my A/C and fans blasting, with the internal house temperature hovering in the 80F range [above their 78 degree imposed "limit"] because I don't have a really powerful A/C but it's good enough to keep things 'liveable'. And I expect a higher power bill. But I want to use the power, so I should be able to, right? But yeah, you can just ask people to "not do certain things" and as a general rule, they won't.
But if people would simply build more "peaker" generators, close to where the peak demand will occur, this wouldn't be a problem any more. Not at all. Those are usually diesel engine type generators, running on natural gas. Start 'em up at a moment's notice, run for a few hours, and shut 'em down. A bit expensive but it keeps the lights on. Extra cost is passed to the customer via variable rates. Nobody has to 'cut back', everybody's lights and air conditioners stay on. THAT is how modern society SHOULD be, not 3rd world "oh crap oh crap oh crap everybody shut things off, the 19th century power grid can't handle it." And then doing 'rolling blackouts' without warning...
"Pretty sure their lips move when they're reading, and that they use their finger to keep track of where they are in a sentence."
I should go all SJW regarding the 'having fun at the expense of people with dyslexia' but I can't stomach the thought of actually going through with it...
So let's just pretend I did, as a part of "illustrating absurdity by being absurd", while I pray to the porcelain god 'Ralph' and his son 'Barpholomew', and the car he drives, 'Buick'.
"Isn't someone developing an algorithm to steer "search and destroy" drones that can rid the planet of hornets and wasps"
genetically engineered diseases would probably work better [so long as they don't jump across species]
And then I'd like to add a few more bugs to that 'genocide' list, from cockroaches to biting flies. Nature WOULD fill up the gaps, with species that are less irritating [or resistant mutations, which we'd have to go after on a case by case basis].
'Obaka" is japanese for "royal idiot" or "honorable idiot". I specifically use it as a slang term for the previous occupant of the white house, the WORST president this country has ever had, who almost singlehandedly doubled the national debt, stifled the economy, created the WORST replacement for a previously working industry (medical industry and insurance) and along with his willing minions, calls EVERYONE a RACIST who simply disagreed with him...
his damage MUST be undone, and the sooner the better.
"The whole point of brexit is hate in one form or another."
that's right, throw ANOTHER "emotion bomb" at it, and do the ad hominem invalidation tango
and possibly this
because you are asserting that those who are FOR Brexit support it because of HATE
and this is obviously NOT true. (although you may find a few people that actually fall into this kind of hate-based reasoning, it would assume 'guilt by association' that EVERYONE agrees with those motivated by hate)
so thanks for the emotion bombs... [NOT]
"I have never understood America's xenophobia and attitude towards immigrants and foreigners, when you consider the entire country consists of immigrants and foreigners."
then I shall explain the TRUTH about what is happening...
1. it's NOT 'xenophobia'. That 'phobia' thing is wielded like a weapon by the left. It's total BULLSHIT every time 'phobia' applies to ANYTHING these days...
2. Illegal immigrants illegally entered the country with their children, in violation of the law, and THEN used PUBLIC FUNDS AND SERVICES to educate them and pay for their doctor bills, etc., and NOW they expect THE REST OF THE COUNTRY to "just accept them" simply because they tagged along with their parents while their parents were BREAKING THE LAW. What part of _THAT_ makes sense?
3. OBAKA signed "an executive order" to give these people green cards, all of which apparently expire within the next 2 years. Trump isn't going to invalidate them (which would force a mass deportation), but he won't RENEW them, either. If they want to stay, they'll have to get in line and APPLY like everyone else.
4. CONGRESS establishes the laws. Going around CONGRESS by "executive order" is something OBAKA was INFAMOUS for doing.
5. Existing law says you have to jump through certain hoops and meet certain requirements to LEGALLY work inside the USA. Those who do NOT do it "the right way" are IN! VIOLATION! OF! THE! LAW! and of course are subject to DEPORTATION, INCARCERATION, etc..
