Add Series Five: Women in Tech (50 cards) - #16
Merged
Merged
Conversation
180 years, from Note G in 1843 to the people auditing models now. The first compiler, the first assembly language, the ARM instruction set, the Apollo guidance software, TF-IDF, zero-knowledge proofs, differential privacy, and the CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md in your repository. Series One has forty-seven cards and no women on any of them. That is the honest reason this set exists and the roster page says so. The no-duplicates rule holds. Fifteen women are already carded in Series Two to Four, so they are linked from the roster page rather than repeated: a set like this appearing to have forgotten Radia Perlman would be worse than duplication. Rated on technical / pioneering / openness / influence, because the Series Four axes do not travel across a set spanning Lovelace to Gebru. The date guard had to be removed -------------------------------- Series Three rejects reference photographs dated before 1950, on the reasoning that an old plate means the search found a historical namesake. Here the historical figures ARE the subject. Left in, that guard would have silently deleted Lovelace, Hopper, both ENIAC entries and the Bletchley cryptanalysts. scripts/women-refs.mjs therefore has no date floor and no birth-year floor, with a comment saying why, because it is exactly the kind of safety check that looks correct in a diff. 43 of 50 have a verified likeness. What the by-eye review rejected: Joan Clarke a photograph of the house carrying her blue plaque Anita Borg a screenshot of her Wikidata item structure Julia Evans a different Julia Evans, then a cartoon star avatar Camille Fournier a French astronaut of the same name (recovered via GitHub) Jean Bartik "Two women operating ENIAC", no legible face Betty Holberton a low-resolution profile at the ENIAC panels Léonie Watson her site logo rather than a photograph Kathleen Booth no freely licensed photograph exists Léonie Watson and Julia Evans are the Chollet failure again: hand the model a reference with no face and it invents one rather than failing. Every rejection is recorded in the resolver with its reason. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_014htrUgbnoKQt9iT4G7hUpy
![github-advanced-security[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/57789?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
| <> | ||
| <script | ||
| type="application/ld+json" | ||
| dangerouslySetInnerHTML={{ __html: JSON.stringify(jsonLd) }} |
ThreatCrush Security Scan6 finding(s) MEDIUM: 6
Snippets are redacted; ThreatCrush never prints matched credential material. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
A fifth collection at
/women-in-tech: 180 years, from Note G in 1843 to the people auditing models now. The first compiler, the first assembly language, the ARM instruction set, the Apollo guidance software, TF-IDF, zero-knowledge proofs, differential privacy, and theCODE_OF_CONDUCT.mdin your repository.Series One has forty-seven cards and no women on any of them. That is the honest reason this set exists, and the roster page says so rather than pretending otherwise.
The no-duplicates rule holds
Fifteen women are already carded in Series Two to Four. Rather than repeat them or silently omit them, the roster page has an "Already in the collection" section linking each one. A set like this appearing to have forgotten Radia Perlman would be worse than the duplication.
Rated on
technical/pioneering/openness/influence; the Series Four axes do not travel across a set spanning Lovelace to Gebru.The date guard had to come out
Series Three rejects any reference photograph dated before 1950, on the reasoning that an old plate means the search found a historical namesake. Here the historical figures are the subject. Left in, that guard would have silently deleted Lovelace, Hopper, both ENIAC entries and the Bletchley cryptanalysts.
women-refs.mjshas no date floor and no birth-year floor, with a comment explaining why. It is exactly the kind of safety check that looks correct in a diff.43 of 50 have a verified likeness
What the by-eye review rejected:
Leonie Watson and Julia Evans are the Chollet failure from #15 again: hand the model a reference with no face and it invents one rather than failing. Every rejection is recorded in the resolver with its reason so a rerun cannot undo the judgement.
Verified
tsc --noEmitandpnpm buildclean🤖 Generated with Claude Code
https://claude.ai/code/session_014htrUgbnoKQt9iT4G7hUpy