trealira

even GC isn't necessary

Um, isn't it? Don't all Lisp variants have it? IIRC McCarthy's LISP just ran out of memory until the GC was written.

steps the RNC didn't even take, in this case.

What steps are you referencing? I don't get your comment.

Also, the DNC and RNC just choose people and fundraise. It's strange to me how people refer to the parties like this.

I'm really not sure why Democrats don't just let Trump shoot himself in the foot.

That had been their strategy, to just let Trump do things and become unpopular without drawing attention to themselves, but while Trump and Republicans have become less popular, Democrats' approval ratings have been sliding down as well (although they have a lead in the generic ballot) and polling indicates most Democratic voters think they're not doing enough to stop Trump. So, making a big show of "playing dirty" (threatening to gerrymander back in retaliation), and publicly saying that they'll no longer tie their hands behind their back, probably brings satisfaction to those people they're polling badly with. It's the kind of sentiment I've heard for years from online Democratic voters, and from people I know, but never was validated by the actual Democrats until now.

2 years ago, Wharton predicted that the U.S. debt would be defaulted on in twenty years [0].

Under current policy, the United States has about 20 years for corrective action after which no amount of future tax increases or spending cuts could avoid the government defaulting on its debt whether explicitly or implicitly (i.e., debt monetization producing significant inflation). Unlike technical defaults where payments are merely delayed, this default would be much larger and would reverberate across the U.S. and world economies.

My prediction is that the deficit will continue to increase, and so the default will come by then or sooner.

[0] https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2023/10/6/when-...

Funnily enough, this has resulted in people saying things like "見てみましょう" and "見てみてください", which confused me at first. But I suppose this is like non-native English speakers being confused by the extra "do" in phrases like "I already did do my work."

Yeah, firing the labor statistics head because Trump say she's been faking the numbers to make him look bad actually makes it seem both obviously politically motivated and casts whatever comes after into doubt. Now their credibility is degraded.

That's different from just saying the numbers are obviously being faked under Biden or whatever with no real evidence because you just feel like the economy is bad and assume corruption. Now there actually does seem to be corruption!

Because he talks like them, and they know he's a scumbag, but he's their scumbag, which they sic on the people they hate most: the vermin liberals, the immigrants poisoning the blood of the country, the parasitic federal workers whose lives they want to make miserable, the trans people they deem as all predatory groomers, the academics and scientists they're defunding because it's all woke. It's about taking their lump of flesh. They excuse the open corruption as at least being open corruption, since they assume everyone else is ten times as corrupt behind closed doors. That's why they were fine withholding disaster relief from blue states in 2020.

It makes me angry as hell. They hate us and you can't say anything about it because if you're not nice enough to them, they act like you're being mean to them and the personal reason they'll continue to vote for people that demonize and hate you.

This is clearly dog whistle langauge and not intended to be taken literally, but it is starting to be a common trope and it makes me very curious as to how this industry operates?

It's clearly just dismissive language that doesn't have to make sense. The only purpose is to make climate change seem like a fake concept thought of by groups with nefarious intentions. It's like asking the author of a short story what the main character's favorite color is. That detail simply wasn't considered because it's not needed in the short story.

"C is the language that combines raw power of assembly with expressiveness of assembly."

The most expressive part of C is the syntax oriented around writing terse, side-effectful expressions that manipulate buffers, pointers and counters, with the array of precedences and the pre- and post-increments and assignment operators and short-circuiting operators. You can write stuff like this:

  while (--n > 0 && (c = getchar()) != EOF && (*s++ = c) != '\n')
      ;
  *s = '\0';

  // Parsing flags for command line arguments
  while (--argc > 0 && (*++argv)[O] == '-')
      while (c = *++argv[O])
          switch (c) {
          // ...
          }

  // Last line of a buffered `getchar()` implementation 
  return (--n >= 0) ? (unsigned char) *bufp++ : EOF;

Yeah, it would have to be something like this if you wanted to avoid the signed integer overflow at the end of the loop:

  assert(i <= j);
  for (;;) {
      do_something_with(i);
      if (i == j)
          break;
      i++;
  }

I did consider that, but I wrote "in general" for a reason. It works very specifically in the case of "add one" or "subtract one", but it doesn't work with anything more complicated, like chasing pointers or adding/subtracting more than one at a time.

You're reminding me of the book "Modern Compiler Design." The author goes over how to compile a general Pascal-style for-loop correctly, accounting for increasing or decreasing ranges, differing step sizes, and accounting for overflow. It was written using just goto statements, so I adapted a version of it to C. Just replace "intN_t" with an actual integer size. It works by calculating the number of times the loop will run. If "from" is equal to "to," it's still going to run at least once. Again, this is not mine, just adapted from the author's code (Dick Grune's).

