<purr>
eligrey: We're currently voice-chatting, hence may be untalkative in IRC. Join us: mumble://ell.io/ (Download: http://mumble.sourceforge.net/ … you may have to self-register in the client, and then re-log, before you can speak.)
<eligrey>
i should be able to do a custom @
<eligrey>
i think i can in #oftn
<eligrey>
ELLIOTTCABLE: i heard a weird scifi noise from your mic
<eligrey>
i think ELLIOTTCABLE's dog is using the keyboard
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
im smarter than u think
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
why you think he named it paws
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
is lang for dogs
<eligrey>
such informed
<eligrey>
ELLIOTTCABLE: set up an audio loopback for streaming music to mumble
<glowcoil>
yeah if you mention continuations or something that seems much more accurate
<alexgordon>
I'm pretty sure it _is_ monadic though
<alexgordon>
somehow
<alexgordon>
without knowing much about monads
<alexgordon>
glowcoil: what's a khaleesi triple?
<glowcoil>
lul
<glowcoil>
alexgordon: ok so i'm sure you can like, find some weird things that match up to the 3 parts of a monad
<glowcoil>
the functor and each of the two natural transformations
<alexgordon>
glowcoil: the father, the son, and the holy spirt?
<glowcoil>
yes
<alexgordon>
ok gimme an example
<alexgordon>
in the list monad
<alexgordon>
what are the three parts?
<glowcoil>
well
<glowcoil>
functor
<glowcoil>
which maps each object and each morphism to ones in differetn categories
<glowcoil>
so,
<glowcoil>
[] takes a and gives [a], and fmap takes a->b and gives [a]->[b]
<glowcoil>
so that's the functor
<alexgordon>
right
<glowcoil>
well, it's an endomoprhism because it's in the same category
<glowcoil>
but anyway
<glowcoil>
so, unit can be defined as:
<glowcoil>
unit x = [x]
<glowcoil>
and join can be defined as:
<glowcoil>
join = foldl (++) []
<alexgordon>
cool, well that's simple enough
<glowcoil>
so you can look at monads as monoids
<glowcoil>
where unit gives you the 0
<alexgordon>
in the category of endofunctors?
<glowcoil>
yes yes
<glowcoil>
and join is the append/+/whatever
<glowcoil>
i think it's actually a really good way to look at it
<alexgordon>
yeah
<alexgordon>
I'm coming to appreciate some of these category theory things in haskell, although I'm still not convinced the years spend understand it all is worth the small reduction in code size ;)
<alexgordon>
*spent to
<glowcoil>
yeah idk
<glowcoil>
so like can you find where the functor is in your notation
<glowcoil>
in do-notation,
<glowcoil>
a <- M; B a
<glowcoil>
translates to
<glowcoil>
M >>= B
<glowcoil>
or,
<glowcoil>
join (fmap B M)
<glowcoil>
those are some random letters
<glowcoil>
anyway so
<glowcoil>
it's going to be like, a monad in an indirect way if it is at all
<alexgordon>
yah probably
<glowcoil>
and i kind of just don't think it's one in an obvious enough way
<glowcoil>
that it only just spreads misunderstandings about monads
<glowcoil>
that's all
<alexgordon>
implicit cps is much more descriptive
<alexgordon>
glowcoil: anyway my main epiphany in all of this is that you can restrict the "async" keyword to only 'mainline' statements
<alexgordon>
and do everything else with combinators
<alexgordon>
I was making the mistake everybody else makes and trying to cram it all into the language
<alexgordon>
but if you take a step back, all you need is some nodey cps and some combinators and you can do the same thing but MUCH more understandably
<glowcoil>
hm interesting
<alexgordon>
when your concurrency patterns are specified using combinators instead of syntax it makes the code a whole lot easier to follow
<alexgordon>
"amap", oh that's an async map. "afilter" oh that's an async filter, etc etc
<alexgordon>
the open question is if you can define an axiomatic set of async combinators such that they are sufficient to build _any_ pattern
<glowcoil>
yeah
<glowcoil>
prove you can express an arbitrary graph/dag
<glowcoil>
of dependencies
<glowcoil>
is what i think
<alexgordon>
mmm
<alexgordon>
well a continuation is serial by nature
<alexgordon>
and a map is parallel
<alexgordon>
so many that's all you need?
