<whitequark>
less serious reason why it's good: it's like a perfect javascript bot
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
lolllllll
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
just almost fell face-first into my food at that
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
creationix: I'd love to, but yeah, like they said, busy
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
creationix: but basically everybody in here is interested in lang shit
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: how big is this campus that you can't get from one side to the other in 10 minutes :P
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
creationix: basically: talk about it, and people will respond. (possibly me. depends on how much I'm distracting myself.)
<creationix>
thanks
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
alexgordon: it's not *can't*, it's *seriously inconvenient when I need to do so* after trying to talk to an instructor, a class running long (every time, so far.), or trying to talk to another student.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
alexgordon: omg did you read up
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I met a Serious PLT Researcher and he was impressed with my shit
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
like vaguely but whatever
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
HE HAS A Y COMBINATOR TATTOO I'M IN LOVE
<alexgordon>
LOL
<purr>
lol.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I want one
<alexgordon>
no
<creationix>
nice
<alexgordon>
do not get a y combinator tattoo
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
alexgordon: WHY THO
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
now I ‘get’ tattoos, for the first time ver
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I would totally cover my body in math omg
* ELLIOTTCABLE
is like, irl trembling with excitement
<creationix>
though everyone known concatenative is the best
<alexgordon>
BECAUSE SOME DAY YOU'LL BE OLD AND YOU'LL THINK WHY THE FUCK DID I GET A YCOMBINATOR TATTOO
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
creationix: meh. I'm really not a fan.
<creationix>
for tuples, function heads, function invocations, and operator precedence
<alexgordon>
not really, in fact you are getting rid of the multiple meanings
<alexgordon>
function application is now f x
<alexgordon>
tuples are (a, b, c)
<creationix>
ahh, this I like
<alexgordon>
and it's best to see a one-tuple as being the same as grouping
<alexgordon>
mathematically they are no different
<creationix>
single input value, single output value, but smart tuples on both ends
<alexgordon>
cartesian product of one set is the set itself
<alexgordon>
creationix: taking the reasoning above further, (this is fairly far out) say you have a commutative function such as +, the order of arguments doesn't matter right? so the type of the arguments is a set + {a, b}
<alexgordon>
creationix: yes and throw in the pattern matching and you're good to go
<creationix>
the thing I really like about single-in and single-out is I can use pipe syntax!
<creationix>
this language will be used for a lot of tasks that are commonly done in bash
<creationix>
so if I see a single tuple as the thing itself (needed by arithmatic), then I don't want a first-class tuple type
<creationix>
otherwise `(a)` is not the same as `a`
<creationix>
but I can enforce that at compile time with my type system
<creationix>
a function that returns a tuple needs a tuple to handle it's result
<creationix>
or just make everything a tuple
<alexgordon>
creationix: no no
<creationix>
hmm, that doesn't work
<alexgordon>
creationix: tuples can be of order 0, 2, 3, 4, ...
<alexgordon>
but never 1
<alexgordon>
that shouldn't be possible to create
<creationix>
or that, make an exception for 1
<creationix>
just seems inconsistent
<alexgordon>
it's not really
<alexgordon>
tuples represent the cartesian product in mathematics
<alexgordon>
(a, b) is of type A x B
<alexgordon>
(a, b, c) is of type A x B x C
<creationix>
python has tuples right? I remember using them somewhere
<ljharb>
alexgordon: then what's zero
<alexgordon>
yeah but they are "dynamic" tuples
<alexgordon>
ljharb: well... normally you don't get zero :D
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
alexgordon: don't give creationix any bad advice
<creationix>
() is void
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
or I will be very upset with you
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
;)
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: this is standard stuff :P
<whitequark>
ELLIOTTCABLE: lemme give them bad advice then
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
haven't read anything
<whitequark>
i haven't read any of the conversation above so i'm in a perfect place for that
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
whitequark: yeah you can give all the bad advice you want
<whitequark>
...
<alexgordon>
creationix: afaik that's how it works in haskell anyway, you can do 0, 2, 3, 4 but never 1
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
whitequark: your bad-advice is probably better than alexgordon's good-advice. ;)
<alexgordon>
-lkd @ ELLIOTTCABLE
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
creationix: have you considered contracts?
<alexgordon>
no?
<creationix>
my experience is mostly basic, php, js, python, and ruby. I could use a little more haskell perspective
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
-find lkd
<purr>
ELLIOTTCABLE: Could not find `lkd`.
<creationix>
ELLIOTTCABLE, I have traits
<creationix>
not sure if that's the same thing
<alexgordon>
-learn lkd = ಠ_ಠ
<purr>
alexgordon: Learned `lkd`.
