Girls in Tech closes its doors after 17 years

60 points4
dang2 hours ago

All: if you're going to post on a topic like this please make sure you're not just commenting out of reflexive activation. That's not what HN is for, as the site guidelines try to make clear:

On HN, we want comments that are thoughtful—i.e. that come from reflection, not reflex [1]; and specific—i.e. that have to do with what's different about a story, not what's generic. This is not particular to any topic; rather, it's an optimization problem: we're trying to optimize the site for intellectual curiosity [2], and these are corollaries of that.

The trouble with reflexive comments is that they repeat responses that have already happened many times—rather as if they're being served from cache [3]. The trouble with generic comments is that the generic level is too abstract to say anything new or interesting. Put those things together and you get repetition, the arch-enemy of curiosity [4].



[3] This, btw, is why such comments always show up quickly. Cached responses are the fastest to arise! The kind of thoughtful comments we're looking for take longer to "compute".


mikhael281 hour ago

There is an expression which I think is fitting, in a weird way - a successful marriage does not have to last forever. For some reason, we always tend to imagine that, once a company or organization is created, it must last forever. That for it to ‘close its doors’ or ‘wind down’ is somehow a failure. And that’s just not true; a professional athletes career does not last forever, and neither does the lifespan of most corporations or non-profits.

The organization accomplished what it set out to do; make the tech industry more inclusive and accessible to women. To a large extent, though it wasn’t a primary factor, it aided that journey nicely with its thousands of events that it organized over the years, according to this announcement.

It didn’t last forever, but it was never meant to - that would mean the presence of women in tech would never become truly equal to the presence of men. While its goal wasn’t ‘achieved’, this organization did what it could to move things in that direction and now, with its energy spent, it leaves the door open for new contributors to take the next step.

The arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice. Thank you to everyone who helped organize the events this organization hosted in the last seventeen years.

badgersnake50 minutes ago

She says she’s closing it “with a heavy heart”. It sounds like she wanted to continue.

ganoushoreilly43 minutes ago

I could read it as either way. It could be a sadness to see it come to and end, but still having full agreement the time has come. It could also be a sadness because financial hurdles or other operation hurdles are making it near impossible. It's hard, but I get it either way.

muglug1 hour ago

This was my attitude when I stopped maintaining a large open-source project that I had created.

None of us last forever, in life or even just in this industry. To have brought about some sort of positive change is more than good enough.

gramie1 hour ago

In fact, we consider a marriage successful if it ends in the death of one of the partners.

mikepurvis48 minutes ago

There are lots of possible definitions for success— making it until death parts you is the obvious one, but "success" can also be producing fruit in terms of community, family, or even career.

And there are of course marriages that make it until death, but the partners and everyone around them spend the whole time miserable; that's hardly a success either.

microtherion51 minutes ago

That's certainly a theory that Bluebeard would subscribe to.

mikhael2816 minutes ago

I learned something new thanks to your comment - never heard the story of Bluebeard before.

TrueGeek1 hour ago

Better article with more information:

> In an email Monday, founder and CEO Adriana Gascoigne said “Girls in Tech will be closing its doors due to a lack of funding in 2023 and 2024.”

neilv48 minutes ago

Thanks. Following a link from there:

> Nashville-based Girls in Tech Inc. may be forced to shut down by the end of summer. [...] needs to raise $100,000 or it faces imminent closure. [...] Girls in Tech has a membership of 130,000 "women and allies" across 50 cities and 38 countries.

Was the membership base already tapped out, or the org didn't reach out to the membership on this, or the org had larger near-term funding needs than the immediate $100K?

Also, is it possible that funding isn't the only consideration? For example, even if the org could be saved with heroics, there's opportunity cost to leadership (personal, professional)?

igor4750 minutes ago

Huh. You'd think all the organizations that attribute their challenges in hiring non-male engineers to a "pipeline problem" would've spent a small fraction of their recruiting budgets helping to fund Girls in Tech...

bdjsiqoocwk23 minutes ago

If the problem is solved, the funding disappears.

glitchc1 hour ago

Top comment, this is the cause.

grobbyy1 hour ago

At the risk of posting a reflexive comment, what should we be doing here? It seems like everything has unintended consequences (not on a cost-benefit basis):

- Minority affinity groups pull people from majority groups and decrease integration.

