with “this person” or “a BMW driver” as a maybe-neutral-but-also-likely-male coded qualifier.
If this is “likely male coded” how exactly do you suggest referring to other drivers in a neutral way?
- 0 Posts
- 16 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 26th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
251·18 days agoI’d argue that they still exist, unless we’re just ignoring prison labour.
Women are you using a Xerox multifunction device location to this email and any attachments is intended only for the same time and consideration and I will be in the first time in the first time in the first time in the first time…
It loops on that forever.
I identify as a cis male but essentially feel the same way. The social trappings of my gender are just that. It has about as much to do with my actual identity as my hair colour does. “Factory default” because I don’t care enough to bother.
Yes, but due to lossy compression. Not because of any limitations of digital audio.
Because he has almost completely faded to obscurity. Most people under 30 probably wouldn’t recognize him at all.
Superman not being one of the characters in this image is also kind of baffling. Unless the artist believes that Superman could bear the cross.
.NET (not .NET Framework) is cross platform and can be compiled into native binaries on a variety of platforms. There is however the wrinkle of not all the libraries within .NET being supported on all platforms. Most notably, everything involving a graphical UI is Windows only.
The most well known cross platform .NET project you probably have heard about is Jellyfin.
Protection? From who? “Ze Germans”?
Generally, yes. Not always though. There’s a lock in my house that’s locked in the vertical position. Threw me off when we first moved in.
deleted by creator
Linguists would tell you the job of a dictionary should be to describe how the word is used, not rigidly stick to some theoretical ideal. I think calculators and tools like Wolfram Alpha should do the same with maths.
You’re literally arguing that what you consider the ideal should be rigidly adhered to, though.
“How mathematicians do it is correct” is a fine enough sentiment, but conveniently ignores that mathematicians do, in fact, work at WolframAlpha, and many other places that likely do it “wrong”.
The examples in the video showing inline formulae that use implicit priority have two things in common that make their usage unambiguous.
First, they all are either restating, or are derived from, formulae earlier in the page that are notated unambiguously, meaning that in context there is a single correct interpretation of any ambiguity.Second, being a published paper it has to adhere to the style guide of whatever body its published under, and as pointed out in that video, the American Mathematical Society’s style guide specifies implicit priority, making it unambiguous in any of their published works. The author’s preference is irrelevant.
Also, if it’s universally correct and there was no ambiguity in its use among mathematicians, why specify it in the style guide at all?
To be clear, I’m not saying 1/2x being 1/(2x) rather than 0.5x is wrong. But it’s not right either. I’m just pretty firmly in the “inline formulae are ambiguous” camp. Whichever rule you pick, try to apply it consistently, but use some other notation or parenthesis when you want to be clearly understood.
The very fact that this conversation even happens is proof enough that the ambiguity exists. You can be prescriptive about which rules are the correct ones all you like, but that’s not going to stop people from misunderstanding. If your goal is to communicate clearly, then you use a more explicit notation.
Even Wolfram Alpha makes a point of restating your input to show how it’s being interpreted, and renders “1/2x” as something more like
1 - x 2to make very clear what it’s doing.
An actual mathematician or physicist would probably ask you to clarify because they don’t typically write division inline like that.
That said, Wolfram-Alpha interprets “1/2x” as 0.5x. But if you want to argue that Wolfram-Alpha’s equation parser is wrong go ahead.
So perfect for this image then.
How are “this person” and “a BMW driver” likely male coded while “person” and “driver” are fine? It sounds to me like you’re just assuming negative intent in others, while your own use of the same words is fine because you know what you mean.