Map (Int, Int) Int. Kind of a bad example because tuples have special-case infix syntax, the general case would be Map Int (Either Int Bool). Follows the same exact syntax as function application just that types (by enforced convention) start upper case. Modulo technical wibbles to ensure that type inference is possible you can consider type constructors to be functions from types to types.

…function application syntax is a story in itself in Haskell because foo a b c gets desugared to (((foo a) b) c): There’s only one-argument functions. If you want to have more arguments, accept an argument and return a function that accepts yet another argument. Then hide all that under syntactic sugar so that it looks innocent. And, of course, optimise it away when compiling. Thus you can write stuff like map (+5) xs in Haskell while other languages need the equivalent of map (\x -> x + 5) xs (imagine the \ is a lambda symbol).

The actual reason why let … in syntax tends to not use C-style “type var” like syntax is because it’s derived from the syntax type theory uses, and type theorists know about parameterised types. Generics, in C++ parlance, excuse my Haskell:

let foo :: Map Int String = mempty

We have an empty map, and it maps integers to Strings. We call it foo. Compare:

Map Int String foo = mempty

If nothing else, that’s just awkward to read and while it may be grammatically unambiguous (a token is a name if it sits directly in front of =) parser error messages are going to suck. Map<Int,String> is also awkward but alas that’s what we’re stuck with in Rust because they reasoned that it would be cruel to put folks coming from C++ on angle bracket withdrawal. Also Rust has ML ancestry don’t get me started on their type syntax.

Sandwich.hs:6:11: error: [GHC-83865]
    * Couldn't match type ‘Bread’ with ‘Cucumber’
        Expected: Bread
        Actual: Cucumber

This wouldn’t have happened with Burritos.

Oh this is beautiful and reinforces the result that actual AGI will have to be able to develop its own encodings. In the sense of rather yellowstone relying on a fixed network creating a mapping, decide on a network to create mappings that make sense. Here’s the whole system-theoretical background, papers at the bottom.

Erm. VW Tiguan vs. Ford F350. And Tiguan vs. Ford Transit, European SUVs are flat vans. For completeness’ sake Transit vs. F350. A Unimog would generally be a bit larger than a F350, maybe a bit shorter on average (there’s a ton of models). Also, haul absolutely more ass.

I don’t believe there is no difference at all between men and women. I simply believe that a lot of the things we say are inherent differences are actually not as inherent as people tend to believe.

Depending on who you mean with “we” I definitely agree.

For example, I’ve seen no evidence that women are inherently more kind/caring/empathetic than men in any biological way, only that society socializes them to be so,

…and fails at doing so, if I may add. Male-pattern aggression is simply more obvious because it’s in your face physical while female-pattern is psychological, always ensuring plausible deniability.

Yet if you ask most people, they’ll assume there’s something biological that makes women more like that emotionally.

Women favour low-risk engagement, passive aggressiveness over overt aggressiveness. Thus you see emotional manipulation used way more often, one approach being self-victim-framing, and for that the narrative of “oh women are so delicate and emotional they have to be protected no matter what they do” fits the bill. Female viciousness is beautiful but I very much prefer it in the “never start a fight, but always finish it” version. Relevant symphonic metal. Also if you’re trying it with me you’re getting tickled into submission.

TBH, Silverbacks are actually good role models: Big, bulky, sit around grooming the troupe, know everyone, emotionally support everyone, when someone wants to start a fight, intervenes, “You wanna fight? Yeah, fight me! Both of you at once, if need be!” – and then suddenly the others lost interest in fighting.

Proverbial gymbro speaking softly and carrying a big stick, far from a tyrant, you know the type. Chimpanzees are the closest to us, with warfare and everything. Bonobos are… well, they are what biologists start talking about when they want to get into your pants. Let’s just say there’s a reason you don’t see them in zoos, parents don’t want to hear kids asking those kinds of questions.

Isn’t it weird that for humans, sex is a private matter? Completely singular among all the animals. And that’s independent of social status, like a smaller sea lion seducing a female one while the big hunk de jure leading the pack isn’t looking, it’s universal. Even if sex is a group activity, then that group itself is putting up layers of privateness and propriety. Swinger clubs with fancy dress codes, doesn’t matter if you end up naked but you have to start out in suit and tie.

If a scientist would, today, discover humanity and describe their behaviour they’d be laughed out of any conference, “did you get your notes mixed up”. “Next thing you want to tell us camelopards are real”.