- Anti-discrimination/sexism/etc. movements often add social barriers to interactions (e.g. things I do within my identity group would be misperceived if done across)

- Affirmative action makes minorities feel like they don't deserve to be there (and often leads to resentment and other consequences)

Progress in the past few decades has been limited, so it seems like we're taking the wrong approach, but I'm don't have a better approach to propose.

Green fields, blue sky, what should we be doing to resolve the historical issues we have around sex, race, socioeconomic status, etc.?

I think looking to countries which made better progress might be helpful....

next_xibalba59 minutes ago

I have seen data presented multiple times showing the relation between a country’s wealth and/or economic freedom and women’s participation in stem fields. It’s a negative correlation. I often wonder if we should just be focused on maximizing individual freedom and let the chips fall where they may. This will result in some professions with extreme sex imbalance, and we should accept that outcome.

cultofmetatron45 minutes ago

> I have seen data presented multiple times showing the relation between a country’s wealth and/or economic freedom and women’s participation in stem fields.

This lines up with my experiences as well. I know plenty of eastern european women, asians and latinas working as programmers. on top of that I've talked to many that didn't know how to code but would ask me to teach them as soon as they heard I was a programmer. yet I have met only a small handful of white women from america that are software engineers. furthermore, the ones that aren't engineers (in general) seem more dismissive of my line of work as if its somehow beneath them.

ivan_gammel45 minutes ago

It is important to understand the reasons for that negative correlation. If you do, your conclusions would be quite the opposite - sex imbalance is not something to accept, but rather to fix. Many authoritarian regimes are expanding their economic base by enabling women to pursue professional careers. In some developed countries there’s no such pressure, so they are simply stuck in the past. They are not doing better because women are enslaved in the kitchen or take only stereotypical jobs. It’s just ideological and/or religious trap.

cm201237 minutes ago

The countries with the most female empowerment and equality in the nordics have some of the smallest percentage of women in STEM in the world.

ghaff26 minutes ago

Of course, there are a variety of roles that are heavily female-weighted: nurses, K-12 teachers, executive assistants, etc. So there are at least some forces driving gender preferences for roles that probably can't/shouldn't just be wiped out in the West.

gspencley28 minutes ago

> It is important to understand the reasons for that negative correlation.

Agreed 100%

> If you do, your conclusions would be quite the opposite

This is where you lose me. Your statement here suggests the following:

1. That you know, for a conclusive fact, what those reasons are

2. That the reasons suggest something ominous

Furthermore, you haven't explained what you consider to be the reasons, let alone offered explanation or citations that would support why you think those are the particular reasons. You implied that the reasons are sexism and discrimination, but you left that quite open for interpretation.

Moving on, you then suggest that minority groups that do not pursue careers in STEM are "stuck in the past."

I have two daughters who are in their early, going on mid twenties. My youngest daughter is one of the smartest and brightest people that I have ever met. Obviously I'm biased, but this is a kid that found ways to get herself into all sorts of trouble as a toddler by solving problems that I would have thought no toddler was capable of.

In her late teens she had no idea what she wanted to do, but she expressed some interest in learning to code. Being a software engineer myself, I gave her all of the support and resources that I could. I offered to teach her myself. I bought her Udemy courses and books. I invited her to sit with me at work to see what what life as a coder is like. I made it as accessible for her as possible.

What has she decided to do with her life? She works in a professional kitchen and is on the career path to becoming a chef and possibly a restauranteur.

People with your attitude would snub your nose at her life choices, look down at what she's passionate about and claim that she is a 'slave' living in the 'past' because she's currently working in a low-paid service industry. You would then blame sexism or classism despite the fact that she was raised in a progressive, well to do family that gave her every opportunity to succeed at whatever she chose to do.

Of course, one anectode does not refute statistics. But you have not offered statistics. You came out with assumptions, accusations and a snobbish attitude towards people who would make personal life choices that you don't understand or approve of. The beautiful thing about freedom, however, is that no one needs your approval or understanding.

jmull50 minutes ago

Your points draw the tension between two "competing" points. But none of these are black and white. There's a wide middle ground between each one... people can belong to multiple groups. A-holes will take any opportunity to be a-holes, but anti-discrimination doesn't have to be exclusionary and punitive. Affirmative action can work more at the opportunity level, not the handout level.

samatman13 minutes ago

To tackle your question somewhat obliquely: 67% of veterinarians in the US are women, according to this link.