  // enumerate: print out numbers from "from" to "to", inclusive, with step size "by"
  void enumerate(intN_t from, intN_t to, intN_t by) {
      uintN_t loop_count;
      intN_t i;
      if (by > 0) {
          if (from > to) return;
          loop_count = (to - from) / by + 1;
      } else if (by < 0) {
          if (from < to) return;
          loop_count = (from - to) / -by + 1;
      } else /* (by == 0) */ {
          // Maybe some kind of error
          return;
      }
      for (i = from; ; i += by) {
          printf("%d\n", i);
          if (--loop_count == 0) break;
      }
  }

It's true that theorem provers can be just sufficiently advanced type systems (the Curry Howard correspondence), but not all theorem provers operate that way. Isabelle/HOL operates on higher order logic. Imperative ones like SPARK or Dafny just rely on encoding preconditions and postconditions and things like loop invariants and just use SMT solvers for verification, IIRC.

Having an advanced type system does seem to encourage this sort of informal proof oriented thinking more than imperative and somewhat typeless languages do, though, since preconditions and postconditions and loop invariants and inductive proofs on loops are things you have to do yourself entirely in your head.

Perhaps it's that you never have to read the whole file into memory at once if it's with a `FILE *` rather than a string. I'm not that person, this is just my assumption.

I have not taken any position on whether or not children should be targeted with messages across the spectrum, ranging from the extreme on one end "It's okay for boys to play with dolls", to the extreme on the other "You will be happier after castration".

Mere gender non-conformity isn't enough for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, despite what you're claiming. These are the DSM criteria for diagnosis of gender dysphoria in children:

---

A. A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender, of at least 6 months’ duration, as manifested by at least six of the following (one of which must be Criterion A1):

1. A strong desire to be of the other gender or an insistence that one is the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender).

2. In boys (assigned gender), a strong preference for cross-dressing or simulating female attire; or in girls (assigned gender), a strong preference for wearing only typical masculine clothing and a strong resistance to the wearing of typical feminine clothing.

3. A strong preference for cross-gender roles in make-believe play or fantasy play.

4. A strong preference for the toys, games, or activities stereotypically used or engaged in by the other gender.

5. A strong preference for playmates of the other gender.

6. In boys (assigned gender), a strong rejection of typically masculine toys, games, and activities and a strong avoidance of rough-and-tumble play; or in girls (assigned gender), a strong rejection of typically feminine toys, games, and activities.

7. A strong dislike of one’s sexual anatomy.

8. A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics that match one’s experienced gender.

B. The condition is associated with clinically significant distress or impairment in social, school, or other important areas of functioning.

---

If you had any faith that your message was the correct one you wouldn't be on the internet arguing for access to other people's children.

Classy as ever implying that trans people are grooming children to be trans.

It seems like the opposite happens to me: parents with attitudes like yours will attempt to keep the existence of trans people secret in an attempt to groom their child to be cis, but if their child is gender dysphoric, it's not going to work and they're just going to suffer worse dysphoria-induced distress during puberty and transition as adults.

If it were just a soft C, then "ocean" would sound more like "oh-see-in" or "oce-yin". But it's also been palatalized to sound like "oshin" in typical pronunciation. People might not have understood them because they didn't know this.

since haskell is non-strict, if can be implemented as a function, and iirc it is

"If" can be implemented as a function in Haskell, but it's not a function. You can't pass it as a higher-order function and it uses the "then" and "else" keywords, too. But you could implement it as a function if you wanted:

  if' :: Bool -> a -> a
  if' True x _ = x
  if' False _ y = y

  max x y = if x > y then x else y

  max x y = if' (x > y) x y

More important than the Heritage Foundation is the Federalist Society in the case of getting more conservative judges.

You're right. Those languages have morphological passive voice conjugations for their verbs. That, combined with their flexible word order, offers expressivity.

I was just pointing out that English, due to its strict word order, is more reliant on the passive voice to change word order than less inflexibly-ordered languages.

To borrow from a sentence I used in an earlier comment, here's a fragment of Spanish.

"...sólo porque te impresionó un espectáculo de magia barato."

The equivalent English would be "...just because you were impressed by a cheap magic show."

The English sentence has to use the passive voice to put the verb "impress" at the beginning of that phrase, whereas you still use the active voice in Spanish, just with the word order putting the verb first.

But but but the creator himself said it is gif like in gin and giraffe... right?

Yeah, that's what the creator said, and that's actually how I pronounce it, too. Just pointing out that "gi-" words can have both hard and soft Gs.

TIL: gimp is gimp and not gimp? I always pronounced this like gin.

You learn something new every day!

There's also Finnish.

The passive voice just switches the roles so that the patient is the subject and the agent is the object (e.g. in "The ball was kicked by John," the ball is still the patient despite being the subject). It's just that with English word order, it also switches the places of the things in the sentence.

