Women write better code

>>52941521
>study
That's the thing, just because there is a study doesn't mean it's true. If you really wanted to find a "study" that shows dogs are from another planet you could.

That's because women on Github usually make pull-requests like "Fix typo in comment".

Of course those are easier for maintainers to accept than actual changes that could potentially break the program's functionality.

>>52941521
Question: If that's true then why don't all women submit code under a non-gender online handle?

Answer: All women are vain whores who only submit code because they want approval attached to their name.

>>52941521
What about girls that are men?

>>52941521
Doesn't matter
It's all being oursourced to Indians

>>52942063
You're right

http://www.sciencejournal.com/canines-may-have-oringinated-from-mars.html

>>52942658
This. They should spend more time contributing and less time SJWing

>>52942925

Woah.

>>52942063
And just because it's a study doesn't mean it's not true. You have to evaluate it based on its methodology. While this study is not perfect, it was decently executed.

>>52942620
Wrong. In fact, women often contributed more lines of code. see
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/data-analysis-of-github-contributions-reveals-unexpected-gender-bias/

>>52942658
> If that's true then why don't all women submit code under a non-gender online handle?
Because "women" is not one person. Some women are different than others. One difference may be that one does not disclose their gender in an online profile.
>Answer: All women are
>All women
So you took a property which is *clearly* known to apply to a proper subset of women, and assumed the cause of this property holds for all women?
Here's a question for you: if all women are vain whores, and vain whores submit code under a gender online handle, why are some women submitting code under a non-gender online handle?
Hint: your original answer is wrong, dumbfuck

File: Laughing Animu Grills.png (223KB, 590x335px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 590x335px

>>52942960
>being this buttblasted
Jesus fuck are you a girl?

>>52943083
No. I just know how to read, and how to call people out on their stupidity and ignorance.

File: quackquack.jpg (59KB, 1368x1026px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1368x1026px

>>52943083
> reasonable rational arguments
"And just because it's a study doesn't mean it's not true. You have to evaluate it based on its methodology. While this study is not perfect, it was decently executed."

> buttblasted

m8

Their source is an article still awaiting peer review.

>>52943083
4chan is surprisingly full of lesbians, probably more prevalent than in tumblr.These lesbians also tend to be man hating, for some reason.

File: k den.jpg (165KB, 1298x160px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1298x160px

>http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/data-analysis-of-github-contributions-reveals-unexpected-gender-bias/

>Out of 4,037,953 GitHub user profiles with email addresses, we were able to identify 1,426,121 (35.3%) of them as men or women through their public Google+ profiles
>We are the first to use this technique, to our knowledge.

35.3% Omg, really? You mean, you expect this to be a comletely random representative sample? Well fuck me sideways.

>Could other GitHub users, who weren't snooping around on people's G+ profiles, identify the gender of a person contributing a pull request? To determine that, they created a sample of random profiles and used a combination of tools (including a panel of human judges) to infer gender from profile names and pictures. A profile was considered gender-neutral if it had a non-gendered user name like "fuzzlewump" and an identicon instead of a photo. Others were grouped into male and female.

HOOOOLLLLLLY SHIT. Science, brah! Why didn't they just introduce some fake results also, you know, coz, who cares? What about asking why the code had been rejected or whatever?

>>52942925
>oringinated

>>52943761

Also, on the Q&A page from a peer of one of the authors of this 'study':

>You do understand that the premise of this is completely false? That an evaluation of how many pull requests are accepted/rejected is of no value at all of it doesn't consider why the request was accepted/rejected. ie was it rejected because of bad coding, or because it didn't fit with the project aims and/ethos. For example anyone of those rejected pulls (from either gender (identifiable or not) might have been because the particular code modifictaion was a duplicate of something someone else had already done, or because the project owner doesn't want his/her code to contain that capability. etc.

>This looks like another complete misuse of data to represent something which the data doesn't prove in anyway, shape or form. Surely if you wanted this study to be of any value you would have gone back to the project owners to understand why rejects were rejected. Not assumed it was always because of gender bias and/or bad coding.