The imbalance is even more acute than that, because the profession has been trending towards a women-dominated workforce for several decades. There aren't as many veterinarians as there are software developers, but it's a well-paying job.

Does this situation strike you as one which needs correcting? I'm fine with it, personally.

commandlinefan41 minutes ago

> Affirmative action makes minorities feel like they don't deserve to be there

Does it? I see a lot of affirmative action victims saying that it _ought_ to make them feel that way, but I never hear that from affirmative action recipients.

influx21 minutes ago

You’ve never heard anyone in those groups have imposter syndrome? It’s very common.

ramesh3153 minutes ago

>Minority affinity groups pull people from majority groups and decrease integration.

Integration === subjugation for minorities

>Anti-discrimination/sexism/etc. movements often add social barriers to interactions (e.g. things I do within my identity group would be misperceived if done across)

Indeed that's the point. You should be more mindful of things you do and say in this context.

>Affirmative action makes minorities feel like they don't deserve to be there (and often leads to resentment and other consequences)

And it pays their rent and provides social mobility for themselves and their families. We can get over the imposter syndrome; everyone has it for one reason or another. We can't get over being unemployed due to systemic biases.

Ultimately yes, for the prevailing group, DEI efforts will always feel like a personal attack. Levelling the playing field has that effect.

dpoljak2 hours ago

The reasons for closing haven't really been elaborated on, just commented on as sad and devastating; I haven't managed to glean anything more from the rest of the article.

However, it's incredible to me to keep an organization like this going for 17 years. The landscape is constantly shifting and looking back at the world and technology from 2007, and even 2014, they've survived a lot. Going down now just shows how bad the market is in reality.

netdevnet47 minutes ago

How is them going down related to the market? They are a non-profit.

This is pure speculation but I would imagine that they reasons for closing are likely resource related (most likely financial) as organisers and managers can be replaced

jmull40 minutes ago

I would guess they get most of their funding from tech companies who support and participate in their programs.

netdevnet24 minutes ago

That makes sense

bell-cot28 minutes ago

> However, it's incredible to me to keep...

THIS. In feel-good daydreams, every nice-sounding thing lasts forever. (Generally with Imagined Good People Somewhere(tm) paying the bills.)

Vs. in the real world? - I'd guess that they outlasted >99% of tiny tech non-profits founded in 2007. And >95% of all non-profits founded then.

Molitor59012 hours ago

Just skimming the 2022 990, executive compensation was $285,170. Total expenses $1,904,475 on $2,005,994 in revenue.

asah2 hours ago

Unfortunately this is normal, because running a non-profit is hard enough that suitable candidates command high salaries. I was on an NPO board with a similar ratio and we couldn't get it down.

bitcurious1 hour ago

That comp $ is very reasonable in the abstract, what's not reasonable is comp:revenue. You can't be paying 15% of your revenue to a single individual, because almost by definition they aren't performing well enough to justify that salary.

pbronez31 minutes ago

Even when that person is the founder? Who created the thing and keeps it going through personal force of will?

Doesn’t seem unreasonable to me. You want high quality people to be able to focus full time on stuff like this.

Workaccount218 minutes ago

Especially when that person is the founder lol

nothercastle1 hour ago

300k isn’t crazy especially in SF that s not going up get you far

lenerdenator1 hour ago

Perhaps we should stop concentrating so many opportunities in areas with exhausted resources that are needed to host an economic sector.

nytesky1 hour ago

Doesn't CEO and non profit operate out of Nashville?

shrubble2 hours ago

Non-profits closing means there is a financial reason; were there grants monies that ran out? Did another "women in STEM" non-profit get corporate sponsorship instead? The article doesn't say.

Hasu2 hours ago

The (economic) purpose of Girls in Tech is to create more workers in software so that prices for labor will go down.

Given the layoffs of 2022-ongoing, labor costs in tech are dropping enough that interested parties aren't incentivized to increase the supply of labor further.

netdevnet45 minutes ago

> so that prices for labor will go down.

I don't think that's the reason (it is a side effect though). What makes you think that?

JKCalhoun1 hour ago

> interested parties aren't incentivized to increase the supply of labor further

It's good when a profit-driven industry decides to stop trying to cut expenses.

pydry2 hours ago

For the corporate donors, sure. Im sure the people running it were genuine though.

csomar1 hour ago

> Im sure the people running it were genuine though.

