Perhaps it's that you never have to read the whole file into memory at once if it's with a `FILE *` rather than a string. I'm not that person, this is just my assumption.
There was a time when a file of source code might not fit in memory, or would take up a significant fraction of it. But it hasn't been the case on any developer machine in 20+ years. And the overhead of FILE * accessors like fgetc is substantial. Strings in memory are always going to be faster.
Well, the overhead of the stream API is in the noise. If the lexer / parser do not support incremental parsing, it doesn't really matter. But incremental parsing can be important in some situations. For instance, if you're parsing a 1GB json blob keeping the whole thing in memory at once can easily be an issue. Plus, if you stall waiting for the entire input string, you end up adding to latency, if that matters.
>I have not taken any position on whether or not children should be targeted with messages across the spectrum, ranging from the extreme on one end "It's okay for boys to play with dolls", to the extreme on the other "You will be happier after castration".
Mere gender non-conformity isn't enough for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, despite what you're claiming. These are the DSM criteria for diagnosis of gender dysphoria in children:
---
A. A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender, of at least 6 months’ duration, as manifested by at least six of the following (one of which must be Criterion A1):
1. A strong desire to be of the other gender or an insistence that one is the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender).
2. In boys (assigned gender), a strong preference for cross-dressing or simulating female attire; or in girls (assigned gender), a strong preference for wearing only typical masculine clothing and a strong resistance to the wearing of typical feminine clothing.
3. A strong preference for cross-gender roles in make-believe play or fantasy play.
4. A strong preference for the toys, games, or activities stereotypically used or engaged in by the other gender.
5. A strong preference for playmates of the other gender.
6. In boys (assigned gender), a strong rejection of typically masculine toys, games, and activities and a strong avoidance of rough-and-tumble play; or in girls (assigned gender), a strong rejection of typically feminine toys, games, and activities.
7. A strong dislike of one’s sexual anatomy.
8. A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics that match one’s experienced gender.
B. The condition is associated with clinically significant distress or impairment in social, school, or other important areas of functioning.
---
> If you had any faith that your message was the correct one you wouldn't be on the internet arguing for access to other people's children.
Classy as ever implying that trans people are grooming children to be trans.
It seems like the opposite happens to me: parents with attitudes like yours will attempt to keep the existence of trans people secret in an attempt to groom their child to be cis, but if their child is gender dysphoric, it's not going to work and they're just going to suffer worse dysphoria-induced distress during puberty and transition as adults.
If it were just a soft C, then "ocean" would sound more like "oh-see-in" or "oce-yin". But it's also been palatalized to sound like "oshin" in typical pronunciation. People might not have understood them because they didn't know this.
> since haskell is non-strict, if can be implemented as a function, and iirc it is
"If" can be implemented as a function in Haskell, but it's not a function. You can't pass it as a higher-order function and it uses the "then" and "else" keywords, too. But you could implement it as a function if you wanted:
if' :: Bool -> a -> a
if' True x _ = x
if' False _ y = y
Then instead of writing something like this:
max x y = if x > y then x else y
You'd write this:
max x y = if' (x > y) x y
But the "then" and "else" remove the need for parentheses around the expressions.
Good catch. That whole pipeline is very robust too - I remember mocking the Burke society folks in college, not realizing at all that they were figuring out who was headed to work with federal judges/think tanks for the next generation.
The passive voice just switches the roles so that the patient is the subject and the agent is the object (e.g. in "The ball was kicked by John," the ball is still the patient despite being the subject). It's just that with English word order, it also switches the places of the things in the sentence.
In languages with more flexible word order, you could just switch the two without passive voice. You could just say the equivalent of "The ball kicked John," with it being clear somehow that the ball is the grammatical object and John the subject, without needing to use the passive voice at all.
While that's true, many of those languages with more flexible word order, such as classical Greek and classical Latin, also have the passive voice. Classical Greek even has a third voice called the "middle voice".
You're right. Those languages have morphological passive voice conjugations for their verbs. That, combined with their flexible word order, offers expressivity.
I was just pointing out that English, due to its strict word order, is more reliant on the passive voice to change word order than less inflexibly-ordered languages.
To borrow from a sentence I used in an earlier comment, here's a fragment of Spanish.
"...sólo porque te impresionó un espectáculo de magia barato."
The equivalent English would be "...just because you were impressed by a cheap magic show."
The English sentence has to use the passive voice to put the verb "impress" at the beginning of that phrase, whereas you still use the active voice in Spanish, just with the word order putting the verb first.
I agree. The OVS order in that Spanish clause is unremarkable, though SOV is perhaps more common "un espectáculo de magia barato te impresionó". Up to the 19th century I think SVO or VOS would have been acceptable but now sound archaic: "un espectáculo de magia barato impresionóte", "impresionóte un espectáculo de magia barato", and as far as I know OSV and VSO are completely forbidden: "te un espectáculo de magía barato impresionó", "impresionó un espectáculo de magia barato te".