<alexgordon>
-lkd @ ELLIOTTCABLE
<purr>
ELLIOTTCABLE: ಠ_ಠ
<whitequark>
ELLIOTTCABLE: i'm really not that good at language design
<alexgordon>
creationix: python's "tuples" are not really tuples
<alexgordon>
creationix: they are immutable arrays
<creationix>
yeah, it's a very dynamic language
<creationix>
I guess my language is less dynamic
<whitequark>
alexgordon: i'm pretty sure they are tuples
<whitequark>
there's no real difference between a dynlang tuple and a staticlang tuple, as a value, in isolation
<alexgordon>
whitequark: just how they're used
<alexgordon>
in python you can do tuple(somelist) to turn that list into an array
<alexgordon>
people use it to make arrays non-modifyable, mainly so they can be used as dict keys
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I'm supposed to be learning Python for my DSA class here in the next week or two
<whitequark>
oh yeah that part is kinda stupid
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
that's going to be frustrating |=
<alexgordon>
so yes, the tupleness depends on the context
<whitequark>
ELLIOTTCABLE: use drugs
<creationix>
ELLIOTTCABLE, I went to school and got a degree in software engineering after working professionally for 10 years
<creationix>
the software planning classes killed me
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
oh god damnit
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
*two* conversations about drugs at once
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
el oh el no
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
creationix: that's precisely what I'm doing o_O
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
so like I talked to my Calc professor, who's a neat guy
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
my current issue: I'm *going to school for math*, but I want a making-software-better focused curriculum, I guess. There's a lot of duplication between the CS-programme and AM-programme; but the classes, despite covering similar *areas* of mathematics, differ heavily.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Like, there's MATH 230 ≈ CS 330; but the former is not available for CS majors (they *have* to take CS 330); and the latter isn't available to AM majors (they HAVE to take MATH 230)
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
(strangely enough, other engineering majors can take either.)
<whitequark>
ELLIOTTCABLE: what uni again?
<whitequark>
UIC?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
so, I'm kinda locked-in to the CompSci major if I want to take a lot of these classes … but meanwhile, a lot of the higher-level *actually interesting* courses are MATH, have MATH pre-requisites, and apply towards the MSAM, not the MSCS.
<creationix>
i switched from EE to SE
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: why are you going to school for math if you couldn't pass calc II (or was it calc 1)?!?!
<creationix>
they made me retake my maths
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
alexgordon: I *love* math. I hate *arithmetic*.
<alexgordon>
right but
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
As soon as you abstract anything, I'm fucking fine.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Like, throughout school:
<alexgordon>
in most subjects you can kind of waffle your way through
<alexgordon>
but in math, it's either right or wrong
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
anyway: like, bachelor's in comp-sci and master's in AM is my ideal course, is what I want out of life; but that's *literally the only combination* that my school doesn't offer as a co-terminal
<whitequark>
wait what was the issue with limits
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
alexgordon: lol we'll see if I can even stay in school
<purr>
undefined
* whitequark
pats purr
* purr
r
<creationix>
ELLIOTTCABLE, I dropped out with 6 months left in my masters in CS
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
whitequark: Like, if I knew, there wouldn't be an issue? I have no idea, they just don't fit into my head. They're sideways. o_O
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
creationix: thesis troubles?
<creationix>
I took all the fun classes and didn't care enough to finish the requirements
<creationix>
no, just didn't have time
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: limits are just converging sequences of fractions (or diverging)
<creationix>
had 2 kids and was working full time as well as getting node.js off the ground
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
sex-positive body-positive is the only way to live life :D
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
ugh wrong
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
alexgordon: I *know what they are*
<alexgordon>
well then what's the problem! :P
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
that intuitive understanding you need to, I dunno, complete problems, though, eludes me every time? I always fail tests, or sections of tests, over limits. That's all I'm saying.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Similar with trig or other geometric shit: I just struggle with it. I don't have any reasonable explanation of why.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I *can do it*, it just requires inordinate amounts of studying; and unlike the abstract rules for algebraic transformations and for handling derivitives and such, it leaks out of my brain immediately after the test? It's Just Harder. I can't explain this a different way! >:
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: but you can visualise limits. you can visualise most stuff in calculus
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Precisely!
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Like, I don't do well with visualization things. I do well with abstractive manipulation things.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Programming.
<alexgordon>
oh ok, I've never met someone like that before
<alexgordon>
most people are better with visual stuff
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Lambda calculus type stuff is, like, honestly, my ideal math. “What? Even construct the *integers* from abstractions over a more primitive construct? YESPLZ”
<whitequark>
that's a fairly obtuse way of writing it down
<alexgordon>
it's wikipedia
<alexgordon>
-shrug
<purr>
alexgordon: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
<whitequark>
well, actually, no, not particularly obtuse
<whitequark>
I just misread what it said
* creationix
is testing various syntaxes on 9-year-old
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
and now I'm waxing philosophic on sex over iMessage
<alexgordon>
LOL
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
great
<purr>
lol.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
1:04 PM <alexgordon> whitequark: yeah it's got all kind of greek squiggles and shit
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
… trying to think of an equivalent to “why are you going to school for math if you couldn't pass calc II (or was it calc 1)?!?!”
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
“why are you talking about math if you find greek squiggles repulsive!?!?”
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
they're the best part of math!
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
math is super-boring until you take out all the numbers.