<alexgordon>
*maybe
<alexgordon>
an afilter can defined as an amap of maybes that are then filtered away
* alexgordon
wanders through Data.List looking for other combinators
<alexgordon>
also I like the idea of a recursive tree combinator although it might be a trap for non-terminating code
<alexgordon>
e.g.
<alexgordon>
json serialization
<alexgordon>
you serialize an object, then you serialize all children of that object, then you serialize the children's children
<alexgordon>
maybe that's a bad example because I'm not sure why you'd want that to be async, but it's a cool idea
<glowcoil>
alexgordon: when do they return
<glowcoil>
like what does amap do differently from map
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
fucking, just, the worst
<alexgordon>
hi ELLIOTTCABLE
<alexgordon>
glowcoil: amap iterates over an iterable (functor to haskell peeps), then it performs an async operation on each, then it calls a callback with the result
<vigs>
hi ELLIOTTCABLE
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
alexgordon: “what's a khaleesi triple?” wat.
<purr>
beep.
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: pretty sure that's already in there :P
* vigs
pats purr
* purr
rrrrrr
* alexgordon
reuses his material
<vigs>
So I've been reading elliottcablechan.tumblr.com on and off and there's some good stuff in here :D
<alexgordon>
glowcoil: I thought the wordcount example in my gist was a good one: it might take a list of filenames, open each file concurrently, count the words in each file, then return that through a callback
<alexgordon>
glowcoil: in other words, it does an IO bound operation concurrently, then maps the results into a new list
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
-find khaleesi
<purr>
ELLIOTTCABLE: Could not find `khaleesi`.
<alexgordon>
does that -find thing even work?
<alexgordon>
-find gq
<purr>
alexgordon: genderqueer
<alexgordon>
apparently so
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
-find gqb
<purr>
ELLIOTTCABLE: Found: gqbrielle, everything, :), gaga, and gqbrill
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
-gbrill
<alexgordon>
-find russians
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
-gqbrill
<purr>
alexgordon: Could not find `russians`.
<purr>
ELLIOTTCABLE: sh is nog devyn (I ghink.)
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
-learn alexgordon = Could not find `khaleesi`.
<purr>
ELLIOTTCABLE: Learned `alexgordon`.
* ELLIOTTCABLE
grins
<alexgordon>
MY DRAGONS
<glowcoil>
what is like
<glowcoil>
how does -find work
<glowcoil>
i don't get it
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
glowcoil: it's non-deterministic and acausal.
<glowcoil>
hahaha
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
purr is powered by time-like singularities and unicorn tears.
<glowcoil>
alexgordon: ok callback w result
<glowcoil>
alexgordon: so is there sync and async
<alexgordon>
print(a.list each)
<glowcoil>
alexgordon: or just async
<alexgordon>
glowcoil: maybe it's easier to see with the type signatures
* glowcoil
is listening to shitty 90s "alt" rock
<glowcoil>
alexgordon: i get what it does, i just want to know like
<alexgordon>
map :: [A], (A -> B) -> [B]
<alexgordon>
amap :: [A], (A => B) => [B]
<glowcoil>
wait what's =>
<alexgordon>
where A => B = (A, (B -> Void) -> Void)
<glowcoil>
ohhh
<alexgordon>
easy huh?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
wat
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I fucking *hate* Haskell type-signatures.
<alexgordon>
and of course the `async` keyword just transforms a function from A -> B to A => B
<glowcoil>
ELLIOTTCABLE: i have no idea how you can hate them
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
They're far more confusing to the uninitiate than monads.
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: these are _furrow_ type signatures, haskell ones are way more insane
<glowcoil>
ELLIOTTCABLE: *HOW*?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Monads are confusing, sure, unnecessarily so, but at least one or two good analogies will carry the day.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
But what the flying *fuck* does map :: [A], (A -> B) -> [B] mean.
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: in haskell that would be like, (Functor a) -> (Cont a b) -> (Functor b)
<glowcoil>
ELLIOTTCABLE: a function taking a list of As and a function from As to Bs that returns a list of Bs
<alexgordon>
or something
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
why the fuck do I need *five elements of syntax* to convey the arguments to a function!?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
C:
<glowcoil>
alexgordon: not at all
<glowcoil>
:/
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
() and ,
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
done.
