Raider5678

7 hours ago, Strange said:

This reminds me of a type of joke that was popular in the USSR as a way of commenting on state propaganda and the dishonesty of politicians:

"I gave $1000 to a poor kid with cancer. Okay. I didn't give $1000. I gave $500. And it wasn't a poor kid, it was my nephew. And he doesn't have cancer, it was his birthday. But it's the same thing in principle."

Man, I was really close to being on point with that joke.

9 hours ago, koti said:

I rememebr that ST episode and I'm aware of Bugs Bunny doing what you explained. I guess this is a good example of how highly subjective humor is, this is as funny to me as going through spam on a Sunday afternoon.

Hey, I'm with you dude. I have no clue.

8 minutes ago, Sensei said:

You are not using correctly ordered names, so auto-fill/auto-completion cannot work.

It does work actually. Type the first 4-5 letters of the variable, then hit tab when that variable you want is highlighted, and it almost always gets it right.

Visual studio accounts for variable types and it also predicts the variable you're going to use from some sort of artificial intelligence algorithm. Works quite well. 

18 hours ago, Sensei said:

This has to help them listed together due to sorting algorithm in IDE (auto-fill/auto-completion feature of IDE).

I used visual studio, and it has the auto-completion feature.

But I've never actually used it. Naming conventions for variables where I work at are usually just "Make sure they're descriptive" not that they follow an order that allows them to be identified faster.

That being said we don't program in form 5 much either, so this situation wouldn't apply very often.

On 10/2/2019 at 10:12 PM, Sensei said:

ps. Example from my yesterday project: context.getString( R.string.voiceedittext_speech_error_insufficient_permissions ); .... I don't need to comment, I hope so..

Is there a point where variable names become too descriptive?

For example, would "InsufficientPermissionsErrorString" have sufficed? (Go CamelCase!)

On 4/2/2018 at 7:31 AM, Strange said:

And I suspect people who argue for minimal commenting haven't had to debug soon else's code!

I've had to do a lot of it with absolutely no commenting. I'd actually venture to say that descriptive variable names are more useful(But this doesn't mean that comments shouldn't be used!!!!!!!!!! Just that they're not as helpful as descriptive variable names.) . Using your code example:

On 4/2/2018 at 7:31 AM, Strange said:

The point of commenting is to explain what the code is doing at a higher level than the code can describe. And to explain why the code is implemented in a particular way.

// We have to check the fuel level doesn't get too low or the pump could burn out
if (fuel_level < MIN_FUEL_LEVEL) {
    ... ring alarm bell
}

 

For example #1. 

I'll read the words above. That'll take me 17 words.

I'll then read the code below it. That'll translate to me as: "If fuel level is smaller then the minimum fuel level, ring the alarm bell." (14 words)

I still would have had to read the 14 words of code. The comments simply would have made it take twice as long to read.

However, had it been extremely complicated to understand the code, such as parsing out delimited data, comments are definitely warranted.

3 hours ago, DrP said:

Are the prayed for believers or non believers?

I'm not sure about other religions, however, the Judeo Christian religion prohibits them from testing their God. 

18 hours ago, zapatos said:

They suspected it had something to do with high expectations.

I thought it was concluded that the people who were being prayed for were less likely to take their medicine as well? IIRC. I could be wrong.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Any physical or mental trait associated with a certain group will follow a Gaussian distribution ( bell shape ), with the 'normal' being the section between 5% and 95%.
If you compare any specific trait between genders ( or even between what some call races ), you will find large and variable amounts of overlap between the two distributions.
Say we are considering the trait of physical strength.
There is a large overlap between the two distributions for males and females; some wimpy men are much weaker than a typical female, while some Russian female shot-putters are stronger than even football players, as examples.
The 'normal' may almost completely overlap, but the extremes ( the 0-5% and 95 -100%  ) will not.
The two bell shapes are slightly ( or more, depending on trait under consideration ) offset.

IE the differences between gender ( or the trait we call race ) are only manifest in the extremes.

