I have no idea about judicial system in New Mexico, but it's a curious state - college is free effectively for everybody in the state, for example. Also school lunches are free. It's a rare combination of poor and blue.
My take away, same as from Martha Stewart documentary, is that the law goes for you much harder if you are a woman. Musks or the world can deceive and produce vaporware for decades but God forbid you are a woman that's deceiving other men. A "b*tch hunt" somebody called it in Martha Stewart doc.
Respectfully, do you think you're shifting goalposts?
Your argument was that women were more punished by law. The studies (as someone else linked) show that women are less punished by law.
You switched your argument to "powerful women," which would require a lot of evidence, because it is contrary to the statistical expectation from the previous data, that women of all kinds would be less punished by law than their male counterparts.
Now, your argument and the study you linked just refers to how many women get promoted and the attention and criticism they get, which is separate from our legal system.
Lololo. It is exceptionally rare to be prosecuted, let alone convicted, as a woman.
The musk’s of the world are just exceptional at getting leverage - and pretty good/exceptional at manipulation.
Holmes was just good at manipulation, not so good at leverage, and eventually her fraud rose to the level even her manipulation skills were insufficient - and then had nothing to fall back on.
I did look up the numbers actually. On average women get lighter sentences for fraud, not exceptionally rare at all more like 30% shorter sentences. But on the other hand prominent women (CEOs) are much highly scrutinized, especially their departures so average and prominent here are not the same.
This is research conducted and published by an executive search firm in London, versus the mountains of actual academic studies somebody else linked on sentencing disparities.
The question of what to build rather than how is still central to development. If the article does point to success it's not as much a technical one but of product. That said I'd take these articles with a lot of grains of salt, knowing first-person how corporations spin their successes, including internally.
That's been my thinking lately. The SOTA models are good enough that they "solve" coding but still need directing. The product is still important. Products are human too, and need human attention (still).
Maybe that'll change in the future, but while AI can make awesome images without a good "director" they're pretty cookie-cutter and bland.
Yes, I think we'll find that technical limitations were never the bottleneck. I work for a large corporation and that has been the case here so far. Yes, a lot of things are faster, but issues with product vision, roadmap and cross-team friction aren't gone. They are actually maybe even harder to get right.
Yep, agreed. Like seemingly is the general opinion, taste and direction I think still matter a lot. Efficiency in it of itself is kind of ”solved”, but effectiveness, doing the right things, is not.
Personal responsibility leads to corporate responsibility which is the solve for structural problems. You can never impose a new structure to fix it unless you embrace some form of corporate responsibility which requires personal responsibility.
reply