throwaway93832's comments

throwaway93832 | 4 years ago | on: Apple's child protection features spark concern within its own ranks: sources

Only the priests of high are sacred enough to handle the artifices, to administer their truths to the gentiles.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-05-05/lapd-off...

throwaway93832 | 5 years ago | on: Testosterone levels show steady decrease among young US men

weights definitely does acutely .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoP6NCGb3oM

throwaway93832 | 7 years ago | on: Goldman Sachs UK reports gender pay gap of 51%

> The gap does not reflect the bank paying women at the same level differently from men

throwaway93832 | 7 years ago | on: Startups that launched at Y Combinator’s W19 Demo Day 1

> VanGo: ... “moms trust other moms,” ... all of them are women.

Straight sexism. Cause a Dad driving his kids to school has gotta be a creep or terrible driver or something?

>Bento Club:

Cheaper than what is already there? Food is a losing business and these guys are going to race harder to the bottom.

> Slapdash:

Is just https://www.appdirect.com/products/appwise/features

throwaway93832 | 7 years ago | on: Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards

I believe this is the law: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

throwaway93832 | 7 years ago | on: Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards

> Take a look at companies whose target customers are all women. Are you surprised to see a man on their board?

I actually agree with your point. I would mostly be surprised to see a man on their board. I also wouldnt expect legislation to require a man on their board.

However, the discussion also brings up the idea that a woman (and any other gender of person) could have expertise of value to that board despite their differing genderedness . The idea is like "You dont have to have cancer to be an oncologist" .

Still the idea of requiring it bothers me. I would have expected other forces to handle this situation instead of men w/ guns.

throwaway93832 | 7 years ago | on: Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards

This makes no sense.

So a company that has a target market of men must have a woman on the board? So an all woman board will be legal?

How female is female enough for them? Can someone just identify as a woman, or will there be a mandatory screening of what's between their legs (or what their DNA has)?

I predict the outcome will just be companies will move headquarters to another state (already happening because of taxes!) and/or the company will go private.