The people running it are getting paid to run it. It's a job. There are few people who do charity for charity but for most people I met working for non-profits, it was just a job for them. Doesn't mean they didn't love their work or did their best but at the end of the day they need a pay check like everybody else.

mdgrech231 hour ago

There was a bootcamp by me. They had a squeaky clean image but were getting big payouts from placing candidates in a local fortune 500. People get used to that money.

nsonha2 hours ago

> so that prices for labor will go down

wut? Any one creating anything is DELIBERATELY driving price of that thing down for you I guess.

randomdata1 hour ago

Yes, anyone who deliberately increases the supply of something does so in an effort to diminish the price of something.

muglug1 hour ago
simplicio21 minutes ago

I mean, that's the effect of increasing the supply, but I doubt its the motivation for most people.

AnimalMuppet1 hour ago
AmericanChopper1 hour ago

> After all, that's why the opposite situation: Collusion – where actors try to deliberately limit the supply of something, thereby causing price to rise – is illegal.

Unless they’re a union.

lkdfjlkdfjlg16 minutes ago

Very interesting.

At my company (tech) I've noticed that for the past 2-3 years grads are almost 50% women.

Now, I have absolutely nothing against this outcome. But I do wonder - instead of optimizing for a specific distribution of employee features shouldn't we be optimizing for hiring the best?

And you could say "they are the best, 50% of the best are women".

That's a possible explanation! However.... 5+ years ago when grad were roughly 100% men, weren't we hiring the best then? Surely back then they also thought they were hiring the best. Surely 5 years ago if you'd told the hiring manager "hey from those 20 people you hired, 10 aren't the best, 10 the best are these other people and they happen to be women", the hiring manager would've said "no way, we don't look at gender when hiring, we just hire the best".

My point is that we didn't understand why back then we were ending up with 100% men despite the fact that 50% of the population are women. We just mandated that 50% should be women. This seems to be like you believe you have a bug and you tweak something at random. Now it's different and you think it's fixed.

Anyway, they don't pay me enough, so I don't care :-)

glitchc1 hour ago

Running out of money is a common cause of business failure, non-profit or otherwise. Seems like their donations dried up with the economic slowdown.

I'm sure they'll be back up and running once things pick up. Orgs such as these are easy to restart.

netdevnet40 minutes ago

Easy is relative. And just because it might be feasible to do it in 5-8 years, it does not mean that the founders will be in a position to start it

knowaveragejoe37 minutes ago

What/which economic slowdown?

dang2 hours ago

[stub for offtopicness]

ecmascript2 hours ago

Good. I have always thought these groups are kind of backwards thinking anyway. They want a society where everyone can thrive, yet they create orgs that create incentives that only are viable for a portion of the society.

We need to face people as individuals which all could come from a background that makes it harder for them to succeed in a specific industry.

newsbinator3 hours ago


dang2 hours ago

"Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes."

(This comment is all 3, and in fact is the ultimate cliché of this topic, and has been for many years. We're trying to avoid repetition here, and especially ultrarepetition and indignirepetition.)

another-dave2 hours ago

> There's a gender gap in waste disposal and kindergarten teaching, but there's no "Girls in waste disposal" or "Boys in Kindergarten teaching".

* Building a Gender-Balanced Workforce: Supporting Male Teachers —

* NYC Men Teach —

* Men in the Early Years —

* Women of Waste —

* Biffa (UK waste management company) outreach to women —

strikelaserclaw3 hours ago

every group tries to fight for equality and once thats achieved or close to achieved, they try to fight for an advantage, it is unfortunately rooted in the selfishness of human beings. Women seem to be attending college in greater numbers than men, soon we'll need programs to help men get a boost.

worthless-trash2 hours ago


n4r92 hours ago
grugagag1 hour ago

Closing the age gap feels like an artificial goal. It’s like forcing 50-50 on a group. Id much rather see incentives that change behavior and whoever the heck is inclined to be in the group feels welcome and isn’t spooked.

subjectsigma2 hours ago

A better example is nursing. Growing industry, decent pay depending on where you work, very beneficial to society. Also highly gendered, in some cases there’s even a stigma against men in the field, and people largely don’t care about correcting the gender imbalance.

weard_beard3 hours ago

Well, computing is a profession where historically women were not only good at it, they were nearly exclusively occupying the industry.

