Remote: Sure

Willing to relocate: Yes, to SF, NY or other major city

Technologies: Startup CTO, and advanced iOS and Mac apps from start to finish

Résumé/CV: Apple, MLB, Marshall, various startups. Theoretical physics M.Sc. + classical languages + finance.

Email: arrow_02_paddies [cinnamon bun] icloud [dot] com

So even if we limit "aptitude" to a strictly genetic sense, it will still explain most of the difference in math ability at 7. All other factors related to growing up will add up to less than half of that.

Regarding practice compensating for genetics, I am not talking about having more supportive parents or more demanding pre-school, I am talking about Asian level hardcore drilling. That can certainly make up for most of the difference, at least when it comes to basic mathematics. But that means that the concepts that a child with math aptitude will pick up in 5 minutes will take 5 hours of drilling for another child.

Of course it’s not fair, life isn’t fair. But the good news is that you can quite easily compensate for lack of aptitude with more work, and that is most definitely the case for mathematics, up to and including undergraduate level.

I grew up in Sweden where everyone goes to the same kind of pre-school, that does very little math teaching. Still, the difference in aptitude when we started school was significant. But we all know this.

In my experience aptitude plays a far bigger role. Yes, you compensate for lack of aptitude with a lot of hard work, but that’s a different matter.

It is usually easy to understand if you just look into it.

No, obviously not. A "chairman" can just as well be a woman. What it does imply is just that _historically_, chairmen were mostly men. You might object to the word because its etymology reveals a past where men occupied these roles, but it is not true at all that the word today implies anything about the sex of the person.

> That exact type of usage is when I use "they" to refer to a person of indeterminate gender, e.g. someone to be hired.

Yes, if you are giving instructions to the guard at the front, telling him (sic) to "let them in", that is the traditional, organic usage. Which is distinct from the politicised usage where you either know that the candidate is a woman but still say "them", or its a person that considers herself "non-binary" and insists that you use gender neutral language. Those two situations are different from the traditional usage.

I agree with all your arguments, but just want to point out that this is not actually true. "Indefinite they" does inflect just fine. "Who attacked you, did you see them? No, but they dropped their gun." etc.

I personally have much closer ancestors, that were tortured by the communists within living memory. What if I told you that for this reason the word "comrade" triggers me? Or in analogy with the github situation, if I asked people to stop wearing Che t-shirts? Would you say that was reasonable, or a sign of insanity?

As I said, "allow list" is more descriptive if you don't know the word whitelist in the sense that it's easier to guess its meaning the first time you see it. My point is that this is not generally considered important, just look at 100 random words, most of them would be hard to guess the exact meaning of, even if like me you studied classical languages.

Not that any normal person thinks that there is anything negative with "some sort of preference for the country as country, to the degree that a person defines themselves by it". It's politically quite extreme to see that as "pejorative".

Why does there have to be a slave just because there's a master? That is just one very specific meaning of the word, out of several dozen, and in the git context it was pretty clear that it wasn't used in that sense, but rather something like "master copy". So the master to main renaming thing was especially silly.