6. Feeling sorry for people is NOT a reason to "just let them in", especially when they'll end up USING PUBLIC SERVICES at the expense of tax PAYERS like me. *FEEL* is an 'F' word. It makes POOR decisions.
7. The United States of America is _NOT_ the "welfare teet" for the world. PERIOD.
8. Every nation on the planet has the _RIGHTS_ to defend and secure its own borders, and regulate who can come in and who must leave. Is the USA now _EXEMPT_ from this right, because, *FEEL* ???
Once again I expect a boatload of downvotes by stating the truth.
unions could be beneficial if they simply acted like contracting agents, while simultaneously getting good wages+working conditions for the employees, as well as good benefits, etc.. everybody wins, right?
but that would make too much sense [and doesn't have enough corruption in it]
are these vulnerabilities being exploited? perhaps by some of the illegal robocallers? Just wondering...
I considered setting up Asterisk on my home phone system at one time. It'd be kinda cool, and would help do messaging and keep the cold callers at bay - "press 1 if you are human" and let people get ahold of me that way. Aside from NOT wanting to spend money on a voice modem that's compatible with Asterisk [and a dedicated computer to run it on] I haven't done it, but it would be pretty cool, I bet.
Well, that's gonna have to wait a bit longer, until after it's patched.
[I messed with Asterisk a decade or so ago, when the company I was working for was trying to use IP phones over a wifi system with a steering antenna like the Siemens SE568 has - we wanted to see how it affected voice quality with wifi phones, with QoS and other stuff enabled - but nothing since then]
" It underlies decisions like Rowe vs. Wade that tend to piss a lot of people off when they discover the government can't compel behaviors they don't like."
unless it's the OBAKA-CARE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE (according to the Supreme Court, anyway)
/me still waiting for THAT @#$%-ing thing to GO THE @#$% AWAY and I will _CONTINUE_ to _VIOLATE_ that "law" until it does... because it's a "hardship"
if you flog it enough, it becomes *UNDEAD*
Anyway, Rosenstein's "audience" is more like "the D.C. Establishment" as he's one of THEM...
Don't these numbskulls understand that if you FORCE A BACK DOOR like that, you render the encryption WORTHLESS©®¶™? And then EVERYBODY will download some foreign entity's encryption, and/or use PGP, and/or use an algorithm OF THEIR OWN DESIGN [me], which would render this worthless argument into complete irrelevance.
Or, like 'gun control', if it's not "hitting the target by aiming properly" it's making sure that law abiding citizens cannot DEFEND THEMSELVES [because ONLY the criminals will have them].
So if we ONLY want terrorists and criminals to be the ones with proper encryption, then going THAT DIRECTION will ENSURE IT.
"But is looking at sexually explicit photographs of children child abuse?"
it is, not because of the content of the photograph (which coincides with your other arguments, actually), but because a child had to have been ABUSED to take the photograph.
I have known kids (friends of mine, when I was a kid) who were subjected to that kind of photographic abuse.
When I was a kid, I lived in a 'trailor trash' neighborhood for a while. One guy, a single guy who had lots of bicycle repair parts and a really cool boat, was a friend to all of the kids. He would ask the PARENTS if he could take them on weekend outings to a lake, etc.. My mother was rightfully suspicious, and the guy WAS a little creepy. One day she saw him at the local bar where she was moonlighting as a cocktail waitress. She saw him with naked photos of some of my friends, as I understand it (he was letting people look at them, trying to sell them apparently), and so she got the cops involved. The guy soon disappeared, and we never saw him again. His boat was towed away some time after that, and his mobile home also. I think he was arrested and caught with the photos in his possession. The bank probably repo'd the rest.
So yeah, the exploiting neighbor down the street, taking kids on weekend outings so he can photograph them, allegedly in compromising nude positions (because I never saw them so I can't say for sure), and then sell them to people in a local bar.
And that's why it's illegal just to HAVE these kinds of things, because an actual child was exploited to make that photo.