<whitequark>
lol kinda
<alexgordon>
most people could probably look at a graph of 1/x and see that the limit as x -> ∞ is 0, but defining that rigorously will go right over their head
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
we should start from lambda calculus in elementary and abstract our way upwards. :P
<whitequark>
i'm not super-attached to greek letters. some people find them inessential and replaceable
<whitequark>
and they are correct
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
whitequark: oh, I think they're totally replacable
<whitequark>
but the people who want you to be able to communicate with others are also right
* whitequark
shrugs
<purr>
¯\(º_o)/¯
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
whitequark: but I mean *abstraction*: the thorough description of a thing, and then assigning that meaning to a representation
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
if you don't like A Lot Of Representations, then, uh
<whitequark>
yeah, sure, in that sense, yeah
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
alexgordon: I was thinking about this earlier
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I really, really hate division notation; also square-roots
<alexgordon>
lol
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
whitequark: actually you'd probably know about this
<alexgordon>
x^(-1)
<alexgordon>
happy?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
is there, like, a conlang for mathematics? something that dumps *all* of our existing evolved humanistic representation framework, and builds an *internally consistent* syntax for all of those things?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
preferably without a lot of verbosity. I'm not talking about, lol, LaTeX or Haskell or god-forbid lisp.
<purr>
lolol
<alexgordon>
no, cause in maths you can make up whatever notation you like
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
something for hand-writing, or perhaps typing with a specialized syntax; that is, something with the same strengths as the system we have now, but *optimized* for clarity, which the current framework pretty clearly isn't |=
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
alexgordon: in programming, and literally every other field too, yes, that *is* the definition of notation? good job here's a cookie?
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: what I mean is, in programming everybody has to use standard notation. if you want another notation, you have to build a parser, and a language
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
yeah, wow, disagree strongly lol
<alexgordon>
huh?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
building parsers/translators is pretty fucking trivial
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
and the only reason we're even restricted to *that* much is because computers are still dumb
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
idk sorry I'm a descriptivist I guess
<alexgordon>
however trivial it may be, you still have to do it
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
notation is still entirely arbitrary and humanistic I think
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
no less trivial than trying to think up a usefully new way to represent square-roots, I guess?
<alexgordon>
well in mathematics all you have to do is figure out how to write it in a latex file...
<alexgordon>
no need to write a new language
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: square root is just to the power of 1/2
<alexgordon>
so you can say µ = 1/2, and then x^µ
<alexgordon>
bam.
<alexgordon>
cube roots:
<alexgordon>
:D
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
well that conversation got real fast
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
alexgordon: *totally* turning in homework with emoji as variables
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
That *is* the hill I will sacrifice my diploma on: emoji variable-names.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
me: I *try* to be open-minded about a lot of things, but I honestly have a hard time *believing in* sexualities other than bisexual, pansexual, demisexual, and asexual.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
me: Like, I can understand *ranges* of sexual-drive and sexual-attraction; but how the fuck can you stand up and say “I have absolutely zero, forever and ever, *zero* attraction to <gender>?”
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
me: and even then, it’s becoming a less and less meaningless distinction: when a girl’s like, ‘Oh So Straight’ … so, wait, would you bang a cute amab? what about somebody *you* perceive as masculine, but who identifies as agender?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
me: what about a ‘gay’ guy meeting a genderfluid neato: so are you DTF, but … only part of the time? o_O
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
me: gay and straight just don’t make a lot of sense to me. It bothers me regularly, because I’m pretty open-minded about everything else, but I find myself being very close-minded about that. /=
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
nuck: around? --^
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
creationix: oh, *just* saw your ‘i have traits’ message
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: I was SO confused just then
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
creationix: lol I was kidding. the *plan* was to list a bunch of incompatible language features as drive-by ‘bad advice’ and then run off.
<purr>
undefined
<alexgordon>
we were talking about mathematics, then SUDDENLY bisexuals
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
got side-tracked by Math Things
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
alexgordon: idk, they're related to me!
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
maybe I'm an abstractisexual
<creationix>
I figure that's expected for this channel
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: you're a forgetful functor
<whitequark>
ELLIOTTCABLE: "what about somebody *you* perceive as masculine, but who identifies as agender?"
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
katymoe: UGH UG HUGH thx u for hiphop
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
katymoe: do want more. send me two more equally-interesting artists sometime.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
whitequark: Yeah. I guess there's two parts to this:
<whitequark>
so personally, i found that "how someone looks" is a far less important factor in attractiveness than "what they identify as"
<whitequark>
like
<katymoe>
Did I send you Jay Electronica?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
1. I'm v. confused about how ‘gay’ and ‘straight’ interact with more complicated, non-binary gender-identity;
<whitequark>
i have told people i find them really attractive before literally ever seeing a picture of them
<whitequark>
and that was absolutely, subjectively, true
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
and 2. even then, I find it hard to believe anybody can be a true 0% one-thing, 100% another-thing, on *any* axis of attraction
<katymoe>
Believe me I am one hundred percent gay
<whitequark>
i think the confusion is that 'straight' means lots of different things
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
whitequark: see, that's a little more in-line with my own experience, but … it's not what I see in other people in public?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
katymoe: oo! perfect! can I grill you about your sexuality? :3
<katymoe>
Yes!
