[Haskell] Fibonacci sequence and memoization
3 0 comments 23 Sep 2015 19:54 u/the_spectre (self.programming) in v/programmingComment on: GitHub's new far-left code of conduct explicitly says "we will not act on reverse racism' or 'reverse sexism'"
6 03 Aug 2015 18:33 u/the_spectre in v/programmingComment on: GitHub's new far-left code of conduct explicitly says "we will not act on reverse racism' or 'reverse sexism'"
Yep. The SJW pox is too deeply set in.
Comment on: Computer Programming to be renamed Googling Stackoverflow
Agreed. Plus, on *nix, docs on non-GNU libs and funcs tend to be spotty in my experience. And GNU docs often contain more info than you could read in a week. Or three.
Comment on: C Plus Equality (C+=), a feminist programming language
This...this is amazing.
And, uh, actually not a false representation of feminist theory. From Dawkins' review of Intellectual Impostures:
The feminist 'philosopher' Luce Irigaray is another who gets whole-chapter treatment from Sokal and Bricmont. In a passage reminiscent of a notorious feminist description of Newton's Principia (a "rape manual"), Irigaray argues that E=mc2 is a "sexed equation". Why?
Because "it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us" (my emphasis of what I am rapidly coming to learn is an 'in' word). Just as typical of this school of thought is Irigaray's thesis on fluid mechanics. Fluids, you see, have been unfairly neglected. "Masculine physics" privileges rigid, solid things. Her American expositor Katherine Hayles made the mistake of re-expressing Irigaray's thoughts in (comparatively) clear language. For once, we get a reasonably unobstructed look at the emperor and, yes, he has no clothes:
“The privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the inability of science to deal with turbulent flow at all, she attributes to the association of fluidity with femininity. Whereas men have sex organs that protrude and become rigid, women have openings that leak menstrual blood and vaginal fluids... From this perspective it is no wonder that science has not been able to arrive at a successful model for turbulence. The problem of turbulent flow cannot be solved because the conceptions of fluids (and of women) have been formulated so as necessarily to leave unarticulated remainders.”
You do not have to be a physicist to smell out the daffy absurdity of this kind of argument (the tone of it has become all too familiar), but it helps to have Sokal and Bricmont on hand to tell us the real reason why turbulent flow is a hard problem: the Navier-Stokes equations are difficult to solve.
C+equality!