<alexgordon>
glowcoil: yah at all
<glowcoil>
ELLIOTTCABLE: ...that's what alexgordon is using
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Haskell: [] () -> => ::
<alexgordon>
glowcoil: erm actually yeah you're right, I'm high
<glowcoil>
ELLIOTTCABLE: [] is lists, just like c or java or anything else have for arrays
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
My problem isn't with *types* being inherently confusing. it's entirely with Haskell's approach to conveying them.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
The combination of (mostly) syntax, and (slightly) the way they cast the semantics they're encoding in their terrible horrible syntax.
<glowcoil>
ELLIOTTCABLE: :: doesn't appear *in* type signatures
<glowcoil>
and : for type-of
<glowcoil>
is *very* standrad
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
wat
<glowcoil>
actionscript, pascal, algol, shit tons of things
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
type-of?
<glowcoil>
var x : int;
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
everywhere I see it, : is key/value.
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: lemme break down the furrow syntax for you
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Ruby, ObjC, etceteras.
<glowcoil>
*very* common
<glowcoil>
1. ruby is dynamically typed
<glowcoil>
2. objc has c type-syntax
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: map :: BLAH means that the function map is of type BLAH
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
this is the argument that broke down relationships between whitequark and I again
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: [A] is a list of A's
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: A -> B is a function from A to B
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
alexgordon: say the original statement again, so I know what we're talking about
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: A => B is a continuation-style passing function from A to B
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
was just raging at micah about syntax, wasn't paying attention. what're we talking about?
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: map :: [A], (A -> B) -> [B]
<alexgordon>
and , is multiple arguments aka tuple
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
what's the comma mean?
<alexgordon>
[22:59:58] <+alexgordon> and , is multiple arguments aka tuple
<glowcoil>
alexgordon: i feel like putting parentheses around it is clearer
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
ah missed that
<glowcoil>
the tuple
<alexgordon>
glowcoil: gets old fast :P
<glowcoil>
but /me shrugs
<purr>
¯\(º_o)/¯
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
alexgordon: yes, but this way the association isn't clear
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Honestly? I think my biggest problem is that there's no conveyance of the word ‘type.’
<alexgordon>
it's like the most common thing you can do in furrow, is defining a function with multiple arguments, so I think if there's any confusion it will be short lived
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
God, it sounds so nit-picky now that I've figure it out and said it out loud.
prophile has quit [Quit: The Game]
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: actually with furrow the type signature goes on a separate line :P so it's even looser
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
But quite frankly, if you haven't been staring at them in documentation for *years*, you're never going to quickly grok what foo :: [N] X -> [K.C XK.XC] means.
<glowcoil>
ELLIOTTCABLE: i'd say name :: type is *way* clearer than type name, and yyou've just been brainwashed into C
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
A *couple more bytes* would lead to a thousand times easier scalability *and* approachability/discoverability for those who aren't initiate.
<glowcoil>
ELLIOTTCABLE: also, you are literally the only person i've ever heard complain about this, and it's probably because you've never like sat down to the first page of a haskell tutorial
<glowcoil>
ELLIOTTCABLE: but you have for a C tutorial
<glowcoil>
ELLIOTTCABLE: also alexgordon is doing something weird
<alexgordon>
yeah
<glowcoil>
ELLIOTTCABLE: by not requiring the name before the ::
<glowcoil>
like some things do
<glowcoil>
a : type = value
<glowcoil>
or
<glowcoil>
a :: type
<alexgordon>
glowcoil: it reads really well though
<glowcoil>
a = value
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
function foo: [type A], >func A -> B
<alexgordon>
glowcoil: because then all the type signatures are aligned to each other
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
bah got bogged down, made it worse.