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
or even just simply ‘plz wax poetic on what “gay” means to you’
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
>:
<whitequark>
like for example 'straight' can mean 'i am socialized to never do anything remotely sexual to people of my gender'
<whitequark>
for whatever definition of 'gender' happened to be around
<katymoe>
Also Jay Electronica
<whitequark>
it's not a description of you, it's a description of your environment
<whitequark>
and i think this is what many people use 'straight' as
<katymoe>
Okay let me get to a computer
<whitequark>
besides
<whitequark>
i know people that are 100% asexual
<katymoe>
I totally agree that sexuality is always in context of the environment
<whitequark>
i don't really see a reason someone couldn't be 100% heterosexual when they know for sure what gender the other party identifies with
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
1:29 PM <+whitequark> like for example 'straight' can mean 'i am socialized to never do anything remotely sexual to people of my gender'
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
1:29 PM <+whitequark> for whatever definition of 'gender' happened to be around
<katymoe>
a lot of social constructs floating around
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
yeah, this jives strongly with what doesn't sit well with me, what I can't reconcile
<alexgordon>
isn't everything a social construct?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
whitequark: see, I *believe* asexual. I can internalize that.
<katymoe>
my attraction to people is actually contingent on how they identify
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
well, scratch that.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I guess, to be completely blunt, at risk of putting my shitbaggery on display:
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I can only reconcile *100%* gay, straight, or asexual people as *damaged*. (As you put it, a ‘product of context.’)
<katymoe>
do explain more, I'm interested
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Victims of abuse, whether it's physical by a person of a particular masculine/feminine presentation … or of societal abuse for their tastes, leading to deep repression …
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Like, I find it very, very hard
<katymoe>
so like political lesbianism
<katymoe>
women have been oppressed by men, so you're not attracted to them
<katymoe>
that kind of thing?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
no, that's an understatement: *so far*, I find it completely impossible to believe that a human could be 100% asexual *naturally*, without context. to be 100% straight *naturally*, without being driven to do so by society imprinting that on them.
<katymoe>
I don't think "naturally" has any meaning here
<whitequark>
yeh
<whitequark>
there's no "natural"
<katymoe>
there is no "gay" without a social construct of gender
<katymoe>
or at least a vague cultural idea
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
katymoe: which I touched on in the copypasta: isn't this all supposted to be nature, not nurture? The whole '90s “It's not a choice” movement?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I mean, I know *my* preferences are definitely a choice, but I also realize I cannot speak for anybody outside my own head, so I find that a little easier to reserve judgement on /=
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
katymoe: yeah, I mean, I *agree*
<katymoe>
well, if there's a gay gene that doesn't prove me wrong - but imagine how that gene would be differently expressed in different cultures
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
which is kinda the point I'm trying to make, maybe, if you were to tear it down to the fundamentals:
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
*If* there is a fundamental sexual nature for each individual, as we've (I've?) been taught … *then* I find it hard to believe that that sexual nature can ever be truly 0% or 100% on any axis.
<katymoe>
interesting, why is that?
<katymoe>
I do personally (from my own experience only) believe that most people are bisexual to some degree
<katymoe>
but I don't have any reason to believe it has to be everyone
<whitequark>
fuck
<whitequark>
fuck.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
i.e. while one's *choices* and *decisions* can be 100% in a given direction (“I only have sex with people who identify as men”), it's very hard for me to believe that there's not a suppressed 1% or something, attraction to women as well?
<whitequark>
i just heard a loud crash and sound of shattering glass :/ :/ :/
<whitequark>
i LIKED that beaker :/
<katymoe>
whitequark: :(
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
And the current tearing-down of gender culture is really contributing to my surety on this topic, which is making me uncompfortable:
<whitequark>
and now there's a liter of water on the floor too :/
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
1:36 PM <katymoe> I do personally (from my own experience only) believe that most people are bisexual to some degree
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
1:36 PM <katymoe> but I don't have any reason to believe it has to be everyone
<katymoe>
ELLIOTTCABLE: so you're alluding to some sort of repression through which I'm actually attracted to men but it's repressed
<whitequark>
ELLIOTTCABLE: i think framing that as victimhood ("suppression") is what's wrong htere
<katymoe>
uhh words
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
katymoe: Hm. No. because I don't know the state of your mind.
<katymoe>
ELLIOTTCABLE: I'll ask my therapist
<katymoe>
I actually will
<katymoe>
like, I'm sure he has some insight on this
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
katymoe: but because I cannot fathom *not* having *some* desire for cock, and *some* desire for a dominating, masculine figure (when *I* 99% dislike masculinity! but I can still see my own 1%, there.),
<katymoe>
I understand
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I therefore have no framework to ... place *your statements* in? I can accept them, I just can't understand them
<katymoe>
you seem to be aware though that you're projecting your own experiences
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
and it strongly bothers me, because I'm not a kind of person who does well with things he doesn't understand. :P
<whitequark>
yeah, there's probably nothing any of us can do with that
<katymoe>
but I get the distinction between understanding (grokking?) and accepting as fact
* ELLIOTTCABLE
nods
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I have zero interest in denying anyone else's experiences;
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
to their faces.
<katymoe>
haha
<katymoe>
no, please do challenge me on stuff
<alexgordon>
"I cannot fathom *not* having *some* desire for cock"
<alexgordon>
wise words
<alexgordon>
from elliottcable
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
(and I *very* rarely bring this topic up, because it's far more likely to make somebody feel that way, feel that that's being done to them, without any benefit to myself, any further understanding.)