You can play tricks to come close to OSV and VSO for purposes of emphasis: "A vos un espectáculo de magia barato te impresionó", "Te impresionó un espectáculo de magia barato a vos," but the "te" is still obligatory. And you can do something similar in informal or poetic English: "Just because, you, a cheap magic show impressed you." But the passive offers more flexibility. I posted some other English examples yesterday in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44493065.
But Spanish's inflectional structure is very much reduced from classical Latin, with a corresponding reduction in word-order flexibility. I think any of the six permutations discussed above would be perfectly valid in classical Latin, although my Latin is very weak indeed, so I wouldn't swear to it.
> We Italians, when we were children, we were taught to read based on the written letters, and we were able to read any word. It was normal, during primary school, to pronounce a word correctly and then ask the teacher what it meant. This is something you can not do in English.
We're still taught very basic phonetic rules in English. Like how vowels have a long sound and a short sound, where "ee" is the long e sound, or "<vowel> <consonant> e" triggers the long sound for that vowel. But you're also taught that many words are exceptions (e.g. bear vs beard). And you learn there are patterns to the exceptions, like how "ea," if it doesn't sound like "ee," will sound like a short e, like in "head" or "breadth," and particularly in cases like "dream - dreamt" or "leap - leapt."
And if you do a lot of reading as a kid, you vaguely recognize in the back of your mind some words that seem to follow a different set of pronunciation rules not taught in school (e.g. rouge, mirage, entourage, entrée, matinée, parfait, buffet, memoir, soirée, patois), which you learn implicitly. I remember this as a kid, only later learning those were French.
And this lets you guess pretty well how you'd pronounce a word. Just with basic rules and a lot of input to learn from, you can guess how to pronounce pretty much anything with good accuracy, because there are rules, and even a logic to the exceptions, but the rules are overlapping, so it's more like a set of rules you choose from.
I'd liken it to machine learning. You can learn the rules without even being taught the rules, like I did in the case of French loan words. And there are probably rules we follow without even realizing it, just instinctively thinking it's the natural way to pronounce the word without knowing why.
I'm not saying it's as good as being as phonetic as Italian, but it's not like we just have to memorize the pronunciation and spelling of every word as though it were a structureless string of letters and a corresponding, unrelated sound.
> Transgender people often suffer gender dysphoria.
That's the definition of it.
> You're correct that it's possible that gender dysphoria might be a downstream effect of society. Namely, we are an extremely gender-segregated society. I'm not saying that it's that simple and all transgender people would disappear if we live in a society with no gender roles or expectations, but certainly they heavily feel the pressure of those gender roles and expectations.
I don't think this is the case. Strict gender roles might make trans people's dysphoria worse, but it's primarily about a strong desire to be the other sex and not have your current sexual characteristics. Even in a world where everything is unisex, a trans person would still feel that discomfort - for a trans girl/woman, that you wish your voice were higher and not like a man's, that your face seems alien, that your genitals are wrong, literally anything sexed about the human body. It's orthogonal to whether a man can wear a dress or makeup. Not all trans women are even that feminine. And if it were about gender roles, then you'd expect more trans women to exist than trans men, given "there's truly only one way to be a man, although there are multiple ways to be a woman."
There's really two components to gender identity: the socially constructed stuff, which is most of it, and the biological stuff. Usually changing the biological stuff just lends itself to better socially constructed stuff.
Most trans people I know, for example, have no desire to change their genitals. Probably, I'm guessing, because nobody sees that. So their genitals have pretty much no relation to their gender identity. Which makes sense when you think about it. I mean, I gender everyone in my life, including people I see only for a few seconds. But I see very, very little genitals. I'm really just guessing, and everyone is.
It's very complicated. Of course men can wear dressed and makeup and such, but that is a very high-friction activity, borderline dangerous. Women can do that, however. So then I question if there are transwomen out there who would be satisfied in a world where anyone can wear anything. Such a world does not exist, so we don't know.
> So then I question if there are trans women out there who would be satisfied in a world where anyone can wear anything.
So long as they look in the mirror and see a woman. There are trans women already who just wear jeans and t-shirts and other unisex wear in their everyday lives. There are also trans women who will never come close to passing even after a long time on HRT and surgery and wearing the most feminine clothing, and it's just tragic.
- People who have transitioned surgically (depends what surgeries the person that says it considers necessary)
- Using some biological distinguisher (this lets you refer to people who are currently repressing as trans, and makes it an inherent property of a person that was predetermined)
- People who want to transition (socially, hormonally, surgically)