When pay went up it inverted and that is really the problem. Men colonized computing and pushed women out only when it became a source of good income and respected as a profession.

jordanb2 hours ago

I've heard this before but I read a book called "Computing in the Middle Ages" which was a memoir of a man who worked on the SAGE, LINC and Xerox Parc projects.

According to him, programming especially in the batch era was a highly social and manpower intensive activity with a large community of support staff and operators around the computer. People who wrote the actual instructions did so on coding sheets, which they would hand over to punchcard operators who would punch them out, and then they would be given to computer operators who would feed them to the computer.

The majority of the operations staff in these computing centers were female, but the majority of the people writing the instructions on the coding sheets were male.

The rapid decline of women in computing pretty much corresponds to when a lot of these support roles were going away with the rise of interactive computing.

That being said I've personally met a lot of really excellent female programmers. I do think there is a tendency to steer women out of the industry or into product or planning roles. Based on that book though I think the narrative of "computing used to be mostly female before they were pushed out by spergy males" misunderstands the structure of the early computer industry and how it changed with evolving technology.

bena1 hour ago

Also, I believe they’ve flipped cause and effect. They claim that pay went up then men moved in, but they’ve actually found the opposite.

When men begin to dominate an industry, pay overall rises. When women begin to equal the number of men in a field, pay overall falls.

So there’s not a single issue, but really a whole host of interconnected issues that are hard to untangle.

imiric2 hours ago

> When pay went up it inverted and that is really the problem. Men colonized computing and pushed women out only when it became a source of good income and respected as a profession.

You're using some loaded terms there. How exactly did men "push" women out of computing?

Women were just as free as men to create their own tech startups. Yet in the past 50 years most tech startups and today's tech giants were created by men. Some women are tech entrepreneurs today, but the field is highly male dominated. We see the same ratio in engineering education, and in most companies not actively discriminating against male candidates.

The idea that there is some systemic discrimination against women in tech is ridiculous. There are specific cases of wage gap some companies need to address (which is a general problem not exclusive to tech), but most companies would hire capable women if they applied. Yet they rarely do.

ben_w2 hours ago
SideQuark2 hours ago

> they were nearly exclusively occupying the industry

That was true when computing was running tabulating machines. That led to the early ENIAC programmers (all 6 of them) being women since they had traditionally run the tabulating machines. However men had been programming before this (e.g., Zuse, others developing hardware and testing it).

Once "computing" became what modern people think of as programming, men dominated, not because of sudden sex discrimination or exclusion in computing, but because the input pipeline of what a programmer did changed to people coming from academia instead.

The first computer science degree in the world (Cambridge 1953) drew students of math and engineering. The first in the US (Purdue, 1962, first MS degrees 1964, first PhDs 1966) did the same.

So it's likely as the field expanded women were not pushed out as much as more men joined in.

defrost2 hours ago

Sad to see you downvoted for a comment that's true to history.

The pre personal computer days had an army of women in computing.

The UK had “Steve” Shirley, she built a billionaire dollar tech company in the 1960s

Growing up it was largely women that taught me how to fly and maintain aircraft, how to set the timing on shot holes to take apart square kilmetres of iron band mesa, to build robots (long before Boston Dynamics), to write exploration geophysics software, serious combinatorics, etc.

ta16355472 hours ago
ellisv2 hours ago

Just because a gender gap exists in Y, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t also try to minimize it in X.

knorker2 hours ago

You skipped a step, though. Why is the assumption 50/50? Yes, there's the null hypothesis, but the null hypothesis shouldn't survive too much contradicting evidence.

shrimp_emoji2 hours ago

We shouldn't try to do anything. Social engineering doesn't work, and you're being racist/sexist/etc. while you're at it, making everyone rightfully resent you.

b3ing3 hours ago

They don't want the dirty or manual jobs, only the high paying ones.

I've seen studies on this before and women tend to go for more social jobs, maybe its upbringing, but I think part of it just there nature.

strikelaserclaw3 hours ago

i don't think women should be discriminated against in whatever profession they want to go to if they have the ability but i also believe men and women are different in terms of interests and women and men will never reach 50-50 parity in engineering type professions.