<glowcoil>
alexgordon: yeah idk it's just a bad example when tring to prove to ELLIOTTCABLE how easy it is
<glowcoil>
lol
<purr>
lol
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
perhaps you get my point. *shrug*
<purr>
¯\(º_o)/¯
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
glowcoil: I've gotten a solid third of the way into RWH /=
<glowcoil>
ELLIOTTCABLE: i don't understand how you don't know type syntax then?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
glowcoil: It's not like I run around saying “I CAN'T UNDERSTAND HASKELL” after seeing some code examples in tweets or something,
<glowcoil>
ELLIOTTCABLE: it's so much more consistent and simple than c type syntax
<glowcoil>
ELLIOTTCABLE: yet you're a natural at c
<glowcoil>
ELLIOTTCABLE: i don't get it
<glowcoil>
ELLIOTTCABLE: at all
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I mean, I don't run around saying “I DON'T UNDERSTAND RUST.” I *know* I don't understand Rust, that's not interesting, because I simply haven't put the time in yet.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Oh, C is a pain in the ass.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
realtalk:
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: here's the deal
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: when you get deep into this functional shit, you start to read functions by their _type_ rather than their name
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
C and Haskell's type syntacies really *really* display their disparate heritages.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Haskell's is high-brow and intellectual and composes perfectly understandably (at least, as understandably as it starts out, anyway) up to really insanely complex nested shit. It's … just … “pure.” in mindset. Fits the language very well.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
C's is a clusterfuck that breaks down and makes people tear their hair out as soon as you nest one remotely complex data-pointer-description into a function-pointer description,
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
but for the most common and most simple cases, it's extremely clear.
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: weirdly, C++ unifies them both
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
alexgordon: we don't speak of that.
<alexgordon>
using modern C++ is like using haskell, albeit without the ADTs
<glowcoil>
alexgordon: ...also with killing yourself
<glowcoil>
but yeah i agree
<glowcoil>
...to a degree
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
anyway.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Nah. The more I look at it, the more confused I am about why they're so inscrutable.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I know you, glowcoil, and you're assuming I'm fabricating confusion due to long-term assumptions. Believe me, I'm no alexgordon, I *am* trying.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
And it's not like I can't understand them if I stare at them long enough and puzzle through them one character at a time; nor do I seriously believe I wouldn't find them easy if I spent a year working in them daily.
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: practice makes perfect
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: a teaspoon of sugar helps the medicine go down
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
But I still state that they're inherently confusing and unintuitive-as-all-hell.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
only reason I brought it up is because you guys keep resorting to them when discussing New Things, and that's dangerous. I'd hate to see them conveyed forward as a standard, without repair/revision, into a healthy young language where anybody cared about usability. Y'know?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
tl;dr I Have Objections and I Am On The Internet™
<glowcoil>
ELLIOTTCABLE: they're actually modeled on mathematical notation from algebra and similar fields
<glowcoil>
ELLIOTTCABLE: that has existed for a long time
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
And tradition begets its own strange usability, yes.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
We digitally display tiny little cramped keyboards in completely inefficient layouts on phone screens, 'Cuz Tradition.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
It's the interface that works in the moment, for the target userbase. I get that.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
But is the Haskell sort really the target market for Furrow, Paws, Hands, Cascade, etceteras?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I see a lot of Haskell-mindset-hate in here. I assume not.
<glowcoil>
ELLIOTTCABLE: i have seen people write comments in javascript using haskell type notation becuase javascript doesn't have one
<glowcoil>
ELLIOTTCABLE: there are macros etc. for like clojure to have similar type notations
<glowcoil>
ELLIOTTCABLE: it's a *very* useful thought tool
<glowcoil>
ELLIOTTCABLE: and it's not generally hated
<glowcoil>
ELLIOTTCABLE: like seriously you're the only person i've seen with this objection
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Yes, people who *know and understand Haskell*, write comments in their JavaScript in that notation.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
But “people who understand Haskell” are a *motherfucking tiny* subset of the programmer population. /=
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
again, exactly the argument I had with Peter. /=
<glowcoil>
well look
<glowcoil>
the people who don't understand haskell, and are hostile to learning type syntax
<glowcoil>
are java peons who will not give a flying fuck about paws
<glowcoil>
quite honestly i don't think it's fruitful to
<glowcoil>
dumb your language down to attract a larger dumber crowd
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
95%, or fuck that, a solid 99% of the JavaScript, Ruby, Java, Objective-C, C++ population, the “real programmers” <derp> making websites, phone apps, browsers, whatever, don't know Haskell, and none of them would understand that syntax at a quick glance.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
They'd have to dig into it to understand it.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
well, clearly irrelevant to Paws, no types etcetcetc
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
although the larger gist of the conversation applies, I suppose
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
but in the specific case of Furrow: it's for people who write iPhone apps, no? What percentage of Objective-C or RubyCocoa or C++ developers know Haskell, or understand Haskell type-syntax? /=
<glowcoil>
i'm just really fucking tired of the mindset of every programmer ever
<glowcoil>
this whole
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I'm tired of the mindset of every *human* ever.
