It’s like déjà vu all over again

[iamlost]

There are women in STEM. And many of them are pure awesome. Case in point:

Justine Haupt, who develops astronomy instrumentation at the Brookhaven National Laboratory (an out of this world maker? :) ) and whose tag line I’ve now added to my cork board of quotes: Running Debian, because if it's good enough for the International Space Station it's good enough for me. has built the most awesome rotary dial cell phone.

Yes, I did say rotary dial cell phone.

* Rotary Cellphone [justine-haupt.com]

[not2easy]

I like it. I see it was a labor of love, and quite the project. ;)

[lucy24]

Aww. It makes me think of my reaction to smart cars: every time I see one I want to run over and pat it on the head.

There are women in STEM.

Especially, sad to say, in backward and/or totalitarian countries. STEM fields deal with safe, noncontroversial, unambiguous facts*; as such, they are much less dangerous than the humanities and social sciences, where women risk being exposed to ideas.

:: noting irritably that the image is 3396 px wide and weighs in at 3.4MB, which just goes to show ... well, something ::

if it's good enough for the International Space Station it's good enough for me

Whenever I hear someone object to the use of “they” as an indefinite singular pronoun, I reply that if it’s good enough for Jane Austen it’s good enough for me.


* Assuming for the sake of discussion that “the earth is round” counts as a noncontroversial fact.

[NickMNS]

as such, they are much less dangerous than the humanities and social sciences, where women risk being exposed to ideas.

The scientific method is in and of itself the most "dangerous" idea.

And, your assumption doesn't hold, not in a world of alternative facts. Even the most unambiguous facts will be flipped around if for no other reason than to cause confusion and uncertainty such that no one will be able to differentiate between fact and fiction.

The rotary cell phone does solve one annoying problem, butt dialing! It is a shame that you can't text with it. I think I would pay to watch someone send a text message with it.

[iamlost]

Assuming for the sake of discussion that “the earth is round” counts as a noncontroversial fact.

Garumph...

The earth is neither a circle (2-dimensional) nor a sphere (3-dimensional based on circle) but an ellipsoid (3-dimensional based on an ellipse).

Except... when speaking of the dance of the four spheres that constitute the earth: atmosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere.

For we exist in a cubic 3-dimensional reality not a flat 2-dimensional drawing (despite the multitudes of cartoonish character inhabitants... correlation is not causation after all).

Although... I will accept the counterfactual model of a disc (3-dimensional based on round) resting on the backs of four (obviously) huge elephants that are in turn standing on the back of the enormous turtle, Great A'Tuin, who is slowly swimming through space... as a matter for serious discussion.

:)

[engine]

I love that phone, it's a real talking point, too.

For we exist in a cubic 3-dimensional reality not a flat 2-dimensional drawing (despite the multitudes of cartoonish character inhabitants... correlation is not causation after all).

lol, many people live their lives as if it's two-dimensional, until they suddenly become "aware", or to use modern parlance, to become "woke."

[graeme_p]

The scientific method is in and of itself the most "dangerous" idea.

As important as it is in terms of advancing knowledge, it does not have the immediate revolutionary potential of religious and political ideas.

Assuming for the sake of discussion that “the earth is round” counts as a noncontroversial fact.

Given that the idea of a flat earth seems to be enjoying its first revival after about 2,500 years (2,300 if you insist on a round* earth being reasonably well proven rather than a hypothesis) someone is going to say its controversial.

Especially, sad to say, in backward and/or totalitarian countries. STEM fields deal with safe, noncontroversial, unambiguous facts; as such, they are much less dangerous than the humanities and social sciences, where women risk being exposed to ideas.

Its more to do with poverty. People in poor countries put more value on pay and job security, which is to be found in vocational subjects. The same applies to men, and to poor democracies.

There are women in STEM

There are lots of women in STEM, but they are very unevenly distributed. Even at school level, my daughter is the only girl doing electronics A-level** at her 6th form college*** in her year vs about 35 boys. There are lots of girls doing maths and further maths and physics and chemistry. In general girls seem to be put of vocational STEM subjects (the T and the E).

A recruiter told me that companies in Europe are trying hard to recruit women programmers, but there are not enough to go round.

* by round I mean a shape in that class, not exactly spherical.

** British exams, usually taken at 18. Typically studying 3 subjects from 16 to 18.

*** British term for school for only 16 to 18 year olds.

[lucy24]

companies in Europe are trying hard to recruit women programmers

Someone will need to build a time machine. There were apparently lots of them in the 50s.