namark @namark@qoto.org

@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe hmmm, not sure how is any of what I said politics... or bashing for that matter... or philosophical... not sure what humanities are, but I guess it was about humans...

Regarding specifics, I locked up on the first ever lecture on reals and couldn't go past that point until numerical methods came along to shed some light on the realities of actual applied mathematics, but at that point it was too late for me to catch up, so I don't think I can argue anything other than "I don't like, and I don't have an alternative that I like either". Nothing constructive on that front, other than maybe referring to this one youtube channel I found https://www.youtube.com/user/njwildberger
which seems promising, but nothing I can really vouch for as I haven't gone through it myself yet.

@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe

Don't you think that I think that there is something wrong with me!!! It's the math that is wrong! Wait... was it lazy or self-absorbed?

@loweel

@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe Well, if by actual academics you mean, those that are content with picking out a couple out of hundreds of students to share their theories/knowledge with, simply because their obscure presentation happened to click with them, then yes I'm not talking about those directly (and yes, I'll snark at anyone and anything). There are not failing to be accessible, or proving anything about that, it's as irrelevant for them as they are irrelevant in this context. I'm talking about mathematicians as a community that also include those who try to popularize the subject, whose methods might be less refined, but the approach is, in essence, based on the same fundamental ideas that the actual academics hold, about the higher purpose/meaning of mathematics (nothing wrong with that in general).

@loweel

I don't think there exist anyone lazier than me and I can't do math.

@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe

@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe I didn't mean to say mathematicians were ever behind their times, for all I know priesthood was all the rage back in the day, but they are not very good at appearing less religious even doing sports or gaming, with their memorizing digits, pi days, tau wars, "golden ratio is everywhere", "this wonderful little formula models all nature", in short - the general tendency to assume their own perception to be somehow linked to a mystical natural order, that's just waiting for them to discover it by thinking hard enough. It's all over the place in modern math "pop culture". Instead of making the science actually more accessible, their approach to popularization is the creation of an engaging mythos. There are exceptions and I might be exaggerating, but that's the sense I'm getting.

Didn't mean to argue against accessibility either, that pretty much the objective metric that programming is forcing all the theories into, just that I don't think there is an upper limit of useful/accessible abstractions, if we allow ourselves some mathematical heresy. Everyone can be happy... Except the mathematicians who cry every time they read Godel's incompleteness theorem... they will never be happy....

@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe hmmm... I thing functional.cafe might have dropped the ball with my glorious rant-back here, so lets see if this restores it... or could be just an instance block/silence.

@lordalveric

- I know a fancy math trick that works on board games, why don't these stupid humans use it to solve the world?!

- Hello citizen! Would you like to volunteer for "collateral damage"?

@freemo

@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe Mathematics historically was a near religious search for "truth", rather than any practical study, which has its manifestation even today. Just listening to people talking about your pi, your e, your phi or i, will make you wonder whether those are abstractions or deities.

Programming is in an interesting position, as it is exploring the practical application of the abstractions themselves, not just results that they produce. With something like pi your are forced to drop the charade and accept it for what it is - an infinite(countably now, don't get excited) convergent process, in the simplest form - a function, that accepts a termination condition and returns a rational (not that many people do that today, us puny programmers dare not challenge the sanctity of mathematics, pi is a number so it has to be hard coded as a constant).

I don't think an upper limit of useful abstraction height has been proven to exist, since the field of science that is questioning the objective value of each and every step of the ladder is only starting to emerge.

oh no, sheltered manbaby @Dokyriak with his beloved @Weiss_Drache witness thievery for the first time in their forty something years of no life, their tiny tribal minds traumatized by this beyond repair :O

@ssokolow

(I realize this completely off topic now, and I wish you argued about artificial hearts in such detail instead, but anyway).

I assumed "all above", because you didn't say being able to answer the phone one handed, period, you said being able to answer the phone, in one specific circumstance, which begs the question how important or common is that circumstance. It raises a priority issue. I guess you are now claiming that it is the most important circumstance considered in the design? I have to say I have not seen any such circumstances presented or advertized as selling points of phones these days. The feature phones of the old, when it comes to shape and size, will beat the current designs if that indeed was the purpose.
"Oh my god, one of the volume buttons becomes shutter button, peak of ergonomics!"
Just look at the ads, those things are designed to fit a pocket better than a hand. And yet people argue that they are designed to be fit for whatever purpose they feel is important, and then the designers keep nodding and smiling, as long as it sells.