>I'm afraid this looks like so many other studies which reach similar conclusions. Performed with an already decided agenda. Hence the starting assumption that rejects/accepts would be because of gender bias, which led to the incorrect conclusion that this somehow gave some indication of the coding abilities of the identifiable genders, and bias against identified genders. All of which was reached without ever examining the code itself, or the actual reason for the reject/accept as given by the project owner. It's like you don't understand that correlation doesn't equal causation, and went onto produce a report to prove it.

https://peerj.com/questions/2037-what-is-the-purpose-of-producing-flawed-research/

>>52941521
How many times do you have to post this today? Your shift is over, go home Shlomo.

>>52942960
literally a cuck

File: 1452796408621.jpg (68KB, 622x588px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 622x588px

>>52940417
>>52940417
>>52940417

I already posted this at you. The same still applies.

Being a good programmer is not useful alone if you have any ambitions at all.

>>52941521
They didn't say the numbers, but it's probably like a 1%-3% better approval rating.

I don't get /g/'s hatred for women. Are you scared that they will take your jobs? With equality/inclusively laws etc.?

File: 1275409851858.jpg (44KB, 512x376px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 512x376px

>>52943831

b-but I just got here

File: 4L_6UCqPx3n.jpg (29KB, 560x293px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 560x293px

>>52941521
I would never accept a code contribution from a woman. The only code women contribute is code of conduct. Plus women can't handle the banter. You have to pretend their code is perfect and wear kid gloves around them and walk on egg shells because if you criticize them and hurt their feelings they will accuse you of rape and they will have you arrested as a sex offender. Women never advance anything, they just end up lowering the standards of what is acceptable and that is detrimental to progress in the long run. Women need to stay at home looking pretty, making and raising babies, cooking and cleaning.

>>52943761
>35.3% Omg, really? You mean, you expect this to be a comletely random representative sample?
I don't think that's what they were going for. Under normal circumstances, I would agree that a random sample is the golden standard, but it's really easy to get the entire population in this case.

The real problem is that they narrow their population to G+ users. My gut feeling tells me this nullifies the results of their study because (I think) G+ Github users are fundamentally different than non G+ github users

>"Could other GitHub users..."
Yeah, they really fucked up here. I guess we will have to wait (for peer review) to see if this tactic irrevocably fucked their study.

+ We don't tolerate intolerance
+ # politicallyCorrectVariableName += 1
- iGiveHead += 1

+25 Status: merged (CaptainCuck1992)

File: 4L_f9GHeP3P.gif (2MB, 500x298px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x298px

>>52943831
This dyke wishes she could have my bodily fluids but i'd never let her taste my sweet dick nectar!!

Self-selection bias lads. For most part, only the most talented women become programmers. Most women who are mediocre and bad simply quit. While plenty of mediocre men becomes programmers anyway, which brings men's average down.

>>52943478
Ever wonder why faggot men are happy and dykes are so fucking angry? They've done studies where most dykes are not dykes by choice. They are "forced" into being dykes because they are too ugly or repulsive to get the men they want. It's like guys who turn gay in prison because they have no other choice. Gay men on the other hand are usually seem to be more attractive on average and could get tons of pussy if they wanted too.

Tl;dr - most dykes are faking it and this makes them into angry anti-men blue haired beasts.

>>52943478
source?

>bbc

Teeheehee

Same people who think milo is satan in disguise. The most dangerous faggot on earth and all that.

>>52941521
>>Women

Tits or GTFO!

>>52941521
PPPFFFFFFFfffffffffffffahahahahaahahahaahahaaahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...
hold me, someone hold me, i can't breath....


ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahaha

>Big Black C**k news?

PPFFFFFFfffffffffhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!

File: braveheart.jpg (35KB, 400x333px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 400x333px

>>52945940
I got you senpai.

>HOLD!

File: 1375550728897.jpg (89KB, 500x488px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 500x488px

It sure is amaaaaaazing how women appear to just be better than men at everything. I mean, surely there cannot be cherry picked examples or the hiding of copious amounts of evidence to the contrary. Just look at how much better women are at driving compared to men also - btfo boys!