InDubioProRubio2 hours ago
arunharidas2 hours ago


dang2 hours ago

Please keep flamebait like this off HN. It leads to tedious internet tedium that inevitably turns nasty [1].


blueflow1 hour ago


dang1 hour ago

It can be both, no? But the issue here is the predictable effect that certain kinds of comments have on internet threads.

throw0923091 hour ago


dang1 hour ago

We detached this comment from and banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological/political/national battle. Not what this site is for, regardless of which ideology/politics/nation you have issues with.

hi_dang_28 minutes ago

The intro commentary to these threads is getting more and more absurd.

surume33 minutes ago

This is excellent news. There are many stories of abuse, harassment, and vile misandry occurring at Girls in Tech. Where there's smoke, there's fire. They are probably shutting down to avoid onerous lawsuits. Sayonara!

bdjsiqoocwk25 minutes ago

> Without explanation, Gascoigne said in closing, “Though Girls in Tech is closing its doors, the movement we started must and will continue.

myth_drannon2 hours ago

Tech industry is imploding, there is no need whatsoever to push women (or men) into a career in tech that has very limited opportunities at the moment.

Rinzler891 hour ago

More like easy tech careers that pay big from the get-go after a bootcamp are imploding. Those workers with a lot of experience and those with the skills, passion and patience, willing to push through the rough tides will be rewarded in the end.

However, SW dev is still a tough career, requiring constantly learning the new things in your free time if you want to stay employable, that's not to be understated, especially considering the ageism in this racket, and how quickly things become obsolete compared to other credentialed professions where you're basically set for life once you get that piece of paper and not have to go through rounds of hazing interviews and take homes every time you want to switch jobs. It's not for everyone.

taylodl1 hour ago

I've been developing software for a living for 40 years now (even longer if you include when I wasn't developing software for a living) and I feel that the pace of change has dramatically slowed down in the past 10 years:

- We've stabilized web front ends

- Mobile application development has stabilized

- Architecture patterns are well-known and there are plenty of (now legacy) products with which to implement them

- Ditto with integration patterns and APIs

- We finally have security figured out (OAuth) and I now have the means to identify and authenticate a person who's not even in my own repo

- We have tools such as Copilot taking the grunt work out of coding - leaving developers to work only with the most interesting bits

- I could go on with lots of stuff that has now matured

I feel like it's easier than ever to develop software, and like I said, the pace of change is rapidly diminishing. I think software development has finally become a mature practice. Admittedly, that takes some of the fun out of it, but we knew that day was coming anyway, right?

Rinzler8920 minutes ago

>I feel like it's easier than ever to develop software,

It's also inversely proportional more difficult to get hired nowadays in those fields though.

Back then when (for example) mobile dev was just getting started you could get hired with absolutely zero experience since nobody had any experience, but now there's a laundry list of requirement even for junior positions which are few compared to senior positions and the strict requires there in terms of experience.

Good for those who already had 10 past years of experience and learned the necessary background knowledge, bad for those entering now when the bar has been raised.

netdevnet32 minutes ago

I feel saying that the industry is imploding is an exaggeration. We are just having a room cleanup period.

- Crypto/ML startups built on promises

- Companies built on the latest buzzword (LLM startups will have their Judgement Day by 2027 latest)

- Companies giving crazy high salaries to inexperienced people straight out of bootcamps

- Companies spending crazy money on "perks" such as free food and in-office entertainment

- Companies paying big bonuses to all tech employees

- Companies overhiring so that the competition remains understaffed

Money is not free anymore. Everyone is looking where the pennies go. Companies have behaved like your average Amazon customer and have filled their companies with subscriptions they don't really need (see overhired employees, perks, high salaries). Belt tightening is the mood.

lenerdenator1 hour ago

From my purely anecdotal experience, it's not imploding. It's just not a way to get a salary that's $250k+ as easily as it was.

If you enjoy software engineering and are willing to take a job in some place that's not SV, NYC, Austin, Seattle, etc. you can still find jobs that will allow an above-average salary and comfortable living. It's just not going to be at FAANG or Evil Omnicorp LLC.

imglorp1 hour ago

It sure feels like it, yeah.

But is there an objective time series measure somewhere?

oldpersonintx42 minutes ago


nytesky1 hour ago

Since it's founding, we've seen Gamergate, the rise of Brogrammers (, and Changs book on Brotopia.

I could see it if stakeholders feel they are engaged in a quiotic endeavor...

As a father of 3 daughters, I still see a push for women in stem, but anecdotally my youngest is often the only girl in such activities.