@Absinthe

@ssokolow

So "all of the above but also one more thing"? I guess we now have to go into details on what's higher priority, being batman or comfort of answering calls with one hand... It's not fit for any purpose, other than those that it and the pop culture around it dictate. It is sad that it is normalized to such a degree, that people are oblivious to its absurdity. At this point I guess we can only hope that possession and use are not going to be mandated by law in future.

@Absinthe

@ssokolow

Just beyond ideal size for what? Calling? Taking photos and videos with one hand? Watching movies? Playing that one game I really like? According to internet celebrity? Being batman? All of the above?

@Absinthe

@ssokolow

Even if you do not agree with my absolute disgust of most modern phone designs, you have to agree that they are not(and were not) designed for any other purpose than suiting and driving pop culture, in particular not designed for taking photos comfortably and reliably in extreme circumstances. The market is driven by people who buy the new shiny, without any consideration of utility. That's the main point of one minor sub-point you decided to focus on.

I don't see any deep rooted disagreement. In case my, perhaps, abrasive manner of writing is draining you emotionally, I apologize.

@Absinthe

@ssokolow

No, I'm not sure how you arrived at that. I'm arguing that phones are not designed to fit any hands or be usable one handed, or be usable at all, they are designed to be fancy fashion accessories. They happen to be small computers with various gadget including cameras attached for no particular purpose other than pop culture. Being able to use them effectively requires training and is a feat of dexterity. You are arguing that something that was not designed for the purpose is not be fit for the purpose for woman specifically, and blaming that on designers.

There is no reason a camera cannot have such an uploading functionality. Anyone wanting to take photos comfortably and reliably has to buy a camera.

There is a lot of sexual discrimination in any culture I've come in contact with or ever heard about. It is done by men against women, women against men, men against men and women against women. When you foundation is failing renovating the top floor is pointless (and phone size isn't even that, phone size is window handles in this analogy, if anything at all).

@Absinthe

@ssokolow

The article seems to suggest that artificial heart fit men better because men are more susceptible. That makes perfect sense, if you make a calculation of the size with the goal to fit as many susceptible people as possible, the result will be biased towards the more susceptible group. This calculation will be the same regardless of whether it is done by a woman or a man. Suggesting that a woman will disregard that and instead do a 50-50 split based on sex alone, is first of all stupid, but also sexist, both of that woman and of the one suggesting. This is true for many other things. For example most combat equipment is designed for men, not because they are designed by men, but because there are significantly more men in combat, and as long as that is the case a woman designer would make similar choices.

Cell phones are fashion items and they are not designed to be fit for any purpose. They are a pain to use for any size human hand, unless it was specifically trained. There are plenty of small cameras designed for the exact purpose of taking quick photos or videos and can easily be used singlehandedly by anyone, even children.

@Absinthe

@freemo

oh nooo... alright next thing I tell you has got to be something nice...

@lordalveric

@freemo

I saw it more like a sarcastic bait than lighthearted joke, so was playing along...

@lordalveric

@lordalveric Ah, you can see @freemo here in his natural habitat, attempting to offend as big a group of people as he can master, displaying a somewhat unusual coloration of xenophobia in this instance.

@Absinthe

I think there are much deeper cultural reasons for lack of such diversity in general, and attempts and goals of "fixing" that in confines of select industries/professions are shallow and futile. It's a fad.
In other words as long as "X is not a job for a girl/boy" is acceptable in general, saying "oh no but Y is" is pointless. Probably some higher ups trying to fix some statistics for political reasons. You know, the higher up you are, the more people look like numbers to you.

@meta

My questions for access and normalization of free office coffee were to show that you have no statistical argument, in case that's what you were trying to present. I think I see what you mean now, and my point was that only added value you can offer with software is warranty. Unless it's something completely unrelated like "buy our binary and get a plush toy of our mascot", but at that point you might as well just sell the mascot, I don't see the point... and I have to admit I do want a plush baby gnu.
Also I have a little bit of a problem with the slight (unrelated) implication that people who need space for socializing are pressured into drinking specific brand of coffee by socioeconomic (I guess) norms. If you need a pleasant space you should pay for pleasant space, to people who make spaces pleasant. Not always possible in real world, due to scarcity, but should be in software - there is plenty of space for everyone, and there is no need to invent arbitrary boundaries.

@aeveltstra @sir @portpupper