<glowcoil>
anti intellectualism
<glowcoil>
tribalism about types vs no types
<glowcoil>
like
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
That doesn't mean I'm going to stop trying to build them better steering-wheels. /=
<glowcoil>
i have no interest in pandering to that bullshit
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Well, I do. We'll never see eye-to-eye with such a fundamental difference.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
whitequark put it very clearly: He sees me, and those like me, as living in a bubble were Ruby or JavaScript are the only languages that matter.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
And he's not wrong, in any way.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
But the thing is, I *really believe that*. The Ruby and JavaScript, or even more so, Objective-C++, Cocoa, and Android-Java, and CoffeeScript and Rails developers,
<glowcoil>
idk we care about being known in scenes
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
they're the real people that really matter.
<glowcoil>
you care about being known in the scene _why and eich are known in
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I just *cannot* wrap my head around why anybody who writes Haskell or Lisp *actually matters*.
<glowcoil>
like, your life goal is to be famous as a dynamic-programming-langauge designer
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
They're not making Joe Bob's Facebook app any less intrusive on his life. They're not making Janet Surly's car-stereo less distracting while she's driving. They're not making my e-mail website more helpful when I have a deluge of e-mail to get through, and a party to get to that that e-mail is keeping me from.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
oh, on a personal level, sure. But I don't think that's what whitequark, or you, are attacking.
<glowcoil>
there's no reason why haskell or lisp *can't* be used in that way
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
You all generally believe that what *really matters*, is the next Haskell. And I just, don't think so. I can't imagine how.
<glowcoil>
and you would probably be surprised at how many things they have been used for in that way
<glowcoil>
i do not believe the next haskell is what really matters
<glowcoil>
i don't give a fuck about langauges
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
As far as I can tell, the only thing that really matters, in the real world, is the next Cocoa. /=
<glowcoil>
i want to:
<glowcoil>
write games
<glowcoil>
write procedural audio shit
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
oh, duh
<glowcoil>
dsp
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
again, our respective personal goals are well-known :P
<glowcoil>
or, other user facing things
<glowcoil>
but like
<glowcoil>
i care about products/end users
<glowcoil>
that come out of programming
<glowcoil>
i don't care about the cults around dynamic languages
<glowcoil>
and, if i can write good user-facing things, whether that's audio or games or apps or what
<glowcoil>
in haskell
<glowcoil>
then i'm happy
<glowcoil>
or if i can do it in cocoa i'm happy
<glowcoil>
i don't want to be cool for being a javascript superstar
<glowcoil>
i want to be cool for being a game-making superstar, or an audio-software-making superstar
<glowcoil>
i don't want people to base their opinions of me on what language i use
<vigs>
I don't like people who have /real/ job titles that include words like "Ninja" "Rockstar" "Superstar" etc.
<glowcoil>
you're framing it like i'm fixated on the next haskell
<glowcoil>
vigs: right it's incredibly dumb
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
vigs: librarian!
<glowcoil>
ELLIOTTCABLE: so basically i just want to have a good tool
* ELLIOTTCABLE
points at his Twitter bio
<glowcoil>
ELLIOTTCABLE: and frankly haskell is a much more enjoyable tool than objective-c, which is a horrifying language in a lot of ways
<vigs>
glowcoil: agreed. But I don't think it affects my perception of the language
<vigs>
ELLIOTTCABLE: librarian?
<glowcoil>
paws has a chance of being a great tool
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
vigs: librarian.
<vigs>
um?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I'm going to petition for my own job-title to be “Ninja Janitor.”
