Theresa Tennyson Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Phil Deakins wrote: LOL I'd thought you were being serious He's got a point. "Programming" code is completely useless to a computer until it's compiled into a format the computer can use. It exists only to allow meat-brains to know what the compiled instructions are supposed to do. If comments aren't part of "programming" because a computer doesn't use them directly, nothing else in the human-readable file that may or may not contain comments is either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steph Arnott Posted February 13, 2016 Author Share Posted February 13, 2016 As the op was just a bit of fun some sure have got uptight about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theresa Tennyson Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 steph Arnott wrote: As the op was just a bit of fun some sure have got uptight about it. Are you saying your intention wasn't to talk about factual data, but instead to be five years old? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steph Arnott Posted February 13, 2016 Author Share Posted February 13, 2016 Your the one that started making it heavy. Was just a bit of harmless poking of gender. As statisical surveys are entirely reliant on what questions are asked another survey could conclude the opposite. Up to you if you want a big issue over whether a glass of milk is half empty or half full. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwalyphi Korpov Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 I'll admit that I'm easily confused. But. 78.6% acceptance for women (overall) 71.8% acceptance for women with gender neutral profiles 62.5% acceptance for women with gender identifiable profiles So.... is there a very high acceptance rate for women with profiles... idk...( identified as men? ) that results in the overall rate of 78.6% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steph Arnott Posted February 13, 2016 Author Share Posted February 13, 2016 It may true, idk, main problem is what countries are included, India, China, Japan etc, were they included? As a statistical analysis it makes an awful lot of assumptions based on very little gender evidence. Face book is awash with fake genders. I think the report was more about how (some) males veiw female created code. Was edited Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madelaine McMasters Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 The 78.6% was for both insider (well known to the community) and outsider women. Although it's not explicity stated, I get the impression that gender identity doesn't factor as much in the acceptance rate of insiders. That doesn't surprise me, known good coders are known good coders. If women write better code, and that's the most important criteria, then you'd expect women to have a higher acceptance rate, but not because they are women. The lower numbers were for outsider women only, where there's no history of code quality to consider and gender stereotypes play a bigger role, even if they're wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steph Arnott Posted February 13, 2016 Author Share Posted February 13, 2016 The survey showed that undeclared gender, womens code was accepted 78.6% of the time as soon as female gender was declared acceptance dropped to 62.5%. That is from the California Polytechnic State University and North Carolina State University study. https://peerj.com/preprints/1733.pdf if anyone wants to read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madelaine McMasters Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 The 78.6% acceptance rate is for all women (as determined by the researchers). I understand this to include insiders and outsiders regardless of profile. The acceptance rate for outsider females with gender-neutral profiles was 71.8%. The acceptance rate for outsider females with female profiles is 62.5%. They did not specify the acceptance rates for insider females (which I'd guess is higher than 78.6%, to make the numbers work), nor any profile effects on acceptance. So, we don't know if gender is still important for insiders, but it seems that insider status is important for acceptance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steph Arnott Posted February 13, 2016 Author Share Posted February 13, 2016 idk, i just gave you and whoever the report to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madelaine McMasters Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 I'm now reading the original research report, and it confirms that there is no difference in acceptance rate between women with gender-neutral and female profiles. As I suspected, good coders are good coders. Curiously, although no numbers are given, outsider males with gender neutral profiles have a higher acceptance rate than male with male profiles. The effect is less pronounced than for women, but it's there. The net effect is that insider women have a higher acceptance rate than men, outsider women have a lower acceptance rate than men and, overall, women have a higher acceptance rate than men. Here's the link to the full report... https://peerj.com/preprints/1733.pdf It's an interesting read, both for the results and the reasoning of the researchers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steph Arnott Posted February 13, 2016 Author Share Posted February 13, 2016 thats the same link i posted. typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madelaine McMasters Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 So it is, I should have noticed that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Theresa Tennyson wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: LOL I'd thought you were being serious He's got a point. "Programming" code is completely useless to a computer until it's compiled into a format the computer can use. It exists only to allow meat-brains to know what the compiled instructions are supposed to do. If comments aren't part of "programming" because a computer doesn't use them directly, nothing else in the human-readable file that may or may not contain comments is either. Naaa, he doesn't have a point. He said that it's only incidental that machines can run the code. He also said that code must written for people to read, which, of course, is nonsense. So I came to the conlusion that he wasn't being serious, either in the post I replied to first or in the post I replied to second. The way you see it, programming code is useless to a computer, as you said - unless you are using the word 'computer' in the way that we all use it, in which case programmes written in high level languages are very useful to a computer, because computers contain the wherewithal to compile and run it. or the programme wouldn't have been written on that computer. What you can't do, of course, is send the high level code to someone else and expect them to run it on their machine, unless you know that their machine is able to compile it. Incidentally, who are the meat-balls you refered