Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Maybe Gloria added a few extra zeroes because Gloria was bad at math.

[Remuthra]

Maybe Gloria added a few extra zeroes because Gloria was bad at math.

Maybe she thought that single zero there looked lonely?

[My Name is Immaterial]

Maybe Gloria added a few extra zeroes because Gloria was bad at math.

Maybe she thought that single zero there looked lonely?

I bet she thought it needed like minded individuals to discuss it's thoughts with.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Also

150

Would be one phallic number and one vaginal number (as mentioned previously).

150,000

Is a lot less masculine of a number, overall.

[Reelya]

idk about that. Anything "over 9000" is clearly pretty macho

[Reelya]

Postmodern relativism believes that all truth is relative. e.g. 2+2=4 is only true because mathematicians say so. I've heard people at my Uni say this to my face.

2+2 could equal 4.3 in an "alternate number system" that's "equally valid", according to the guy I talked to.

You could totally make up a system of math that does exactly that, and it'd work just fine. However, doing so will only really confuse people and for zero benefit.

Sometimes it's useful though. We very commonly use an "alternate number system" in computing: base 16. Using letters to represent numbers; how horrifying!

We use arbitrary symbols to represent things. In that sense, yes, things are the way they are solely because someone out there says so. The concepts the symbols represent, however, do NOT change. 0xF is == to decimal 15, despite using different symbols. The concept of the number 15 remains the same.


I don't think I attacked your actual point in any way, but use better examples

I used this example, because it is literally exactly what the guy said to my face. If I'd been making one up, I would have gone one better.

No, i looked at it. Tell me which numeral base you can use to make 2+2=4.3. I tried, it cannot be done. Not even by allowing fractional bases.

It's only possible if you change what "2" means, what "4" means and what the point sign "." mean. But that's clearly not what the guy was saying.

[Remuthra]

Postmodern relativism believes that all truth is relative. e.g. 2+2=4 is only true because mathematicians say so. I've heard people at my Uni say this to my face.

2+2 could equal 4.3 in an "alternate number system" that's "equally valid", according to the guy I talked to.

You could totally make up a system of math that does exactly that, and it'd work just fine. However, doing so will only really confuse people and for zero benefit.

Sometimes it's useful though. We very commonly use an "alternate number system" in computing: base 16. Using letters to represent numbers; how horrifying!

We use arbitrary symbols to represent things. In that sense, yes, things are the way they are solely because someone out there says so. The concepts the symbols represent, however, do NOT change. 0xF is == to decimal 15, despite using different symbols. The concept of the number 15 remains the same.


I don't think I attacked your actual point in any way, but use better examples

No, i looked at it. Tell me which numeral base you can use to make 2+2=4.3. I tried, it cannot be done. Not even by allowing fractional bases.

Use a different numbering system. 2=1. 4.3=2. 1+1=2. Therefore, 2+2=4.3.

[MrWillsauce]

Maybe the extra zeroes were there to show that the girls were eating zero food.

[TherosPherae]

Postmodern relativism believes that all truth is relative. e.g. 2+2=4 is only true because mathematicians say so. I've heard people at my Uni say this to my face.

2+2 could equal 4.3 in an "alternate number system" that's "equally valid", according to the guy I talked to.

You could totally make up a system of math that does exactly that, and it'd work just fine. However, doing so will only really confuse people and for zero benefit.

Sometimes it's useful though. We very commonly use an "alternate number system" in computing: base 16. Using letters to represent numbers; how horrifying!

We use arbitrary symbols to represent things. In that sense, yes, things are the way they are solely because someone out there says so. The concepts the symbols represent, however, do NOT change. 0xF is == to decimal 15, despite using different symbols. The concept of the number 15 remains the same.


I don't think I attacked your actual point in any way, but use better examples

I used this example, because it is literally exactly what the guy said to my face. If I'd been making one up, I would have gone one better.