<katymoe>
ELLIOTTCABLE: yeah, don't worry, I don't take offence
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
but yes, it's that:
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
katymoe: *you* seem fine, but there's other, more fragile, people in here. (=
* katymoe
nods
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
just trying to make it clear for anybody drive-by reading that I'm *entirely* speaking of my own mind-space
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
yeah, really really good way of putting it, I think:
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
complete re-orientation, but,
<katymoe>
(as it were)
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
lol'd
<purr>
lol
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
*If* gender is truly ‘a social construct’, as that phrase gets bandied about, then everything in my head reconciles cleanly.
<katymoe>
yeah here it's difficult because I don't want to speak over trans people
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
But, while yes, we hear people say that all the time, it doesn't *intuitively* mean anything to me: Maybe if I were raised in the current culture; but in the decade where I was raised, Gender Was Very Much A Thing
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
(lol not trying to psychoanalyze; I'm curious if your feelings match mine at all)
<purr>
lol.
<katymoe>
ELLIOTTCABLE: I find myself performing it, and sometimes playing it as a role quite consciously
<katymoe>
but really I don't feel masculine or feminine
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
shut up purr
<katymoe>
it's just that that's how my actions and behaviour will be interpreted
<katymoe>
so it's hard not to get involved in that language
<katymoe>
like, if I sit one way it's perceived as masculine, another way is perceived as feminine
<katymoe>
I can think of myself as neither but I know what everyone else is thihnking
<katymoe>
*thinking
<katymoe>
so I will usually choose the masculine way
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I don't buy the infomercial thing.
<whitequark>
why not?
<katymoe>
informercial thing is definitely true for some of them
<katymoe>
maybe not 90%
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
but I *did* run across a neat designer brand for wheelchair-use recently
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
they had, like, basically a snuggie-peacoat
<katymoe>
ELLIOTTCABLE: link? I do a lot of a11y work in my day job
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
and it looked ridiculously good on their models
<katymoe>
or at least I did
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
katymoe: I was *just* trying to find it
<katymoe>
:)
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
found this, instead, but not the one I was thinking about: http://izcollection.com
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
those though aren't at the same level
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
the ones I'm thinking about, when laid out flat, all looked hella foolish; but folded and arranged really neatly into clean, slick lines *on the body* when seated
<katymoe>
I do like the attention to detail here though, thinking about different ways for people to get in and out of clothes
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
iz's stuff is just all slightly-different-cut to be more compfortable when sitting, but it looks like you still need to get *out of the chair* to don them
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
whitequark: I'd need to see documentation that the products were originally designed for that purpose, basically. I *see the correlation* between (foolish infomercials) and (portraying disabilities without explicitly doing so), but ... correlation, causation?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
katymoe: oh! I guess they just hid it well! Okay, now I'm more impressed
<whitequark>
ELLIOTTCABLE: that's the beauty of it, it doesn't matter if they *were designed* that way
<whitequark>
(I don't agree with everything that's written in that post, just the conclusion)
<whitequark>
it's the combination of (ads portraying disabilities are undesirable) and (this prodct, for whatever reason at all, helps disabled people)
<whitequark>
ok yeah it says "were designed by/for", scratch that
<whitequark>
if i was writing the title i would write "were ads effectively for"
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
ahhhhhh yess
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I think that “they disproportionately benefit disabled people” is the most accurate, but I also think that's an uninteresting, derivative realization, to some extent?
<katymoe>
well it's certainly not obvious
<katymoe>
as people make fun of these ads all the time
<whitequark>
^
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
katymoe: no, that's my point, lol
<purr>
lol
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Like devolve that a little further and you have “Privileged majorities ridicule any efforts expended to help less-privileged minorities as pointless, foolish, or even funny.”
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Like, that's ... Kinda The Whole Game, right? not news?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
or do you think I'm off-base?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
speaking as a very unreformed abelist (just ask VanguardVivian), like, fo def.sure
<katymoe>
the news is that *in this particular case*, people don't realise the effort is being made at all
<katymoe>
I agree that the conclusion you derive isn't news
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
katymoe: same thing I said to whitequark above, do you really think eg. the snuggie was *created for disabled people*? Because I've definitely never heard that.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
hence me saying “… citation plz”
<katymoe>
I have no idea
<katymoe>
and I agree, citation needed
<katymoe>
but I didn't necessarily appreciate (until I saw a similar post a while back) that so many of these products could find a market in disabled people
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
so my point is “Not convinced these are *for* disabled people” ∪ “The fact that people make fun of them because they look like they *could* be, isn't news” :P
<katymoe>
so the call to action to the reader is: think more about how a product can be used by different people before ridiculing
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
yeah /=
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
katymoe: wax eloquent on a11y?
<katymoe>
oh man, a11y
<katymoe>
it's such an interesting challenge
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
current, vaguely relevant song:
<katymoe>
background: I was the a11y person for a small startup (< 50 people)
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
-listening Trap Slut - Savant
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
goddamnit purr
<katymoe>
(will check it out)
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
oh it's not relevant in that way, just the name :P
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
generic dubstep. ish.
<whitequark>
katymoe: "think more about how a product can be used by different people before ridiculing"
<katymoe>
most of my time as a11y person was spent in politics
<whitequark>
so you know all these stupid silicon valley startups?
<whitequark>
that like
<whitequark>
was there something that does your laundry for you?