to? Those who are only capable of writing in high level languages? Those who can't write programmes at all but can often understand some bits of a high level language programme? Or perhaps those who can write in assembly language but not in machine code? I think meat-balls abound But high level programming languages do not only exist to allow others to understand them..They exist specifically to make programming easier. And anyone who can and has written in assembly language or machine code knows how much easier writing in high level languages is. They don't exist for the reason you stated, but the fact that they do exist is very useful for that purpoe. ETA: I thought I'd better say what a "high level language" is, since I've mentioned it a number of times. High level programming languages are the easiest to write in. They inlude C, and it's variations, Basic, and it's variations, and many more, including LSL. They are easier to write in because they are close to English. There are 2 lower levels of language - machine code is as low as a computer user can go and, compared to high level languages, it's very very time-consuming. What's written isn't readable as such. Just above that is assembly language. Again it is very very time-consuming and unreadable like high levels are. There is actually a lower level still - the machine language that exists in the microprocessor, but we don't have any access to that. All the user-usable languages ultimately reduce down to that machine level language. And from there, it reduces even further to wires and gates So high level langauges are the easiest ones to write in - by a very very very long way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theresa Tennyson Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Phil Deakins wrote: Incidentally, who are the meat-balls you refered to? Those who are only capable of writing in high level languages? Those who can't write programmes at all but can often understand some bits of a high level language programme? Or perhaps those who can write in assembly language but not in machine code? I think meat-balls abound But high level programming languages do not only exist to allow others to understand them..They exist specifically to make programming easier. And anyone who can and has written in assembly language or machine code knows how much easier writing in high level languages is. They don't exist for the reason you stated, but the fact that they do exist is very useful for that purpoe. Meat-brains are humans, whose brains are made of meat and comprehend consistent abstract patterns of symbols as language, as opposed to computers, whose "brains" are made of silicon and "comprehend" patterns of on-off electrical pulses. High level languages exist to make programming easier for humans. And so do comments on what any given section of code is doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steph Arnott Posted February 13, 2016 Author Share Posted February 13, 2016 Meat brains is an insult, it refers to people that are stupid in your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theresa Tennyson Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 steph Arnott wrote: Meat brains is an insult, it refers to people that are stupid in your opinion. No, everyone's brain is made of meat. What did you think yours was made of? "They're Made Out of Meat" by Terry Bisson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steph Arnott Posted February 13, 2016 Author Share Posted February 13, 2016 For a helper you sure have an attitude problem. You allways so aggresive and rude? The first comment you made on this thread was aggresive and un called for. Seems that is what floats your boat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madelaine McMasters Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 That was a fun read, Theresa! http://www.techtimes.com/articles/7887/20140603/neil-degrasse-tyson-thinks-aliens-found-no-intelligent-life-on-earth.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madelaine McMasters Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 I thought Theresa was clear enough in her use of "meat brain" to distinguish humans from machines. Curiously, I do think "meat brain" could eventually become an insult, as machines surpass us in all those aspects of thinking that we associate with being human. Given the impending repeal of Moore's law, that may take a longer than Ray Kurzweil says, but I still think it will happen. But, if those machines are made out of meat (biological computing), they will need some other term to insult human intelligence. But that's okay, they'll be smart enough to make up one that we can understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radium Soup Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 steph Arnott wrote: Research of 1.4 million Github users shows we write better code. As if we did not know that fact anyway. LOL To attempt to link this article based on Github developers with the Second Life 'scripted-language-for-autiistic-people' is drawing a rather long bow. And nobody relevant cares about gender, so let's toss that strawman right out the window now. The "coder" roleplay is clearly a lot of fun and you certainly would not be the first SL person to think of embracing it, but in the SL context it's like Lego compared to the building industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theresa Tennyson Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 steph Arnott wrote: For a helper you sure have an attitude problem. You allways so aggresive and rude? The first comment you made on this thread was aggresive and un called for. Seems that is what floats your boat. I try to give people what they want. If someone comes here asking for help I'll try to give them that. If someone comes here to complain, spout off half-understood opinions and generally be a nuisance I'll reciprocate. (Incidentally, my first comment in this thread was a word-for-word quote from you, unless you've forgotten.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steph Arnott Posted February 13, 2016 Author Share Posted February 13, 2016 It is actually an insult and was meant that way by the OP., it also follows on from the second comment at the start of this thread. BTW it was pointed out to me by another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steph Arnott Posted February 13, 2016 Author Share Posted February 13, 2016 And that first comment was from another thread for which you cross posted and was irrelevent in this one and about autism, which i have and the other person did not, also no you do not have the right to decide ("If someone comes here to complain, spout off half-understood opinions and generally be a nuisance") what or whom is a irratant to you, that is not in your remit or right. This is an SL general discustion forum, not yahoo. BTW, have just been informed that cross posting of comments is a violatoin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Meat Brain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now