You’re right after that comes the patriarchal, or just gendered, double-whammy: Women culturally do have more of a support network, even just in the “friends hanging out” way, as the male “do things together, chop wood, go fishing” is regarded as work, not leisure, and thus co-opted by capitalism: “What do you need to chop food and fish for, go buy fuel and food are you poor or something”. Thus all the productive time men have is spent in a hierarchical worker-boss environment, never “pals doing stuff”, cue loss of connection, alienation from broader society, loneliness. Going bowling? Time not spent hustling, you’re a loser. That’s your mind on patriarchal capitalism.

Thus, even if the starting conditions inflicted by capitalism are, for the sake of argument, completely even, it still hits men harder when it comes to loneliness. Women are more affected in other ways. This isn’t an olympics, it’s analysis of the material conditions we live under.

Alienation. Exploitation. Heard of it?

Capitalism has bereft men even of the patriarchal provider role as there’s no fucking time in the day to earn both rent and have any type of social interaction, much less time to reflect on your approach to life. Your position as a gear churning out profit for the bosses has been meticulously designed and drilled into you while you were a kid, blind obedience instilled by teachers and BS “zero tolerance punish the victim” rules. There is no use for you aside from that assigned role, happiness, connection, community, work//life balance? Don’t make a profit. Get out of here with that commie nonsense we have quarterly figures to hit.

Or, maybe, yes, you do have a point: I should have said late-stage capitalism. The internal contradictions are actively eroding it by now.

hooks suggests that men need to develop a more nuanced and inclusive understanding of masculinity, one that values emotions, relationships, and mutual respect.

Yep, written by a woman. Replace that with “value traversing rivers on couches strapped to floats and having a blast with the pals” and you’ll get somewhere.

Valuing something already is an emotion so you’re being emotional about being emotional about something so, yeah, no. Go climb a tree, create a tasty recipe, fix a shoe. Shave the soap.

Boys develop coarse motor skills first, then fine motor skills, for girls it’s the other way around. Which also means that girls are quite good at sitting still in primary school, boys, without getting tired out in recess, very much aren’t. Cue “behavioural issues”.

Lego did control for everything that could be controlled. They’re the OG “our toys are for everyone” company. They thought that their stuff was gender neutral, that stores and parents, society, were the problem, but had to admit that, no, kids actually do have, statistically speaking, different play preferences. Their female set designers didn’t catch it because they were not kids, any more.

And “no hormones to speak of” MF if there were no hormones involved male karyotypes would develop female.

they generally just go with what they prefer in the moment along lines that don’t match the gender binary

Nope. Lego did a large behavioural study on this because this was their assumption, they thought they were doing completely gender-neutral stuff, but even controlling for parents’s biases their stuff wasn’t gender-neutral when it came to actually be interesting to kids. I’m talking about stuff like the city series, here: A street, bunch of houses, bunch of minifigs. Figures that the girls by and large where looking at the inside of the buildings, finding them empty, and lost interest while boys where seeing the streets, found ample of detail and also a car to drive around, and created stories. There are, of course, as always exceptions to the binary but the overall trend was undeniable.

That (and the insistence of US stores on not having gender-neutral isles and putting Lego in the boy’s section) made them create the Friends series: Detailed house interiors, larger, more detailed minifigs. The pink is for the stores and parents, the interiors for the girls, the build-what-you-want flexibility for the humans.

Generally speaking, I think that difference feminism has been discarded prematurely. Sure, none of the normative BS that many of its proponents espoused should ever see the light of day, but denying difference is harmful in its own way, and the reason is the inevitability of essentialising: If you say “there is no difference at all between men and women” you’re bound to essentialise everyone towards your own gender. And it’s way better to be essentialised as an apple when you’re an apple than it is to be essentialised as a pear.

> capitalism
> self-inflicted

Sure, bud.

Norway occupied parts of Greenland for a while, 1931-1933, I’d call that an act of aggression against Denmark and thus a war even if it was ultimately resolved peacefully and the claim didn’t concern the Danish mainlands.

Norway and Denmark don’t have a land border. Thus including alliances in general the Anglo-Portuguese one dates back to 1373, with only 60 years interruption when Portugal was in dynastic union with Spain which in modern terms could be called an occupation.

…and this isn’t just a technicality with both nations being big on seafaring you can consider the water between them a highway, French cannons nonwithstanding.

The criteria as set out in the treaties is to be “a European country”, what “European” means has been deliberately left open. Geography is at best a secondary factor.

Unless you are advocating for a Communist regime along the lines of the Soviet Union or Maoist China, you aren’t really “far left”.

If you do that you definitely aren’t, authoritarianism and far-left are mutually exclusive.

Council communists and Anarchists generally qualify for far-left status. (Or, differently put, council communism is methadone therapy for Marxists who don’t yet dare make the jump to syndicalism).