<katymoe>
I worked for one called Kahoot!, which is an edtech startup. it's a bit different
<katymoe>
hahah
<katymoe>
I'm actually working for a company now that's a bit like that
<katymoe>
we have hot lunches every day, free everything
<katymoe>
but it's not a Facebook
<whitequark>
i recall someone saying that silicon valley startups do what the mother of twentysomethings working in tech doesn't do for them anymore
<katymoe>
lol, yeah
<purr>
lol
<whitequark>
which is correct for a disturbing amount of those
<katymoe>
I think for a lot of the guys there it must feel like that as they're straight out of university
<whitequark>
and i'm sure many of those *are* for all intents and purposes made *for* twentysomethings in tech
<katymoe>
yeah, at Oxbridge you get a lot of stuff done for you too (cleaning etc)
<katymoe>
ELLIOTTCABLE: I don't get it
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
katymoe: They should become a programmer.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
They saw a repetitive task, and optimized it away. :P
<katymoe>
ah, I see
<whitequark>
katymoe: wait really?
<katymoe>
did you see that joke a while back about Lego and Duplo
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Oxbridge?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
katymoe: nah
<katymoe>
whitequark: yeah, you have a cleaner (called a "scout" or "bedder") for your room
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
duplo would make better programmers? less micro-management?
<whitequark>
wow
<whitequark>
wow.
<katymoe>
sometimes they make you tea
<whitequark>
mind blowm
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
whitequark / katymoe: where?
<katymoe>
Oxford and Cambridge
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
oh lolllll
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
~UNIVERSITY~
<katymoe>
you guys call it "school" or "college" right
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
er, depends
<katymoe>
but yeah, I lived with a guy who took his laundry home to his mother each weekend
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
katymoe: A *lot* of britishisms aren't exactly *incorrect* here, they're ...
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
perceived as effete or aristocratic?
<katymoe>
interesting
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
University is that way: If you want to be ~~fancy~~ about it, you call it University.
<katymoe>
so you sound like a ponce if you say "university"?
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: most people just say uni...
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
More acceptably, if it's a famous or reputable school.
<katymoe>
do you even say "ponce"????
<katymoe>
alexgordon: yeah, tru
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
But it's way more judge-able if you call a smaller school ‘university’
<alexgordon>
is university worse?!
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
as in “I'm off to university this year” makes you definitely sound as if you're 18, fresh out of high-school, and *way* too excited about ur stupid technical / community college
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: in britain, college is what 16 year olds go to :P
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
‘college’ is the far more common term.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
alexgordon: yeah, pretty aware of this
<alexgordon>
maybe younger if they go to eton
<katymoe>
yeah it's all a bit confusing
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
alexgordon: i'm a big proponent of ‘can we plz do it the way the U.K. does it over here, plz?’ all the time
<katymoe>
and "public school" here means like Eton
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I argue this shit with my American education friends all the time
<katymoe>
i.e. an ancient private school
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
katymoe: eton?
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: next to where the queen lives
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
yeah, in the U.S., ‘public school’ usually has a non-perjorative slang meaning
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
A lot of non-U.S.'ers think it's insulting; but it's really more ... differentiating.
<katymoe>
and in the UK private schools often call themselves "independent schools"
<katymoe>
so it's especially confusing for foreigners
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Basically, if it's qualified in *any* way (“private school” *or* “public school”), instead of just ‘school’, then it's slightly perjorative ... in different ways.
<katymoe>
how is "private school" pejorative?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
‘public school’ strongly implies street-smarts in a way that doesn't necessary apply?
<katymoe>
I mean, I can see how it would be in some contexts
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
and ‘private school’ strongly implies you grew up rich, again, in a way that doesn't usually apply
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: public school is definitely perjorative in britain, but in the "you're so rich you can't even tie your own shoelaces" kind of a way
<katymoe>
alexgordon: I think we come from slightly different backgrounds :p
<alexgordon>
did you go to public school katymoe?
<katymoe>
I went to private school
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
so basically somebody only says another person was ‘in high-school’ or went ‘to school’ in general; only specifying ‘they went to private school’ or ‘they were in public school’ implies a slightly tainted meaning
<katymoe>
god I love these subtleties, especially transatlantic ones
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
but yeah it's definitely not the ‘oooo private school *bows*’ and ‘ew, dirty public-school poor person *spits*’ reactions that seem to be portrayed in foreign media of the U.S.
<katymoe>
class is so fucked up and interesting in the UK
<katymoe>
I don't even know how it works in the US
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
terribly.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
super terribly.
<katymoe>
like, can you tell someone's class background by their accent?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
our education system is so bad that it literally almost might as well not happen at all.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
oh lol
<purr>
lolllllll
<katymoe>
because in the UK it's one of the first things you notice
<katymoe>
someone's accent
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
like, I have to be careful about how you define ‘class’
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
ours is much less tree-based and much more graph-based
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
and at that, it's 100% egalitarian multiple-inheritance when it comes to judgementalness :P
<katymoe>
tht's a great way to describe it
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
but in terms of external traits causing those judgements:
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
accent: no. (almost entirely geographical, and only results in value judgements in *suuuuuper* inspecific, general ways based on those regional assumptions.)