Would this be considered an almost complete overlap?

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Why should they? You are implying there are important differences, so why not outline them? That way we can take a look at the literature and see whether you are correct. How, for example, do any of your examples correlate with hormones and which ones in particular? The overall point you should be thinking about is whether the differences you perceive are indeed connected to biological mechanisms or not. Just because there is different biology, it does not mean that it has a meaningful difference in the aspects you are looking at. It is not to say that there may not be differences, but the question then is also how large are these differences (especially psychological ones) and how much do cultural aspects magnify or minimize them. What, in other words, is the effect size?

Important differences include levels of aggressiveness.

Testosterone has been proven to increase levels of aggressiveness in humans, male or female. That being said, males naturally produce more testosterone than females. You can say that the aggressiveness isn't actually hormonal but instead, it's cultural, but if you're going to say that you need to ignore how animals behave as well, with some species having a more aggressive gender. 

Additionally, we know it can be directly linked to hormones in males because transexuals who take testosterone have been shown to have higher levels of aggression afterward. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3693622/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/helenthomson/2017/12/21/testosterone-treatment-makes-transmen-more-aggressive-especially-if-their-periods-persist/#1871bc975b9d

There is a counter-argument that testosterone isn't solely linked to aggression:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091208132241.htm

However, the article essentially says that they display lower levels of aggression in an attempt to climb a "hierarchy". And the attempt to climb in social status is typically known as ambition, which is a form of aggression. So it kind of does a 180. Additionally, this outlook isn't something I just randomly made up, this outlook is reaffirmed by this study:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/attraction-evolved/201707/does-testosterone-really-just-make-men-aggressive

It's important to indicate that aggression is not solely violence and murder, it's linked to a lot of things. 

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

Sure it is. Both you and the cop are taking some fact you know (or believe) to be fairly common within a group, and applying it to all the individuals within the group as if it applies to ALL of them.

That is core to racism, sexism, and bigotry in general.

 

So pointing out there are generally hormonal differences between men and women is being a racist and a sexist?

Better yet, what do you suggest I do? There is an either-or approach in your stance. Either I do the approach that will generally offend one group and not the other, or I do the approach that will not offend one group and will offend the other. (Again, generally.)

I don't see why I must purposefully go out of my way to say something I know is going to hurt someone, in the name of tearing down gender stereotypes which can be adequately proven to partially be in under the influence of hormones.

Likewise, I don't see why I must refuse to say something to anyone, even if they find it funny, simply because it may offend someone else if it was directed at them.

Additionally, you may continue to claim I'm saying absolutes, but I'm not. I'm simply saying, that until I know the person better, I can simply not say something that might offend them. 

While you didn't use this argument yet, I'm certain it will be said later on "Well why don't you just not assume anything about anyone until you know them?". The argument that I must withhold any and all assumptions of what they might be like is ludicrous. Am I simply suppose to stare at them and not say anything until I know who they are? Just because not absolutely EVERYONE will be disturbed if I bring up a dead relative of theirs, does that mean I must ignore the fact that it will disturb many people? Anything I do is based on the assumption of what they might be like. 

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

I don't remember saying or implying that. Can you show me where I did?

I said it. You disagreed with it. I thought that implied that you held that position. 

9 hours ago, iNow said:

There nothing biological or gender based about about how people react when you call them stupid. 

Then you're going to have to prove it. 

8 hours ago, zapatos said:

And when the white cop says "I don't think it's racist to pull over black drivers and search them for drugs", is he just being logical?

No. And that is nothing like what I said, and you know it.

Again, I simply pointed out to the hormonal differences between men and women, and that in some cases, they react different ways to different things. So, as a result, using what I know is a common trait, I just don't do something.

Again, if you want to simply say that biological differences do not play a part, and that hormones do not play a part in how someone thinks, then you're going to need to prove it. 

9 hours ago, iNow said:

Jesus, Raider. This isn’t exactly rocket science. Reread the thread in context. 