>>52941521
Bitch STFU and Code hoe.

File: Nyanpasu~.png (133KB, 594x500px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 594x500px

>>52941521
That seems like a lie. I'm pretty sure that gender has nothing to do with being a programmer.

>>52946004
They're really serious with this shit though....bbc....wow. i need a vacation.

>>52941521
>but only if their gender is not identifiable, new research suggests.
So how do we know if the average man programmer that leaves his gender not identifiable is even better? Seems like a cheap way to compare the top woman to the average man

>>52942960
>While this study is not perfect
its was completely ripped apart in peer review

>>52942960
>Wrong. In fact, women often contributed more lines of code.
>more lines = better
lolwut

ITT /g/ BTFO

>>52942960
>Wrong. In fact, women often contributed more lines of code. see
More lines of code usually equates to a worse solution

MEN BTFO

Isn't this the study that determined men or women stand a better chance of getting their code accepted if they have gender neutral indicators?

None of that article can accurately be used to support their statement

Literally
>implying

>>52941521
Looks like wearing girl clothes really does improve programming ability like /g/ said all along... time to get started boys.

>>52949757
No, it doesn't. To think so is so obviously ridiculous I can't help but think you're being weirdly defensive here. If the solutions are equivalent, then in many (probably most) cases yes, fewer lines is better. But e.g. a refactor is a more crucial than e.g. removing some curly braces from a single line if statement to comply with coding standards, and yet one of these has considerably fewer LoC involved (protip: it's not the important one).

>>52949757
This

>>52942960
GRILLL OR KEK 5/7 GUARANTEED

>>52949834
>No, it doesn't.
yes it does

>>52941521
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35559439


>not peer reviewed

Skimmed, stopped reading right there. Worth jack shit until the review process is complete.

>all this damage control

>>52949834
>No, it doesn't. To think so is so obviously ridiculous
Are you retarded? Genuinely curious as this is a basic principle that even dropouts understand.

>>52949834
You're retarded. The other guy is right.

>>52946505
In an ideal world, this is probably the case. But at this point, it's pretty undeniable that there is a large social pressure against women programming, the same way there's a pressure to keep, idk, men from doing ballet. And I'm willing to bet that your average male ballerina (ballerino?) is going to be better than your average female ballerina, much the same way your average female programmer on github is going to be better than your average male programmer on github. Why? Basically, natural selection. If you are so headstrong about getting into that area that you are unabated by social pressures, chances are, there's a damn good reason (or at least, a greater chance of there being a reason than when you have no social pressure against).

>http://www.bbc.co.uk/
hah

>>52949837
>>52949857
>>52949904
>>52949910
How can you people be this stupid? If solution A does fucking bounds checking on an array access while solution B doesn't, solution A has strictly more lines of code, and yet is strictly fucking better. Again, if the solutions are *equivalent*, then there is a very good chance that the smaller solution is better. But nowhere does it say that given an equivalent solution their code was longer, only that they have on average committed more lines of code.

If you fucking regex all newlines and contiguous whitespace out of a source file, you're not a better programmer, you're a god damned retard.

File: 1446440452223.jpg (62KB, 530x530px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 530x530px

>>52949959

http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/02/12/before-you-get-too-excited-about-that-github-study/

Gonna copy this from THE OTHER THREAD WE HAVE ON THE EXACT SAME SUBJECT

>>52949959
>if the solutions are *equivalent*, then there is a very good chance that the smaller solution is better
Actually, I'm sure I would even go that far. Real programs aren't code golf. Sure, I could write this context switch as a series of gotos, and that would almost certainly be fewer lines of code while being logically equivalent, but any time I or someone else had to modify the code later, they'd probably want to take it out back and shoot it.

>>52941521
Code of conduct is not code.

File: image_0.jpg (45KB, 711x669px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 711x669px

>>52942925
Wow.

>bbc.co.uk
>co.uk
>KEK

Now you know why the publish such rubish

>>52941521
One of these days I'm going to get a statistics textbook and crack some cunts' skulls with the fucker

File: Pull Requests.png (49KB, 983x573px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 983x573px

>>52941521
I don't see that with this study.