<katymoe>
okay
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
(like, if someone hears ur deeeeeep southern drawl, they might super-superficially presume you to be kind, but racist; but those assumptions will wash away within moments: they're very rarely strongly attached.)
<katymoe>
like when I meet someone at, say, a club, I can generally tell where they grew up and what kind of school they might have gone to
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
(this is unsurprising sociologically: we're much more spread-out; and it's harder to judge somebody from further away.)
<katymoe>
(yeah, and you have much less accent variation)
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
(if anything, *localities*' accents have much more judgement attached: if you're recognizably *south-side* Chicagoan, you're gonna get judged much stronger by north-side Chicagoans, than any other accent from around the world will.)
<katymoe>
I maintain that the easiest way to transcend class in the UK is to be foreign
<whitequark>
that's just the usual outgroup dynamic
<whitequark>
katymoe: i was about to ask what would my foreign accent mean in UK
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
(much less!? Have you ever *heard* a southerner, bostonian, and oregonian in teh same room? :P)
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
but appearance, especially shoes: very, very strong judgmental assumptions
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
pretty sure that's pretty universal though, so
<katymoe>
my gf, for example, is Canadian and gets to skip all the weird "what class are you" assumptions
<alexgordon>
whitequark: it means you're a rich oligarch
<katymoe>
shoes?
<whitequark>
^ second that
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
russians are rich oligarchs? :P
<alexgordon>
but I guess it depends how you dress
<alexgordon>
of coure
<katymoe>
yeah there's that too
<alexgordon>
*course
<katymoe>
but that's easier to fake
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
whitequark: second what
<whitequark>
ELLIOTTCABLE: question about shoes
<katymoe>
I know a lot of public school chaps who dress "street" on purpose
<whitequark>
ELLIOTTCABLE: i don't think my accent is distinctly russian
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
really? is that not a thing there?
<whitequark>
none of the people i've asked were able to detect that
<whitequark>
moreover
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
yeah you can't really fake class-dress here in the U.S.
<katymoe>
whitequark: so do you live in the US?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
it's all very ...
<whitequark>
i was in Poland, and i was speaking English
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
hm asymmetric-encryption?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
it's easy to read, difficult to write.
<whitequark>
my landlord was speaking Russian and she had no idea I spoke Russian too before she's seen my passport
<whitequark>
katymoe: nope
<whitequark>
right now i'm in RU but i live in HK
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
*everybody* can look at you and know if you're a Real Suit (although only other Real Suits can look at you and gauge *quantity*, beyond boolean),
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
and if you're not a True Scotsman suit, you can't fake that just by putting on what it looks like suits wear.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
ditto street-wear, or whatever else.
<katymoe>
ah yes, it doesn't work both ways here as far as I can tell
<katymoe>
like, a posh person can dress street, but a working class person probably can't tell a good suit
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
it *is* the same, you mean? I'd have assumed so, that seems pretty universal
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
whitequark: is the shoes thing not true there?
<alexgordon>
shoes? what
<alexgordon>
I read the explanation and I still don't understand
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
really? nobody?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
maybe it's just a U.S. thing o_O
<whitequark>
lol
<purr>
lolllll
<whitequark>
ELLIOTTCABLE: yeah it was really weird when i read about the shoes thing in US media
<katymoe>
tell me more about the shoes thing!
<katymoe>
I'm interested
<whitequark>
i still don't fully believe it
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
like, over here, it's a Known Thing that shoes are the class-checksum.
<katymoe>
like, apart from working class trainer fetishism, I can't think of a good way of using it as a class differentiator here
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
like 99% of the time you can class somebody based on their shoes slash you will get classed based on your shoes
<katymoe>
is this a thing that people talk about?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
and it's a lot more linear, less graph-y than the rest of dress
<katymoe>
or is it something you have just noticed?
<whitequark>
katymoe: trainer fetishism, like adidas running shoes?
<katymoe>
like Air Force Ones
<katymoe>
there's always a trainer that's the one to have
<katymoe>
at least among young men in London
<whitequark>
oh nike
<whitequark>
interesting
<katymoe>
and naturally you have the uniform of tracksuits/hoodies, lots of black
<katymoe>
ELLIOTTCABLE: does the shoes thing hold for women too?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
sorry, lost connection
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
ugh it dropped some of my messages
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
- yes, widely known
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
- not often discussed, except at a cliché / trite level like stupid ‘wear ur best shoes to interviews’ (or corresponding ‘check interviewees' shoes’) advices
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
- yes holds for women
<whitequark>
ELLIOTTCABLE: OH
<whitequark>
i never connected those two
<whitequark>
(interviews)
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
- is more linear, less graph-y:
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
(like tennis shoes lie somewhere between work-boots and nice loafers, instead of work-boots being their own node?)
