In which Scott Cook demonstrates he still doesn't have a clue.

I'd have to concur with many of the comments on the blog post. I didn't switch to Mint.com because it was free, or it was the latest shiny product. I may be young, but I'm not stupid, nor was Mint.com a fad decision. I switched because Quicken was big ball of a program, with poor support on my platform, a horrendous upgrade path, and notoriously poor customer service.

I didn't flee Quicken because I was rebelling. I left because I made an informed consumer decision.

Furthermore, I wonder how jobs like this effectively lower the expected cost for other business. When does the owner's brother approach me and ask why he can't have a top-notch custom webapp for $500?

Also: as soon as you need funding, location does matter. In-person access to investment shouldn't be discounted.

As the article states, Facebook is trying to bill itself as the social networking application for everyone. Like other pursuits dependent upon the majority, pandering to the lowest common denominator is a required strategy. Since the at-large societal norm in the United States is that female nipples are inappropriate, so must Facebook align.

Generalizations based on anecdotal evidence aside, I do have to agree with you on the lack of "institutional learning skills". Even with a bit of experience at public high-schools and community college, I wasn't prepared for the gaming, the time constraints, and the group participation required at the university level.

Quite often my freshman and sophomore years I'd end up pulling stupid hours because I got sidetracked on some tangent in a textbook rather than learning "what I was supposed to", or whatever was going to be on the test.

Learning for a very specific reason, and within a very specific timeframe wasn't something I was used to.

sounds like you got "distracted" learning, and had to refocus on "playing the game" -- what a shame that we have to do that to get through a so called education.

In my personal experience, we homeschoolers are as varied as "normal" kids. There were those incapable of dealing socially with anyone outside their immediate families. And there were those of us comfortable and capable of dealing with people of all ages.

Me personally, my social interaction outside sports was so varied I became much more adept at interacting with older and younger people rather than my own peer group. As a child, especially in middle and high school, I was often frustrated by the "rules" of peer groups. Dealing with people younger or older let me treat them as people - and vice versa.

There are several avenues already in place, availability varies by geography of course. Some anecdotes from one homeschooled through high school:

- Many homeschool families will form study groups for some of the subjects less conducive to individual study (such as music or hard sciences) and will have a knowledgeable parent or outside teacher lead a class or two a week. In grade school I took a homeschooling drawing class taught by a former art teacher turned homeschooling parent. But that was my only experience.

- My local public high school had no problems letting me on campus for part of the day to take a couple classes. I took a lab science class, and was in the music classes every year.

- Some community colleges offer a "Running Start" program for high school students, and they don't care which high school you come from. So my senior year in high school I was at the local CC part time learning German, taking Chemistry and an English class.

There are also a wide variety of "official" homeschooling programs that have popped up recently. Either the curriculum is rubber-stamped, or they bring in certified teachers. I didn't take part in any of that as it wasn't required by law, and I/we didn't see a need.

So those are my experiences. YMMV widely by geography.

Was there a primary reason for your home schooling?

As I understand it, the reasoning was three-fold. A better education than public schools, not enough money for a private education, and the desire for religious education.

It most certainly isn't a Rails-only issue. Women in technology seems to be a perennial discussion point with little change in the composition nor the results.

One reason that Rails seems to be the loudest right now is because Rails attracts (and was begun) by very outspoken, opinionated, people.

I think some progress is being made in terms of making workplaces more hospitable to women. Sexual harassment has been a recognized issue for a long time now, but geeks consider themselves too passive and harmless to harass anybody, so they have been slow to catch on. The underrepresentation of women in technology has stimulated some self-reflection about how the workplace atmosphere might put off technologically capable and interested women.

Still wondering how the "underrepresentation" is being measured. Who defines the appropriate percentage of women in technology, so that we can conclude that there are too few of them?

While I would prefer to have more female colleagues, I don't believe men and women can be compared just like that.