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: no furrow isn't for people who write iphone apps
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
vigs: librarian, it's my favourite honorary as a programmer.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
somebody who curates libraries.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
someone in charge of APIs.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Ruby Rockstar? I'm a JavaScript Librarian.
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: furrow is general purpose. it's a replacement for C++
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
It's so much more … calm and methodical sounding than ‘Rockstar.’
<alexgordon>
I still can't believe we're in 2014
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
There's a lot that's unbelievably cool about Science™™™,
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
but the one thing that always gets me:
<vigs>
ELLIOTTCABLE: ahh, cool. yeah, it definitely doesn't carry the childish idiocy that "rockstar" or "ninja" carry. Not to mention, those other terms are unbelievably vacuous
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
is the non-language-centric-ness.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
In no other genre of human attention do you see people crossing language barriers so promiscuously and constantly.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
The chance of a paper referencing other papers in any *less* than at least three different languages, seems so minuscule in my experience. It's just breathtaking.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
sorry, nLab skimming.
<alexgordon>
LOL
<purr>
LOL
<alexgordon>
I've got you all hooked
<alexgordon>
on category theory
<glowcoil>
ELLIOTTCABLE: yeah science is the best thing on earth
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I feel so very il.
<alexgordon>
glowcoil: what is the only branch of mathematics that george bush is good at? Lie theory.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
ಠ_ಠ
<alexgordon>
REPLACE WITH BILL CLINTON FOR POLITICALLY CORRECT FUN FOR ALL THE FAMILY
<glowcoil>
10:36:06 <+alexgordon> REPLACE WITH BILL CLINTON FOR POLITICALLY CORRECT FUN FOR ALL THE FAMILY
<glowcoil>
ELLIOTTCABLE: i feel like that's a perfectly justifiable joke since he literally told a very high-profile lie that resulted in lots and lots of deaths and atrocities
<alexgordon>
glowcoil: I think elliott objected to the politics, which is usually banned in here
* glowcoil
shrugs
<purr>
¯\(º_o)/¯
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Actually, my response *was* more specific than “NO POLITICS” (although that applies too),
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
but neither as specific as ‘GEORGE BUSH ISN'T A LIAR’
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I've a very staring “Don't deride the figureheads of your own country” view.
<alexgordon>
not my country ;)
<vigs>
ELLIOTTCABLE: why's that? :o
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: what is the only branch of mathematics that tony blair is good at? Lie theory.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Free speech is great, and I fully support someone having the *right* to call their president / prime minister / whatever a cuntbag or a retard or a douchebag or an incompetent fool, or whatever else they want to say,
<alexgordon>
_now_ it's my country
<alexgordon>
also tony blair is a cunt
<vigs>
I understand not allowing politics in the channel, but
<alexgordon>
glowcoil: I've watched so many hitchens vids that I'm not even sure the war was a bad thing now
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
but that doesn't make you a good goddamn person for doing so. It's extremely disrespectful
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: no I'm a bad mother fucker
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Dude, I'm an Eagle Scout. I may be a borderline-atheist, sluttily pansexual, filthy-mouthed deviant,
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
but respect for other people, and even for *offices,* is one of the few things I never gave up on.
<alexgordon>
I thought scouts had to be religious and strictly woman-loving
<vigs>
ELLIOTTCABLE: Right, but l think calling out bullshit is pretty important. The audience, however, matters. And the derision, to me, is okay if it's backed by facts, rather than opinions. E.g.—"I do not like Obama because he voted with the money when he was in congress" would be acceptable, while "OBAMA IS AN ATHEIST MUSLIM HOMOSEXUAL" would not.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Discuss the issues, discuss how to make things better, discuss how to vote *better* next time you have the opportunity if your current leader is making mistakes,
<glowcoil>
ELLIOTTCABLE: i have a very staring "definitely deride people who have caused lots of civilian deaths" view
<alexgordon>
vigs: basically it's an extension of lèse-majesté. you don't say bad things about the head of state because the head of state represents the country
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Basically, that.
<alexgordon>
vigs: and they'll chop your head off
<glowcoil>
10:43:31 <+alexgordon> vigs: and they'll chop your head off
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
The *office* commands respect, even if the person doesn't.