I read the thread. And I'm saying I don't believe its only culture. I also provided reasoning as to that, and additionally I provided reasoning as to why I think it's also biological as well.

Jesus, iNow. This isn't exactly rocket science. If you want to make a claim, you need to prove it. 

1 minute ago, iNow said:

I reckon it’s a good thing I didn’t say it even imply that, then. 

Then please clarify this, as it seems that you're saying there is nothing biological about it, and it's all culture:

1 hour ago, iNow said:

There is nothing biological about this. It's cultural, and culture is made up of countless individual acts and decisions. 

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Not sure what point you’re trying to make. Will you kindly please elaborate a bit for me?

If you're going to say it's all culture and biology plays absolutely no role, then you need to prove it.

If that's not what you meant, then please clarify.

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

What makes it sexist is when you treat (or think of) individuals within a group as all having the same traits that are simply 'common' within the group.

Similarly you should not treat all blacks, jews, white males, Catholic Priests, etc. the same simply because of traits that are common in their group.

Nothing wrong with being thoughtful about your actions in case a person does have a certain trait, but you shouldn't take actions as if you know they have a trait.

I don't think it's sexist, I think it's being logical.

While I don't know for a fact that all girls will get offended at a joke regarding their weight, if I know that a majority of them will, I can simply not do it to any of them. What I described was taking a negative action, as in not doing something, because it has a high chance of hurting someone if I do it to a particular gender.

That being said, on the flip side, why should I not make the same joke to a guy who I know won't get offended and will laugh at the joke, simply because I won't make the joke to someone of the opposite gender?

1 hour ago, iNow said:

There is nothing biological about this. It's cultural, and culture is made up of countless individual acts and decisions. By deciding not to let gender inform how we treat people, culture itself changes.

Proof that it's cultural and not biological?

I mean, I know people who were raised in drastically different situations, and across gender lines share many similar personality traits.

Surely, if it was cultural, then you'd see drastic differences in how women act across cultures correct?

I have a hard time with this argument because it's rather vague to simply blame culture, and automatically discount biology when we know hormones can and do affect how we think, and men and women have different hormones.

Let's look at animals, for example. In some species, there is a "dominant" gender. And while I'm not saying humans should be like animals and have a dominant gender, I am saying that it indicates that biology does in fact play a big part in psychology, even outside of culture. Unless animals have a culture which they're born with?

Just now, zapatos said:

It's not a very fair tactic to first present your 'off topic' position, then avoid having to defend it by claiming "off topic - I'm out".

Fair point. What do you disagree with?

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Treat people based on who they are, not based on what plumbing they use to piss. 

It has nothing to do with what plumbing they use, and everything to do with psychology.

I know a lot of people deny there are any differences psychologically between the genders, how the perceive information, etc, simply because there are exceptions, but I think it's ludicrous not to use the information I know. 

A lot of these differences are also not simply there because of sexism and bigotry, they're there because of hormones. And, unsurprisingly, what might not hurt a man may hurt a woman, or vice versa.

When I'm with my male friends, and one of us does something stupid, they're gonna get called stupid and we're all gonna laugh about it.

When I'm with my female friends, I don't call them stupid if one of them does something stupid. All of them but one would get really upset if somebody said that to them.

Likewise, with my male friends, when one of us accidentally hurts someone else's feelings, we don't rail on them for being jack asses or something. They apologize and move on.

When I'm with my female friends, when one of them hurts someone else's feelings, the other girls will rail on them for being cruel and mean after she apologizes, and they laugh about it. I typically don't join in as it feels offensive to me, but they also have never done it to me.

Am I being sexist by treating them differently? It's not that I'm not nice to men and only nice to women, it's that things that hurt people are usually very different across genders.

Anyways, this is getting off topic. It was a nice discussion, but I'm out.

1 minute ago, Strange said:

They wouldn't (except at the equator on the summer solstice, perhaps). In the northern hemisphere, the sun normally rises and sets south of you. (But I guess you don't literally mean 180º)

 

Ah, yeah. Okay. I did mean 180 degrees, but I wasn't accounting for the fact that the Sun doesn't actually set exactly West and exactly East unless you're on the equator.