In languages with more flexible word order, you could just switch the two without passive voice. You could just say the equivalent of "The ball kicked John," with it being clear somehow that the ball is the grammatical object and John the subject, without needing to use the passive voice at all.

And yet there's also girl, gift, gimp, gill, gibbon, and giggle.

We Italians, when we were children, we were taught to read based on the written letters, and we were able to read any word. It was normal, during primary school, to pronounce a word correctly and then ask the teacher what it meant. This is something you can not do in English.

We're still taught very basic phonetic rules in English. Like how vowels have a long sound and a short sound, where "ee" is the long e sound, or "<vowel> <consonant> e" triggers the long sound for that vowel. But you're also taught that many words are exceptions (e.g. bear vs beard). And you learn there are patterns to the exceptions, like how "ea," if it doesn't sound like "ee," will sound like a short e, like in "head" or "breadth," and particularly in cases like "dream - dreamt" or "leap - leapt."

And if you do a lot of reading as a kid, you vaguely recognize in the back of your mind some words that seem to follow a different set of pronunciation rules not taught in school (e.g. rouge, mirage, entourage, entrée, matinée, parfait, buffet, memoir, soirée, patois), which you learn implicitly. I remember this as a kid, only later learning those were French.

And this lets you guess pretty well how you'd pronounce a word. Just with basic rules and a lot of input to learn from, you can guess how to pronounce pretty much anything with good accuracy, because there are rules, and even a logic to the exceptions, but the rules are overlapping, so it's more like a set of rules you choose from.

I'd liken it to machine learning. You can learn the rules without even being taught the rules, like I did in the case of French loan words. And there are probably rules we follow without even realizing it, just instinctively thinking it's the natural way to pronounce the word without knowing why.

I'm not saying it's as good as being as phonetic as Italian, but it's not like we just have to memorize the pronunciation and spelling of every word as though it were a structureless string of letters and a corresponding, unrelated sound.

Sorry for the long comment.

So then I question if there are trans women out there who would be satisfied in a world where anyone can wear anything.

So long as they look in the mirror and see a woman. There are trans women already who just wear jeans and t-shirts and other unisex wear in their everyday lives. There are also trans women who will never come close to passing even after a long time on HRT and surgery and wearing the most feminine clothing, and it's just tragic.

Transgender people often suffer gender dysphoria.

That's the definition of it.

You're correct that it's possible that gender dysphoria might be a downstream effect of society. Namely, we are an extremely gender-segregated society. I'm not saying that it's that simple and all transgender people would disappear if we live in a society with no gender roles or expectations, but certainly they heavily feel the pressure of those gender roles and expectations.

I don't think this is the case. Strict gender roles might make trans people's dysphoria worse, but it's primarily about a strong desire to be the other sex and not have your current sexual characteristics. Even in a world where everything is unisex, a trans person would still feel that discomfort - for a trans girl/woman, that you wish your voice were higher and not like a man's, that your face seems alien, that your genitals are wrong, literally anything sexed about the human body. It's orthogonal to whether a man can wear a dress or makeup. Not all trans women are even that feminine. And if it were about gender roles, then you'd expect more trans women to exist than trans men, given "there's truly only one way to be a man, although there are multiple ways to be a woman."

What the hell is the difference between "men" and "man"? What's the difference between "bitch" and "beach"?

Those words all have completely different vowels in English; they're not irregular spellings. If you can't tell the difference, you probably just haven't listened to enough English or have said them incorrectly too much to tell the difference.

Grammatical gender can serve as disambiguation. I just heard this sentence recently while watching something in Spanish:

"No me compares con alguien como tú, que llegaste aquí de una isla oriental sólo porque te impresionó un espectáculo de magia barato."

In the phrase "un espectáculo de magia barato," which means "cheap magic show" here, you can tell from the genders of the nouns and adjectives that it's that "barato" modifies "espectáculo," meaning that the show is cheap and it's not that the magic is cheap.

It's not that useful here, because it's not hard to figure out the correct meaning from the context anyway, but it's a tool that helps clarity regardless. And when you learn a language well enough, it's not like you're thinking about this super consciously, you just know the word and gendering it and its adjectives flows right off your tongue. I think this is probably easier for a non-native to learn than all the irregular spellings of English, but I wouldn't know, being a native English speaker.

Can you back that up with evidence?

I'm not them, but there have been reports of tourists locked up for weeks.

https://apnews.com/article/border-tourists-german-canadian-d...

I'm pessimistic about it, too.

I'm not them, but I'll try reordering the sentence to help you parse it better.

As bad as the WG21 process might be, the additions into ISO C++ don't land there because a group of academics found a cool feature; they land there because some company or individual has seen it as a must-have feature for their industry.