<alexgordon>
vigs: america is problematic because the head of state is politicially active
<vigs>
alexgordon: Well the country can be fucked up (and it often is, regularly) because of decisions the head makes.
<alexgordon>
I can fully understand why someone would say "don't say bad things about the Queen", because I mean, who can fault her really
<vigs>
Right, she doesn't control legislation, as I understand it.
<glowcoil>
ELLIOTTCABLE: also voting has next to no impact in modern day america and wide eyed optimism about discussing how to vote better is just a little sad to me
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
No.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
It's not *don't say bad things about*.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
It's *respect*.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
You can disagree with, and speak out against, people you respect.
<vigs>
Right. Respect the position, but no the person?
<glowcoil>
ELLIOTTCABLE: yes i vote (well will, i haven't had an election day while being old enough yet)
<glowcoil>
ELLIOTTCABLE: right and saying someone lied, who lied
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Respect and endearment, or respect and agreement, are *completely* orthogonal.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
In a political discussion about the factual realities of that situation? Completely valid statement.
<glowcoil>
ELLIOTTCABLE: is just saying an objective fact
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
As an out-of-place jab, presented as a joke about George Bush, 'cuz everybody knows George Bush Is Funny™ Har Har?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Not at all.
* ELLIOTTCABLE
shrugs
<purr>
¯\(º_o)/¯
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I care, like, almost none either way.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
But it merited a ಠ_ಠ at the very least.
<glowcoil>
i feel like george bush is one of the worst people to have been alive in the past some amount of years
<vigs>
yup
<glowcoil>
like, responsible for a significant amount of bad in the world
<glowcoil>
like, along with congress
<alexgordon>
glowcoil: no way
<vigs>
Well, not entirely "yup", but I'm assuming that was hyperbole
<glowcoil>
like there are plenty of worse people
<glowcoil>
but like
<alexgordon>
glowcoil: like... saddam
<alexgordon>
he was worse
<glowcoil>
alexgordon: right that is true
<glowcoil>
alexgordon: i entirely agree that there are many worse people
<alexgordon>
and george killed him, so using movie logic, george is the good guy
<glowcoil>
but someone who *accelerates* the us's imperial/global military shit
<glowcoil>
is a very, very bad person in my eyes
<glowcoil>
ELLIOTTCABLE: also i feel that it's a harmful thing to be respectful of someone because they hold a high socioeconomic position
<glowcoil>
ELLIOTTCABLE: because that already happens enough
<vigs>
In 10th grade French, we had to describe the features of a famous person based on a picture we drew of 'em. My partner and I decided to draw Bush Jr., and went the caricature route and drew him as a monkey. She got pissed, it was hilarious.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Frankly, I wish we'd just admit full-imperalism, take on Everybody™, and either get crushed and put out of our collective stagnant misery, or succeed and then get bored and put half-a-world's collected economic power towards taking over Space as well.
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: LOL go for it
<purr>
LOL
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: we already did that
<glowcoil>
ELLIOTTCABLE: i can get behind an on-principle don't be disrespectful to poor people, or oppressed minorities, or whatever
<alexgordon>
owned half the world, then lost it
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
alexgordon: right!?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
alexgordon: but look how much you benefited!
<glowcoil>
ELLIOTTCABLE: but not an on-principle don't be disrespectful to the "most powerful man in the free world" or w/e
<vigs>
Yeah, I'd prefer if our money went towards Space, and not "KILL THEM, THEY'RE DIFFERENT"
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: true! I don't have to learn foreign languages because everybody speaks english!
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
alexgordon: I feel like trying to take over the world is the coming-of-age of a superpower.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
the U.K. is now mature, relatively calm, and stately in its visage to the outside world.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
The U.S. is like some mal-adjusted mid-twenties who hasn't emotionally escaped their teens yet, because they never graduated high school.
<glowcoil>
ELLIOTTCABLE: that's america's european fetishism speaking
<vigs>
haaaahahaha
<vigs>
ELLIOTTCABLE: that's because of the state of American public education lol
* ELLIOTTCABLE
laughs
<glowcoil>
sure i'm not a fan of the us but i'm also not a fan of the subtle deeply entrenched attitudes that white and european things are the ideal ones
<alexgordon>
glowcoil++
<purr>
Let it be known that alexgordon loves glowcoil.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
ideal? lolno.