It would be a lot different if you're photographing disasters, wars, assassinations, etc..
"How can they know the hash value of a file unless they have access to it's decrypted content?"
they're probably looking for files WITH that hash value, which is probably known because the file downloads were being monitored [or something like that]. They have to prove THAT GUY has THAT FILE and then they have that part of their case evidence nailed up. The judge has apparently determined that the cops have cause for a warrant, and ordered the defendant to provide the information according to the discovery request, and he refused, and the judge probably issued a SPECIFIC order regarding the decryption of the data, and he didn't and now is sitting in jail.
My guess based on what I read in the article. It's probably close to what happened.
"Any legitimate patent holder will have actually made a product that they want to protect."
unfortunately, this cannot be held up as a requirement for a patent. the inventor can sell his invention (via the patent) to anyone, and doesn't require a working device in order to patent it. I think the presumption is that if it doesn't work, the patent is worthless anyway.
A requirement to publish patents and/or properly describe them might be helpful to stop predatory lawsuits from happening. Or not, considering l[aw]yers are involved.
"llegedly it tends to give too little weight to an individual's actual offenses and instead focuses heavily on the neighborhood they are from and their education"
if this is actually TRUE, then the appeals lawyers would have a FIELD DAY with it. So I suspect it is not. Unless the people who approved it are dumber than dirt. which is possible...
nice try, but I'm not buying.
people NATURALLY discriminate. You don't want the street person that begs for change in front of your favorite shopping center as your best friend, right? That's an extreme case, but it makes my point.
Men typically won't date women who are unattractive, unless they're feeling particularly undersexed and desperate. And we're willing to tolerate quite a bit for someone who's an 11 on a scale of 1-10. Yeah.
Women typically won't date men who don't earn enough money. Admit it. There are exceptions, of course, but I'm referring the general case here. You ladies just don't want THAT GUY burdening you, being a "hanger on" or "clingy" or crashing on your couch for 5 years.
Fat and unattractive people are regularly NOT hired in comparison to thin, nice looking people. It's a fact. This is why you always "dress for success" when interviewing for a job. (It also proves you have a good attitude, to dress for success, so that's a factor as well).
People who smoke are discriminated against, too. I mean, the ONE SMOKER in the office, who stinks like cigarettes all of the time, is constantly taking "a smoke break", yotta yotta. It's just FREAKING IRRITATING and so THAT guy typically won't get hired, and may be paid LOWER because "all of those smoke breaks" aren't getting work done. Yes, they're less productive, therefore not worth the higher wage that a typical non-smoker would earn.
Anyway, it's just human nature to discriminate. Not justifying outright racial or religious or sex-based discrimination, of course. Just pointing out that maybe it's not such a bad thing, to discriminate within a reasonable tolerance.
I was once asked to interview people for a job as an embedded developer. I asked one simple question: after identifying a problem I'd seen, with no obvious solution, I asked candidates how they'd approach it. The guy that was hired just said "I'd connect a JTAG or other debugger..." and that was the answer I was looking for. But one person applying, who happened to be a woman, seemed to talk a good game but couldn't come up with an answer like THAT one. I suspect if she'd been hired, regardless of her impressive pedegree, she'd have wheel-spun over otherwise solvable problems for MONTHS, making up excuses for not getting things done, etc. etc. and trying to fire her just might have invited the SJW brigade to claim "it's because she's a woman".
So yeah it wasn't because she was a woman that I wanted the other guy instead, it's because she probably wasn't someone who actually gets things DONE. Amazing how fast you can reveal that, too, if you ask the right questions [and my pedigree, compared to hers, is pathetic, so I guess pedigrees aren't worth the paper they're written on in the world of embedded systems engineering].
No doubt she probably continues to work for a large company where she can continue being 'somewhat mediocre' and yet fulfill the HR requirements of having more female employees (and thus stave off the blood-sucking lawyers and SJW activists).
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019