I see that when you have a group of insiders writing code and they are gender neutral, edits they make go through at about the same rate. When gender is identified, females have the higher acceptance rate,

When it is a bunch of outsiders writing code and the coders are gender neutral, females are more likely to have edits accepted. Once people are gendered, males have a higher acceptance rate.

Confidence intervals here need to be shrunk a little more but it appears that identifying your gender in the inside or outside scenario is a bad idea period.

At any rate, the study needs to actually be peer reviewed so the article OP is linking to is nothing more than click bait for now.

>>52950017
>he honestly thinks a random blog post is worth shit

>>52949722
>>52949757
I'm aware of that. However, you seem to be unaware that I am replying to the point about women only contributing comment changes

>>52944070
That's true I saw a study on it once.

>>52943830
>>52949848
>claim SJWs only care about muh feelings
>only argument against anything (including SJWs) is muh feelings

>>52942960
I sense you are a grill, a cuck, or a chivalrous white knight. I think you might be more comfortable posting on Reddit.

>>52941521
>>52942063
>>52942925
Legendary thread.

If you actually check the methodology, you'd realized the study is incredibly flawed.

>>52941521
Having now summarily read the paper, I am a little disturbed by their use of statistics. I have a nagging feeling that they don't even know what a null hypothesis is.

I am pretty convinced that there probably is a gendered difference in all this. And it could be a very interesting study. But I do not trust any of they conclusions after reading this.

The entire premise of the paper is flawed

> Our main research question was
To what extent does gender bias exist among people who judge GitHub pull re-
quests?

There is no null hypothesis here. Nothing you can test true or false. You can not refute it. If you ask a question this way, you will always find and effect.

When spotting a new planet, you don't go; "how much water is there on that planet". You go; "Is there water on that planet in the first place". Your null hypothesis is; "There is no water", and then you try to refute it.

When looking at the figure 5, it is obvious that you cannot refute the null hypothesis of men and women being equal with a confidence of less than 32% (one \Sigma), the lowest confidence bound ever used in scientific statistics. But I wouldn't trust their calculations for one second.

>Torture numbers, and they'll confess to anything. - Gregg Easterbrook

>>52942925
What the fuck

>>52941521


LMAO look;

>basic code accepted by dweeb and useless code edited to work in hope to get some pussy.

LMAO

>>52946113
>getting paid for recreative activities

>>has a vagina
>>submits code
>>uploads cute little avatar with a fun smiling wink
>>gets approved by sperglord droolmaster

Next you'll say women drive better than men because they get out of police tickets more often

> "new research"

taking bets on this "new research": who would actually be autistic enough to even "ask this question"?

hint: nobody who doesn't already have a preconceived agenda

>>52951991
Of course, the only type of person who would ask this question in the first place would be a social justice warrior.

Seriously, what kind of researcher asks "who writes better code"? What type of fucking moron would actually even ask this sort of moronically brain-dead of a question in the first place?

And using github? Are you serious? Jesus christ the entire thing is retarded.

Literally no one but social justice warriors would care about such an irrelevant thing, and the social justice warrior will always twist/bend/warp any statistic to fit their view if it doesn't already. We've seen it time and time again.

>>52942063

this. With the standard practice of p<.05, if left unchecked (and this is a study in social science, so of course it is unchecked), 1 in 20 studies will come up with a false positive

>>52943792

This reminds me of what is called 'torturing the data' in scientific circles.

Women: "hey equality pls"
Women: "hey look how much better we are men suck but equality pls"

>>52943906
>banter
Banter is for boys. Talking is for men.

>>52953925
White knight faggot detected

>women arguing that .bro is sexist file extension on github
manage to get it changed.

#killallmen

they do nothing but cause problems

Am I the only one here with a fake Gmail and Github account that uses pictures of a qt chinese girl to pass and I purposefully make shitty little contributions to big projects knowing full well that my picture alone will get it pulled?

>>52950210
>he thinks a non-peer reviewed paper is anything else than a blog post

retard