11 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

And also the way the ancients use to get proper orientation: you point a stick toward the sunrise at horizon in the morning, and in the evening you point a second stick towards the sunset. The bisector gives you the South. (and not the North).

Wait, why wouldn't it give you the North and South?

I'm envisioning two sticks facing 180 degrees away from each other. In my mind, the bisector could point north or south, depending on which side of the two sticks you placed it....

On 8/31/2018 at 3:37 PM, StringJunky said:

It's surprising how many people think this is a special ability.

Ikr? I read this thread like "I've been doing this since I was like six to make lights do weird things when I look at them."

3 hours ago, 8link48 said:

Hey, name's 8link. I'm a high schooler in the US and my main preferences in science are in physics and biology (Even though I know very little about each subject compared to u ppl). I hope to learn a lot from u.

Welcome to the forum.

6 hours ago, DrP said:

..  he doesn't think he is six years old. Is this willfull misleading to promote your hatred of Transgender people or just an error in understanding the article?

1

 a 52 year-old Canadian father of seven explains how he now identifies as a 6 year-old girl.

This says identifies.

Transgender is identifying as a different gender. 

Both this man, and the rest of the transgender community use the word "identifies"

So why is this different?

6 hours ago, DrP said:

your hatred of Transgender people

It's not hatred, it's non belief.

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Well, you said it and who am I to disagree, after all, the indignant is just the angry iteration. 

 

Well, you said it first, and who am I to disagree, after all, the ignorant is just the ........struggling to find a good vocabulary word here.

You win.

2 hours ago, DrP said:

They know exactly what they are  -  it says they want to LIVE as a 6 year old girl because they were denied the chance to be one as a child.

1

I thought being transgender was believing you were a different gender.

Not just pretending you are because you want to be.

But whatever. Everyone to their own devices.

2 hours ago, DrP said:

That article is from the daily mail  -  they are renown for twisting facts in the way they report things.

 

Fair enough.

Here are some other articles.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/stefonknee-wolschtt-transgender-father-leaves-family-in-toronto-to-start-new-life-as-a-six-year-old-a6769051.html

https://www.mediaite.com/online/meet-the-52-year-old-father-who-identifies-a-6-year-old-girl/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/transgender-woman-leaves-wife-7-kids-live-girl-article-1.2463795

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, the army of the righteously indignant is growing strong. 

Indeed, the army of the righteously ignorant is growing strong.

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

And then some folks take it seriously and spread it even further. It is utter distraction and we see that they are eventually weaponized by folks with an agenda. It creates an alternate reality where internet memes are treated as real or of relevance. Note that this is not something new, celebrity cults have been around for some time and they have slowly eroding the power of real reporting. Yet, the scope and weaponization seems to have kicked up a notch.

3

I don't really think you can just treat the LGBTQ+ community as fake or not relevant. They have a lot more political power then you think.

13 hours ago, CharonY said:

Today I learned that there are folks out there who spread random stuff without any level of source analysis. Also, apparently random youtube videos are a source of learning now (which goes back to point one).

So you deny there is a 52 year old man who thinks he's a 6 year old girl?

2 hours ago, Silvestru said:

I hope you found out accidentally as a fun fact and not from officer John while he's writing a ticket haha.

Fun fact.

I found it funny tbh. 

3 hours ago, koti said:

Why doesn’t he target polygamy in the US south for example? 

 

Because the video was on one topic, not all topics.

However, he actually does happen to have an article about polygamy, and his opinion of it.

Except, his opinion is mostly focused on the LGBTQ+ community pushing for polygamy......

So I'm not going to post the link. However, just google steven crowder polygamy if you're interested.

On 5/3/2018 at 12:25 PM, dimreepr said:

Today you learned, the internet has a lot of shit... to be angry at.

I learned that a long time ago.

Today I learned the name Australia has 3 a's.

And every single one of them is pronounced differently.