<alexgordon>
purr: in a brotherly way
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Didn't say England was *ideal*. Just that it was mature.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
China, England, Germany, all tried to take over the world, all have their existential shit together more than the U.S.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Like I said, we're immature.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
:P
* glowcoil
rolls eyes
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
okay I'm not seriously saying that we should try and take over the world, but do you not agree that an expansionist phase has a moderating effect on the culture thereafter?
<glowcoil>
i don't think i do
<glowcoil>
china is such a horrible example for your thesis here
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
“We looked out. It didn't go that well, we got it out of our system. Now let's look in.”
<alexgordon>
spain is a good example
<glowcoil>
i guess japan and germany are probably good examples
<alexgordon>
the british empire was built on diplomacy and killing, the spanish empire was built only on killing
<glowcoil>
russia's a counterexample
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I can currently see a Tesla, a Lamborghini, and a Maserati from my window.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
omfg downtown city. |=
<vigs>
wow
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: is top gear there?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
alexgordon: nope, just everyday traffic in the city.
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: which city?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
chicago you fool
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
where do you live again, Scotsdamn-on-Rye?
<alexgordon>
LOL
<purr>
LOL
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: titsandham
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
oh gods I was way more accurate than I meant to be
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I'd completely forgotten that was a thing, I just thought you lived in London ಠ_ಠ
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
ugh I miss snow and mountains and guns and dogs and land
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: nah london doesn't really _have_ suburbs
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
sudden nearly-uncontrollable urge to pack all my shit up and leave, go buy a ranch, give up on computers
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: it's lots of towns stuck together
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
ah?
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: like, north of me is the town of isleworth, east is the town of richmond, etc
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I feel so ill. /=
<alexgordon>
each have their own high street, etc
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
maybe i'll just log back onto a video game until I crash. idk.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
so extremely unmotivated to care about anything.
<glowcoil>
ELLIOTTCABLE: yeah i want to one day:
<glowcoil>
be rich enough to own multiple homes
<glowcoil>
own a home in like, rural nw us
<glowcoil>
oregon/washington
<glowcoil>
as well as in some big city
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I've thought about that a *lot*.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Instead of rotating on a six-month or one-year schedule, I've decided I'd rather rotate on a 5- or 10- year schedule. I just, I don't like the idea of the uproar of back-and-forth all the time. /=
<vigs>
I'm a heathen who just puts a teabag in a cup of milk and microwaves it
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
it's me. I'm weirdly intense about everything.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I spent days trying to learn how to make the perfect cup of tea.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
which, like everything else, turns out to be stupidly complex.
<vigs>
I like my tea white so
<vigs>
I bet you make a totally rad cup of tea though
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
this is some peppermint herbal shit, actually
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
it's surprisingly good. came out really well.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I spent an hour yesterday buggering around with my nespresso, trying to get the volumes *exactly* right for my caffé macchiato, but lolnope. For no sane reason, it turns out the machine won't remember any milk-frother volume less than 31ml.
<purr>
lolnope
* ELLIOTTCABLE
nods
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
what purr said
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Anybody care to Minecraft? I'm joining a friend and his mates, they just wiped their server and are starting afresh.
<glowcoil>
hopefully i'm gonna have an espresso machine in my dorm next year
<glowcoil>
since my roommate's family has one they don't use right now
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
awesome :D
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
wait
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
that's terrible D:
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
buy lots of decaffeinated capsules or pods or beans or whatever.
<glowcoil>
wait why terrible
<vigs>
arg I wanna minecraft but i haven't done shit today so :<
<glowcoil>
making espresso drinks every morning will be the best thing ever
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
glowcoil: :P
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
can't figure out who vigs and vil are.
<vigs>
hi I'm vigs
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
jeannicolas is the Knight of the Flowers, clearly
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
he's such a beautiful, beautiful man
<vigs>
or do you mean in your ElliottCableofThrones headcanon?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
headcannon.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
is what I call my penis.
<vigs>
kinky
yorick has quit [Remote host closed the connection]