All of your examples target right-wingers. Can you not think of any examples that target left-wingers, or do you think that things like mansplaining etc are real issues?
This is the problem I have with the more militant trans activists. You’re trying to remove a meaningful distinction from other people’s thoughts. Regardless of the words you use, a biological male who identifies as a woman is not the same thing as a biological female.
Obviously no two people are the same. But there isn't some magical gap between cis and trans women that's categorically bigger than the gap between, say, white and Indian cis women. Women raised in different cultures are different -- women that are a different sex at birth are different.
You don't have to say that apples and oranges are the same. What's based more in religious/patriarchal ideas than in rational evidence is the belief that men are like apples and women are like oranges (or that men are from Mars and women are from Venus). There are some differences that the patriarchy magnified into a monstrous set of institutions (coverture! implied consent! vomit). We're on the path to slowly undoing it, but progress isn't monotonic that's for sure.
(By the way, calling a trans woman, especially one who has medically transitioned, a "biological male" is both an HR violation and not rooted in evidence. It is really frustrating to hear your basic dignity being talked about by people who are as confident as they are ignorant. When I was still cis-presenting and didn't fully understand what my trans friends were going through, I didn't spout off my thoughts like a fool. I took the time to learn.)
Are you joking? There “isn’t some magical gap” between cis and trans women? Absurd.
And then you go on to say that there are no real differences between men and women, oblivious to the glaring contradiction between this belief and the entire phenomenon of transgenderism.
You can call me ignorant all you want; that doesn’t make it true.
It’s interesting to me that this fascinating article has no comments. My cynical side can’t help but wonder if the software engineers who read HN don’t want to hear that non-embodied algorithms can’t get us to strong AI. A robotics lab is an interdisciplinary enterprise and involves a lot of leg work. “Surely I will eventually create strong AI while sipping coffee in my pajamas, hacking away in Emacs. We just need more compute, produced in some boring way by two-sigma worker bees unsuited for the rarefied heights occupied by Me, the Great Hacker.”
One example is the ~use-package~ macro (Emacs plugin) [0]. Using packages in emacs is mostly the same code over and over. They've already been abstracted in functions, but you still find yourself juggling with so many utilities. You could write a bigger functions, but it will then have a lot of conditional branches. This macro selectively select the code it needs and transforming it if needs be and then the result will be evaluated.
It's a bit hard to explain for me (English is not my native language). But it's the difference between coding a solution with all the edge cases baked in and coding an archetype that let you add your own cases. With functions, you abstract common algorithms, with macros you abstract common architecture.
“ In Germany, for instance, the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action is financing the Sovereign Tech Fund, a program of the Sovereign Tech Agency investing in “projects that benefit and strengthen the open source ecosystem.” Currently funded projects include FreeBSD, a Unix-like operating system; JUnit, a testing framework for the Java ecosystem; the PHP Foundation, which is behind the PHP programming language; and the OpenJS Foundation, which hosts a range of JavaScript projects.”
I would be pissed if my tax dollars were going to e-commerce platforms. We do not need more JavaScript frameworks. Protein-folding? Security research? Artificial vision? Sure. PHP? Um, no.
One in every ten thousand or so human males either kills other human beings for pleasure or would if they could. This may be specific to humans, but I wouldn’t be too surprised to find that there are serial killers in other species. Or rather, would-be serial killers, because without tool use an animal would have to be a freakish outlier not only in terms of “psychopathy” but also in size and strength to be able to afford expending energy to kill another member of their species for no good reason.
This gets close to the heart of why many seemingly reasonable people support Trump. He gives specifics. The specifics may be of a hare-brained scheme that can’t possibly work, but no other politician even goes that far.
The direction is inherent to the relationship between energy and other goods. While it’s true that energy has inputs, it’s an input for virtually everything.
reply