Good god, the comments on this article. You'd think the author went deliberately out of her way to not photograph women, and that she did so as a personal affront to the commenters.

A convenience sample is going to exclude women when you're targeting entrepreneurs, VCs, and engineers in the wild.

It could also be that the author was just less intimidated by approaching men than women.

I would feel awkward walking up to strange women and asking them if I could photograph them for an article I was writing.

Maybe the article should be titled "Men's fashion in Silicon Valley", which would be more accurate.

> the article's credibility is killed by the use of the word dead

How? The author clearly doesn't mean "out of business" when he says "dead". He means that what Microsoft once was, or what it represented, is dead. The idea once conveyed by the word "Microsoft" is dead. It's not sensationalist clickbait, it's a metaphor.

Well he may mean that, but that's not what comes to mind when most people think of the word "dead." And picking that particular word to use as liberally as he does comes across as overly dramatic.

I suspect this article may have been written for an audience with a collectively higher level of reading comprehension than what you describe.

Are you implying that every single passenger aboard a normal commercial flight is there for some absolutely necessary, useful purpose? I'd wager not, in which case a large quantity of the fuel used in the normal course of operations is also 'wasted' - or, at least, used sub-optimally - the passengers being the only reason the flights are undertaken in the first place.

"Are you implying that every single passenger aboard a normal commercial flight is there for some absolutely necessary, useful purpose?"

Are you implying that nobody should spend so much as a thousandth of a second hesitating before wasting trillions of dollars worth of a resource which represents 100% of the world supply that will ever be available, when retaining even a single ounce of that same resource could have been used to save the lives of 3 billion people?

/s

(jeez, read what you're responding to and your response. I'm making fun of it with this post because your style of response is so ridiculous.)

No, I am not. You're right, nothing is absolutely necessary, there is not point arguing about this.

But let say that if I had to cancel one flight to save money / fuel, I would cancel this one rather than a standard flight.

But dude, football! And the twelfth man! And stuff!

>You're right, nothing is absolutely necessary, there is not point arguing about this.

Don't you hate when arguments get to this point?

You know what else isn't a waste of fuel? Dumping thousands of gallons of it onto the ground and burning it. I mean, who doesn't enjoy a good bonfire, right? You cannot prove that I don't!

Apparently, this route was the result of a test flight. Really the only legitimate explanation for something like this.

So you would cancel this test flight of a new 747 freighter variant and possibly end a multi million dollar program just because they flew it in the pattern of the number 12?

That sounds an awful lot like "we don't have enough time to test our code"

Intentionally provocative? It's simply a counter argument.