No, i looked at it. Tell me which numeral base you can use to make 2+2=4.3. I tried, it cannot be done. Not even by allowing fractional bases.

It's only possible if you change what "2" means, what "4" means and what the point sign "." mean. But that's clearly not what the guy was saying.

You could also redefine what "+" and "=" mean, if you really wanted to fuck with some heads. But it would still be the same thing - arbitrary reassignment of common terms for the sole purpose(s) of being a smart-ass and/or intentionally wearing away at common terminology for no good reason.

[Remuthra]

Postmodern relativism believes that all truth is relative. e.g. 2+2=4 is only true because mathematicians say so. I've heard people at my Uni say this to my face.

2+2 could equal 4.3 in an "alternate number system" that's "equally valid", according to the guy I talked to.

You could totally make up a system of math that does exactly that, and it'd work just fine. However, doing so will only really confuse people and for zero benefit.

Sometimes it's useful though. We very commonly use an "alternate number system" in computing: base 16. Using letters to represent numbers; how horrifying!

We use arbitrary symbols to represent things. In that sense, yes, things are the way they are solely because someone out there says so. The concepts the symbols represent, however, do NOT change. 0xF is == to decimal 15, despite using different symbols. The concept of the number 15 remains the same.


I don't think I attacked your actual point in any way, but use better examples

I used this example, because it is literally exactly what the guy said to my face. If I'd been making one up, I would have gone one better.

No, i looked at it. Tell me which numeral base you can use to make 2+2=4.3. I tried, it cannot be done. Not even by allowing fractional bases.

It's only possible if you change what "2" means, what "4" means and what the point sign "." mean. But that's clearly not what the guy was saying.

You could also redefine what "+" and "=" mean, if you really wanted to fuck with some heads. But it would still be the same thing - arbitrary reassignment of common terms for the sole purpose(s) of being a smart-ass and/or intentionally wearing away at common terminology for no good reason.

ie: what the article quoted in the OP is doing.

[Reelya]

ie: what the article quoted in the OP is doing.

I'd give her just a little more credit than that. She actually believes she can throw out the object-oriented model, procedural coding paradigms themselves, not merely change the terminology. The very relationship of the elements in the code will change more than just refactoring.

And the same thing with research into feminist critiques of logic. Rejecting binary logic (in the sense of the law of identity) is not just a relabeling. Paraconsistent logic has it's own set of rules which do not equate to traditional logic.

Right now there are many different ways to notate logic, which are equivalent. e.g. visual venn diagrams equate to written forms, as does set theory. Paraconsistent logic will need it's own visual forms, it's own unique version of set theory.

[Aqizzar]

You people aren't seriously taking that stupid "feminist programming language" gag seriously, are you?

...

Wait, is there someone taking that feminist programming language gag seriously?  Or is the gag making fun of them?  Is this a chicken and egg problem?  Was that a pun?

Hmm... Okay, I like the idea of it being all object oriented, to avoid the inherent power structure of static classes.  And it needs to have multiple inheritance, because screw your conservative single-parentage system.  "What-if-any container is this object in" should be a standard feature of objects because you need to respect how the object has aligned itself...

[Reelya]

You people aren't seriously taking that stupid "feminist programming language" gag seriously, are you?

Dude, the serious one was the inspiration for the gag. Here is the know your meme reference to the gag:
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/c-plus-equality-c

Here is the inspiration for the gag:
http://www.hastac.org/blogs/ari-schlesinger/2013/11/26/feminism-and-programming-languages

Note, that all the authors and citations she gives are REAL postmodernist feminist writings. There's not a thing on that page that doesn't check out as valid research.

[misko27]

I really like how people come into this thread going "You guys are so immature" and read the OP and go "Well shit."

[Aqizzar]

I really like how people come into this thread going "You guys are so immature" and read the OP and go "Well shit."

I knew about both of them, I just figured the blog was part of the gag.  And I was setting up my pun.