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
also: ‘trainer’ woah sounds so foreign, that's crazy
<katymoe>
haha, I didn't even realise
<katymoe>
sneakers, right?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
they're almost *universally* tennis-shoes over here, rarely track shoes or running shoes if you have reason to be pedantic about the fact that most tennis-shoes aren't *tennis* tennis-shoes.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
sneakers is more souther-eastern
<katymoe>
there is so much difference between American English and British English. I notice whenever I go over
<katymoe>
people actually didn't understand me when I went to the west coast
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
but the links are dead rn
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
maybe Internet Archive, I hope, bcause that was DAMN interesting information
<katymoe>
oh, nice
<katymoe>
BBC did something similar for UK regional accents
<katymoe>
there's an archive somewhere
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
but yeah tennis-shoes leads almost the entire U.S.; even where sneakers prevails, its' only at like 54% or something
<katymoe>
of people from all over the UK talking naturally
<katymoe>
it's so cool
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
the shoes thing is neat because it's so ... cryptographically insecure
<katymoe>
ELLIOTTCABLE: I never even realised "tennis shoes" was a thing
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
it's a *strong* habit over here, and unlike the rest of dress, it's easy to spoof
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
like, you can't just find the *suit* with the highest price-tag and suddenly you're dressed and outfitted like and Come Off As a Suit™
<katymoe>
yeah
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
but you can basically just find a pair of shoes that matches your outfit to a bare minimum, with a high price-tag, and boom.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
hence the interviews/shoes advice.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
and that's *especially* interesting if it's just a U.S. thing; I always thought it was a weird quirky human-nature thing ...
<katymoe>
it's certainly not something I've encountered
<katymoe>
but that could be my particular background
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
so, this is going to sound very classist / judgemental; understand that I'm observing on a trend, not condoning it,
<katymoe>
(grew up sort of lower-middle class, parents got rich, catapulted to the upper middle, went to Oxford, etc)
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
but I'm now suspecting, if this is a U.S. thing, maybe it's tightly coupled to the capitalist system:
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
*because* they're easy to game with money, we pay attention to them.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
or to rephrase, if you're blind to privilege, then it can seem like shoes are an indicator of class *aspirations*, as opposed to class *membership*:
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
“The kid may not be able to pull of the suit, but he's *got the shoes.*” mentality
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: US seems uniquely obsessed about clothes
<alexgordon>
as a measure of status
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
as in, he had the money to throw away on a really nice pair of shoes, which somehow demonstrates his ‘desire to succeed’ or dedication; and thus flatters our uniquely American “you get what you work for†” aesthetic / self-image?
<katymoe>
alexgordon: yeah definitely
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
(† only cis, white, straight, religious males need apply)
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
alexgordon: really? i'd assert the other way: besides the weird footwear thing, it's very nonlinear
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
like, the example I've been using this entire time ... other than as a *in-group signal* (what's that called, again? a word or phraseology that's developed as a signal of group membership? I know there's a word for that.),
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
‘suit’ is a strong perjorative.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
prejorative
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
how the fuck
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
oh lord there's no R, i've been mis-spelling that this entire time
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
pejorative*
<whitequark>
ELLIOTTCABLE: "marker"
<whitequark>
as in "in a corporate environment, people in suits are unmarked".
gq has joined #elliottcable
<katymoe>
right I'm off to do some more work
<katymoe>
nice speaking to all of you
<katymoe>
bye!
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: tbh, I'm not even sure what "high status" shoes are
<alexgordon>
and how much do they cost?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
whitequark: nono different word. bit archaic, usually refers to words or phrases (like modern slang). uggggggh, can't place it. kinda synonymous with ‘dog-whistle’
<whitequark>
shibboleth?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
in a similar family of words to stuff like pidgin and ‘vernacular’
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
YES THAT
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
lol.
<purr>
lolllllll
* whitequark
gives high-five to themselves
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
was going to appropriate that for this usage :P
<whitequark>
my telepathic powers solve a problem again :p
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
are you a plural system now? did I miss that? :P
<whitequark>
no, singular they
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
ahhah that is also news to me :3
<whitequark>
i don't particularly fixate on pronouns
<whitequark>
i do think that singular they is linguistically elegant
<whitequark>
mind you
<whitequark>
russian has nothing of sort. moreover, it goes further than pronouns
<whitequark>
you are unable to say *any verb* without choosing a gender for the subject
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
nice shoes: well, shiny is a good start. :P
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
if they're not leather, you're almost certainly off the mark. suede is good, too, but more nuanced and difficult to pull off, I'd say.
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: but that doesn't sound very expensive
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
anyway I'm terrible at fashion and 100% ugly all the 100% time in my 100% tee-shirts and 100% jeans.
<whitequark>
lol clothes
<purr>
lolol
<whitequark>
the only way i get clothes on me that aren't like SUPER AWFUL is
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
~SUPER AWFUL~
<whitequark>
i find a woman i know who i also know likes shopping, and ask her to select something
<whitequark>
apparently many people like to select clothes but hate paying for it, whereas in this case i have the exact opposite problem
<whitequark>
the perfect combination
alexgordon has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
eligrey has joined #elliottcable
alexgordon has joined #elliottcable
alexgordon has quit [Client Quit]
alexgordon has joined #elliottcable
<alexgordon>
oy squirts
<ja>
XD yo mofo
<ja>
“shibboleth” is a great word
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
ja: I knoooowwww I love it
<ja>
\o/
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
whitequark: lol so just like most masculine people.
<purr>
lolllllll
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
okay so he's gone from saying undefined to just saying lollllllll with a bunch of L's
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
huge improvement? can't tell.
<ja>
haha, I guess it's better than undefined
alexgordon has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]