Allegro.cc - Online Community

Allegro.cc Forums » Off-Topic Ordeals » StackOverflow developer survey 2017

This thread is locked; no one can reply to it. rss feed Print
StackOverflow developer survey 2017
Mark Oates
Member #1,146
March 2001
avatar

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

{"name":"5pFOnf5.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/5\/356631dbf94aeda858867e6c52ef045d.jpg","w":288,"h":290,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/5\/356631dbf94aeda858867e6c52ef045d"}5pFOnf5.jpg

I think you have to be careful to take results like this with a grain of salt.

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

The majority are web programmers because those are the people copy-pasting everywhere. ;)

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

Gender: Male, Female... OTHER?! Was there a new discovery in genetics I missed? LMAO

--
Deluxe Pacman (website now gone)
"I am not ashamed of my belief in God."

Aaron Bolyard
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

Well, gender (social) is different from sex (biological), so, yes, I think you missed something.

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

;D

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

Well, gender (social) is different from sex (biological), so, yes, I think you missed something.

Sorry, there's male, female, and people with mental problems.

--
Deluxe Pacman (website now gone)
"I am not ashamed of my belief in God."

Eric Johnson
Member #14,841
January 2013
avatar

I suspect this will become one of those threads soon... ::)

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

Eric Johnson
Member #14,841
January 2013
avatar

Come now. Surely you've heard of hermaphrodites.

Hermaphrodites are just a myth, just like narwhals and dwarfs.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

Neil is coming off kind of ignorant, but I don't think that he's entirely wrong. I think that gender/sex has become a censored subject somewhat. Gender is a tainted subject ever since Feminism gained acceptance and power. Meaningful research cannot be done anymore because it might contradict the politically correct narrative.

I believe there is a spectrum of gender personality, but biologically we are male or female, and the mind is a tricky thing. I don't think that we should give individuals the freedom to choose which side they're on in regards to shared usage of sexually defined facilities. In some instances it may make sense to provide them with a single-person facility open to all. That's fine. In cases where resources are limited and shared facilities are necessary, I don't think too many of us would be comfortable sending a daughter into a washroom where a man identifying as a woman is present. Or visa-versa, probably.

I've heard that transsexualism is more of a mental disorder/illness than a true state of being, and that it's common for them to be generally unhappy/depressed/suicidal when they undergo conversions to what they think they want. I'm not too familiar with it myself, though I've done a bit of querying into it out of curiosity. It's certainly easy to understand if true.

I generally try to be pretty tolerant in any case. If it doesn't affect other people I think you should generally be free to do as you please. Things aren't so easy when it does affect other people. I don't think that being a delicate flower is any justification to make everybody else cater to your own whims. If it was I'd come down with blueballitis in a hurry (if I were still a single man) and demand blowjobs from beautiful women. >:(

Aaron Bolyard
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

bamccaig said:

Meaningful research cannot be done anymore because it might contradict the politically correct narrative.

This quote, without context, can easily be attributed to a climate change denier or anti-vaxxer.

"Science doesn't agree with my beliefs about X so science must be biased."

Yeah, bullshit.

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

bamccaig said:

Meaningful research cannot be done anymore because it might contradict the politically correct narrative.

This quote, without context, can easily be attributed to a climate change denier or anti-vaxxer.

Tell that to the ONE DEMOCRAT MAYOR who dared to vote against abortion rights. He's now national news. Seems like there's a glass ceiling on Democrats who don't toe the company line.

Likewise, Scientists are not immune. You can only study things you can get GRANT money for. And there are HUGE swaths of political money for liberals studying "gender" and the like. There is no Department of Conservative Politics, the way there is a Department of Gender Studies and Department of Feminism (masquerading as "Women's Studies") on every campus. I could, if inclined, find over a dozen stories of professors who were attacked and even national news ran opinion articles attacking the concept of TENURE so that these angry liberals could destroy their careers. (Seems like a fun past-time for liberals these days is taking people's jobs. Nothing sure says "I disagree with you!" like taking away someone's ability to feed their kids. And because tenure prevents destroying people, they're against it. What compassion!)

Whereas (it at least seems like) the "conservative" money only involves either corporate bribes ("Coal is healthy OMGAWD", "Soda is healthy OMGAWD."), or other niche conservative platforms. They don't meddle with general science the way liberals do.

All that aside, note here: PLATFORMS != uniform distribution of resources. Anything that doesn't line up with someone's political agenda, isn't necessarily funded. And "The Truth" is rarely conveniently located inside an agenda. Agenda's push beliefs that are known, usually, so they're not likely to fund stuff to attack one's beliefs. People in power, rarely fund / push / allow things that would reduce or remove their power. Why would (most) people on the top want something that would throw them on the bottom, even if it's "for the better of society?" (Kind of like how NO congressmen and women actually want to reform congress. Why change 'The System' if that very system is the one that got them elected? Elected = The Top = Winner. Likewise, splitting California into multiple states or giving D.C. or Puerto Rico, or Guam statehood would change the electoral map from one EVERYONE knows how to game, to a brand new system they don't have any idea how to game. Therefor, it doesn't hapepn.)

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs

Aaron Bolyard
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

Here's an example:

There's no research done on the earth being flat. This does not mean geologists or astronomers or whatever other fields would do such studies are being biased. There is a is a consensus--the earth is spheroid--and thus there is little to no need to try and research otherwise.

Not all ideas have the same validity. Yes, there are problems with funding in science, and certain directions receive more funding, but to disregard entire fields as being controlled by certain agendas is bullshit.

You wouldn't say climate chance is controlled by a political agenda (well, unless you don't believe in climate change, but I digress), so why is sociology or biology or psychology any different?

I'm just trying to highlight the bias ("feminists politicize science so psychology/biology/sociology research is biased" in comparison to "environmentalists politicize science so climate research is biased" or "pharmaceutical companies politicize science so vaccination research is biased"), that's all. If you (this is a general you) have beliefs and refuse to acknowledge they may be wrong, instead claiming the evidence compiled by scientists or academics is biased by some agenda, then you're literally pulling the same card as climate change deniers and anti-vaxxers. And without credible proof (i.e., peer-review articles--not anecdote or cherry-picked examples) that there is bias, you're no better.

(But wait, I've laid a trap: academics and scientists refuse to acknowledge they're biased on-the-record so you can't provide peer-reviewed articles of feminist politicization! I'm so devious! ;D)

Gideon Weems
Member #3,925
October 2003

New statistic:

  • Stack Overflow uses the phrase "level up" six times in presenting their survey results.

Go to: