But in Django you can do the same thing that doesn't return all rows with `select_related` so it seems kind of like you're not using the features of whatever ORM that is.
I was confused a bit as well by the examples since Django's ORM has functionality to do exactly what the author is trying to do (e.g. select_related, prefetch_related, <model>_set, values, managers, F expressions, transactions, etc).
...to countries [1] who need it for their societies and economies to function and grow.
Is the argument that the noble thing to do would be to refuse to sell the coal, and force these countries to use more expensive forms of energy, regardless of whether it keeps more of their people in poverty for longer?
It's an easy thing to say for those of us already living in first world countries with access to all the modern comforts.
And sure, Japan and Korea are not poor countries, but they are populous, resource-poor countries with huge manufacturing industries (producing some of the world's most fuel-efficient cars, no less), so they have to import their energy from somewhere.
The coal is still important for the economic wellbeing and personal welfare of the people in those countries, whether it's used for power generation or materials production.
Notice how easy and noble-seeming it is to say that, compared to saying "I believe we should force more people in developing countries to stay in poverty for longer", even though they amount to the same thing?
Please understand, I'm with you that climate change is important to mitigate; I lived through the bushfires and smoke haze this Australian summer, and I worry about the prospect of that being a more normal part of our future.
I'm also expecting a child and have concerns for their future, as well the broader effects of climate change and environmental damage on humanity and nature everywhere.
But I know that it will take more than scapegoating Australian politicians (funny how it's the conservative politicians that get attacked over this, even though their coal export policies aren't substantially different from Labor's) to fix the problem, when the whole reason for the demand for coal is that people in the developing world just want, quite reasonably, a standard of living approaching what we in the west take for granted.
If these discussions involved sensible ideas about how developing countries could modernise their economies without fossil fuels, or acknowledged that large-scale carbon capture will have to be part of a comprehensive climate change solution, then I might be able to start taking them seriously.
But I guess that kind of discussion doesn't deliver the quick hit of sanctimony that so many people seem to crave.
There's no evidence to suggest that we can't alleviate poverty without coal. We can alleviate poverty any number of ways. Your hyperbolic and emotional assertions about the need for Australia to continue selling coal don't inspire confidence.
This gambit of replying with a flipped-around copy of the parent comment might feel clever but just indicates that you’re more interested in cheap point-scoring than earnestly confronting the entirety of the topic. Hacker News is not the place for crappy discourse like that.
There is ample evidence that it can’t be done yet, given that governments and private companies addressing the biggest populations/markets in the world have had many years and every incentive to do it but so far have been unable to. Despite huge investments in renewables, nuclear and gas, they still need lots of coal for the foreseeable future.
Here's a 2015 article from MIT Technology Review that explores the issue in depth: http://archive.is/SXXHl
Across the world, the percentage of fossil fuels used to generate power is dropping. This trend seems likely to continue, and Australians can accelerate it with our economic power. Coal is not required to alleviate poverty. Saying coal is required to alleviate poverty is a hyberbolic and emotional statement.
I’ve shared, without emotion, evidence and analysis of the topic, and you keep replying with what you wish to be true but with no backing data.
The countries that are moving away from coal are replacing it with natural gas, nuclear or imported energy/materials. Renewables in some cases but only where the country is endowed with natural energy resources and/or is already rich enough to do so. There are valid reasons why this is not immediately possible for India and China if they are to continue developing.
All of this would easy for you to find out if you cared to properly understand it and engage in constructive discussion.
> The countries that are moving away from coal are replacing it with natural gas, nuclear or imported energy/materials. Renewables in some cases but only where the country is endowed with natural energy resources and/or is already rich enough to do so. There are valid reasons why this is not immediately possible for India and China if they are to continue developing.
Incorrect. This isn't even true if you're talking about Australian states, let alone countries.
South Australia uses just over 50% renewables [1], thanks to being endowed with natural solar, wind and geothermal resources, but still operates 15 natural gas power stations [2] - exactly as I said in the part of my comment that you chose to quote.
Tasmania uses 93% renewables [1] thanks to being endowed with natural hydro and wind resources, but still runs three natural gas power plants [3] - exactly as I said in the part of my comment that you chose to quote.
Both states are in a first-world, already-rich and already-developed country, also as per the part of my comment you quoted. And they both have tiny populations.
These conditions obviously don't apply throughout India and China. Yes they both use plenty of renewables and continue to expand their renewables investments. And they both use some natural gas but can't use much as they don't have large local gas reserves [4] (particularly relative to their population sizes), and it's costly to ship/pipe in. So, coal it is, however much you and I might wish it to be different.
If you have any independent evidence to demonstrate otherwise, I'm keen to learn, so I encourage you to share it.
> Combined with industry-wide pressures to publish, the replication crisis was inevitable.
> The replication crisis, if nothing else, has shown that productivity is not intrinsically valuable.
I think this is important to focus on - the point of universities has become to produce profit, and to give people degrees that are profitable, and to appear to be able to do those things. This has very little to do with producing research with verifiable results. It's much more to do with getting students into the funnel by making people with tenure appear as productive as possible.
AFAICT this is not about profit in a commercial sense, as in selling goods.
It's more like overfitting the target function of publishing impactful research. A bit of p-hacking, a bit of cutting corners in experimental setup, a sloppy null hypothesis check, and you honestly believe you see an effect! Everyone is happy: you, your adviser, lab's administration, the journal where you publish the paper.
But if you carefully check for everything, then find no effect, you kill an interesting hypothesis, your paper is hard to publish, "you are not making progress", and nobody is happy.
I think if you take it further, the incentives are ultimately financial: promotion, better salary, continued employment. The alternative is losing your funding and getting the boot.
I agree that what you say is happening is happening, I think there was some great meta-analysis that showed that p-values were not following a distribution that was statistically possible - like on OkCupid where people that are over 5'10" round up to 6ft.
But I think the underlying reason for the push to publish things - and impactful things are easier to publish, is profit. More hireable grads, more tenured professors publishing papers.
I have read that a study is very unlikely to replicate if p is juuust under 0.05, but very likely to replicate if just over 0.05. The first is a good sign of p hacking, while the second is a good sign of a real effect with a sample size that wasn't quite big enough.
I'm of the impression that back in 1959 when COBOL was released, with a team of 7 designers with 3 women on it, based off the groundwork laid by Grace Hopper, that the technical skill required to be a programmer was actually much higher, and that the women involved in coding were making very technical decisions about that field.
Back then programming was basically applied mathematics, a field with many women. Today programming is gluing together components in order to build systems which is much more similar to engineering, a field with few women.
There are still many women among those who program mathematics (statisticians etc), just that they are usually not called programmers. Also there is much less demand for people who can program math than people who can glue together libraries and create crud apps, so even if all math programmers are included in the statistics they would get dwarfed by the app programmers.
Yeah, I'm of the impression that the intellect required to do software now is much lower - no need to understand bits and bytes or to do math, just sling a bunch of libraries together with glue code from stack over flow and voila a ML system to categorize trouble tickets. Understanding the distinction between the reals and the IEEE double floats is alas long since vanished.
I've got a philosophy/gender studies background and I +1 this summary. The only point I'd make is that "radical feminist" doesn't necessarily mean anti-trans, and of the radfems I know, the vast majority are actually pro-trans. I get the feeling from news and commentary that radfems are overall welcoming to trans people.
What's cool is that if people take a more nuanced view of gender and sex than saying it can be measured by one test with only two options, it means they can't take the narrow view that either of those things are binary. Here's hoping!
I don't think that's what's being suggested at here at all. In the past few years, there has been an overemphasis on "maleness" being bad and leading to negative. In a lot of western social history (and even a lot of eastern societies) there has always been the concept of "the divine feminine" (Mother earth, goddesses and so fourth).
We've seen the growing emphasis of bad men and toxic masculinity; as if the man has a propensity for toxicity (anecdotally we've all known toxic people who were both men and women. They might generally be toxic in different ways, but that does change that no biological sex has a monopoly on being shitty human beings).
I think what's more interesting from the study is all the statements about correlation with small samples sizes. As mentioned by other comments, even this study doesn't seem remotely conclusive. It's focused on testosterone, because men generally have way more of it. I think it's more of a conversation starter on more research that should be done than anything else.
Toxic masculinity isn't "being masculine is bad" it's "being so caught up in social stereotypes of supposed masculinity that you become bad." Toxic masculinity vs. healthy masculinity. At least in people that use the phrase seriously that I've interacted with conversationally. Not to dispute that some people think maleness is inherently bad (or that the supposed duality of gender reflects a supposed duality of morality, what ever the sign of correlation). Those simplistic thinkers are very persistent.
I'm struggling to think of any aspects of masculinity that I could safely class as 'healthy' in the current climate.
For example, traditionally the view that males should be providers for the family would have been considered a healthy aspect of masculinity. That doesn't go unchallenged any more; for example there is a real concern out there that men are too competitive and effective at securing high paid jobs.
It is an anecdote I suppose, but those involved in the gender activist communities don't seem to allow such a thing as 'healthy masculinity' because it supposes there is something positive can be exclusively/predominantly masculine and the girls don't get involved. Bit of a non-starter as ideas go.
> For example, traditionally the view that males should be providers for the family would have been considered a healthy aspect of masculinity. That doesn't go unchallenged any more; for example there is a real concern out there that men are too competitive and effective at securing high paid jobs.
That isn't toxic masculinity, it's a gender norm. What would be toxically masculine about it, is if a man felt forced by society to fulfill that role, regardless of his own feelings and desires.
Feminists challenge that norm and the societal pressure that drives it, but there's nothing wrong or toxically masculine with a man doing that because he genuinely wants to and isn't forcing anyone else into a role.
> For example, traditionally the view that males should be providers for the family would have been considered a healthy aspect of masculinity. That doesn't go unchallenged any more; for example there is a real concern out there that men are too competitive and effective at securing high paid jobs.
I wonder if people in Asia and Africa feel the same. Or perhaps even in South-America. To me it seems to be mostly a "Western" issue. I live in Thailand and through the (admittedly limited) news sources I follow (Bangkok Post, South China Morning Post, ThaiVisa) there doesn't seem to be much discussion/concern here on gender, roles, what is and isn't toxic masculinity, etc...
Which is also interesting because of the "third" sex, the large number of katoeys (ladyboys) in the country. The last time I was there, there was a big demonstration to support and legally recognise them (a laudable aim). It seems Thai expression of sexuality and gender doesn't rely on a denigration of masculinity, which personally, I take as a clue to the legitimacy of efforts to do so in the Anglosphere.
What gender norm of either masculinity or femininity is healthy when taken to the extreme?
> those involved in the gender activist communities don't seem to allow such a thing as 'healthy masculinity' because it supposes there is something positive can be exclusively/predominantly masculine
What would you call people who would say that about femininity and feminine behavior? How do those views function together with the idea of gender equality, i.e. the state of valuing different behaviors, aspirations and needs equally, regardless of gender (definition copied from Wikipedia).
Is any bias towards one gender doing better in the workplace acceptable? If men and women perform equally and we balance outcomes as is a stated goal in many circles, how could a male full-fill their traditional gender norm as a provider?
This HN comment was the first time I've ever heard of anyone talking about 'healthy masculinity' in a context of the phrase 'toxic masculinity'. The entire thrust that I've heard is that having a unique or predominantly male role in society is what toxic masculinity means in practice.
The gender theorists will have their own internal world with a lot of nuance, but the stuff that is leaking out into law and corporate diversity initiatives looks a lot more like true gender blindness. The logical flip side of that, it is quite hard to construct a positive masculine role model. The raw physical differences suggest male strength, but any actual exercise of strength apart from showing off is probably either illegal, uneconomic or low status work (sporting excellence a glaring exception). Compare that to giving birth which is incentivised, an amazing long term economic investment into old age and quite high status (mothers occupy a special place in the world). It is simply a lot easier to construct a positive feminine image than a masculine one in a world where only physical realities make a difference and everything else is expected to be gender blind.
Obviously there are positive roles for males to fill, but the idea that they are masculine in some sense isn't really acceptable. Males can fill them in their capacities as humans, but they can't be distinguished from women. What can 'healthy masculinity' mean in such a world? Adding the word masculine in doesn't add anything. 'Healthy masculinity' is basically 'Healthy femininity'.
> The gender theorists will have their own internal world with a lot of nuance, but the stuff that is leaking out into law and corporate diversity initiatives looks a lot more like true gender blindness. The logical flip side of that, it is quite hard to construct a positive masculine role model.
Gender blindness in formal institutions does not prevent positive gendered role models.
Nor, even, does abandoning the social enforcement of gender stereotypes outside of formal institutions. Insofar as there are healthy expressions of classic gender images, producing examples of them does not require formal or informal social institutions to enforce classic gender roles or impose gender bias inspired by those roles.
This is a typical "motte and bailey" conversational strategy. The reality is, proponents of the idea of "toxic masculinity" provide almost no examples of "healthy masculinity" (or "toxic femininity").
>The reality is, proponents of the idea of "toxic masculinity" provide almost no examples of "healthy masculinity" (or "toxic femininity").
Almost any article you read about toxic masculinity and in every discussion where it comes up, proponents take pains to point out, often in laborious detail, and to futile effect, that the term isn't meant to assign toxicity to all masculine behaviors. One shouldn't need to provide a list of "non-toxic" masculine behaviors as well as a list of "toxic feminine" behaviors in order for the concept to be understood as presented.
The people using toxic masculinity in mainstream conversation to mean "all masculinity is toxic" are, primarily, its opponents, not its proponents.
Actually one should provide exactly that, because otherwise the concept can be used to justify bullying.
"I don't like what you're doing" can become "That's toxic male behaviour" - which immediately politicises and amplifies something that may be a trivial personal/domestic disagreement.
As for toxic femininity - it seems it cannot exist. See e.g.
...which explicitly states that toxic femininity doesn't exist as a political phenomenon, and where toxic behaviour does happen (hardly ever...) it's the fault of patriarchy.
In this view all toxic gender behaviour is caused by masculinity.
The line between that and "Masculine behaviour is inherently toxic (unless controlled and directed by women)" is a very thin one.
These definitions concentrate on tribal/political stereotyping, not on the behaviours themselves.
The idea that some behaviours are toxic - and it doesn't matter who is doing them - seems to be a conceptual leap too far in these contexts.
Pretty people has labeled all masculine traits as toxic, maybe not the same individuals but as a group they have. That is the problem with ill defined concepts, "toxic masculinity" is not a scientific term since people can interpret whatever they want as toxic.
A men's rights advocate could say that chivalry and self sacrifice is toxic masculinity since it puts a lot of unfair pressure on men.
A female feminist could say that locker room talk and objectification of women in games is toxic masculinity since it is hostile to women.
A male feminist could say that boys rough play is toxic masculinity since it hurts or leaves out those who want to do calmer things.
A pacifist could say that action games and contact sports are toxic masculinity since they promote violence.
A body image advocate could argue that huge muscles, strength and body building is toxic masculinity since it hurts the self esteem of overweight or scrawny men.
Divorced fathers could argue that traditional fatherhood as a money provider who aren't allowed to complain is toxic masculinity.
Extroverted people could argue that the male geek culture which avoid social contact toxic masculinity since they ruin the social atmosphere.
Introverted people could argue that male initiative taking for relationships is toxic masculinity since it bothers a lot of people who aren't interested.
Politicians could argue that male intellectual stubbornness and bias for action is toxic masculinity since it leads to shootings and terrorism.
So let me ask you, what part of masculinity can't be labeled toxic? I have seen all of the examples above in the wild. What are the examples of positive masculinity? Everyone has their own version of that as well. For example, many feminists thinks that positive masculinity is men helping women. But it is not healthy for men to be pressured to help women, so that masculine image is not very positive for men. Also I am pretty sure that there you can find people who would label any one of the above as positive masculinity. In other words, the term is meaningless as it is formulated today.
1. I wish they were incorporated more into male identity because then maybe the male suicide rate would be lower. I've made an effort to make it a part of my masculinity and so have my friends.
2. I suggest you abandon your quest to read "toxic masculinity" as some evil conspiracy to vilify masculinity.
> 1. I wish they were incorporated more into male identity because then maybe the male suicide rate would be lower.
Behaviour, not identity.
> I've made an effort to make it a part of my masculinity and so have my friends.
Behaviour, not masculinity. Masculinity is "qualities or attributes regarded as characteristic of men". I wish men would seek help when they're depressed but I'd rather that was a human trait than try and make it masculine through some Orwellian misnomer.
> 2. I suggest you abandon your quest to read "toxic masculinity" as some evil conspiracy to vilify masculinity.
I'm not on a quest, I dislike conspiracy theories, you didn't produce an example of non-toxic masculinity, and I do wish you'd learn how to stop daemonising those who disagree with you.
If only I understood! Please, supply a single example of non-toxic masculinity that doesn't require your redefinition of commonly understood words and maybe I'll be able to understand better. You can hardly blame me for misunderstanding something you fail so badly at elucidating.
Toxic masculinity refers to traditional cultural masculine norms that can be harmful to men, women, and society overall; this concept of toxic masculinity is not intended to demonize men or male attributes, but rather to emphasize the harmful effects of conformity to certain traditional masculine ideal behaviors such as dominance, self-reliance, and competition.
Unfortunately the latter part of your comment, the part that you ascribe to 'simplistic thinkers', seems to be more canon these days rather than the more nuanced former part of the comment.
Most of things taken to an extreme get toxic and there is such thing as toxic femininity.
There is the divine feminine, but please do not forget that most of the deities or gods were actually male.
To me what you're saying seems like a big over generalization.
The concept of toxic masculinity is actually one you ought to be in favour of. Toxic masculinity as a general rule makes no deterministic link between toxicity and being a particular biological sex - of which there are many different configurations.
Sex is binary, with the exception some extremely rare cases of non XY / XX chromosome options.
Gender used to be a synonym for sex until the language got hijacked in the last few years to try and make it mean "gender identity" for political reasons.
I agree. And since I both care about minorities and don't care to deeply interrogate people's medical histories, I'm ok with calling people whatever the heck they want to be called. No skin off my elbows. It'd be pretty silly if we thought the arguably more objective sex characteristics of a person were not binary but thought that their gender had to be binary, wouldn't it?
To imply that those who don't wish to act the way you wish them to don't care about minorities is invidious and not supported by any evidence I've seen.
> I'm ok with calling people whatever the heck they want to be called.
As are most people until they are compelled.
> It'd be pretty silly if we thought the arguably more objective sex characteristics of a person were not binary but thought that their gender had to be binary, wouldn't it?
Would it? If, as some do, we posit that there can be an infinite number of genders or even a large number like… 42, are there 42 different categories of sex? If not, and I don't believe there are, then it's possible for multiple sexes to fit into a gender category and multiple genders into a sex category. You could probably fit all 42 into male and female and cut out a lot absurdities.
I'd go for 3, male, female and 3rd sex. Come up with a better name if you like.
> To imply that those who don't wish to act the way you wish them to don't care about minorities is invidious and not supported by any evidence I've seen.
It is if how I wish them to act is to care about minorities, like for instance the population that is not a part of, in your words, the population that's "overwhelmingly binary" - aka a minority, by definition.
> As are most people until they are compelled.
So you're ok with calling people what they want to be called. Nice!
> You could probably fit all 42 into male and female and cut out a lot absurdities.
Why do you, of all the people in the world, get to decide what is and isn't absurd? Is there a particular scientific method you're using to define absurdity?
> I'd go for 3, male, female and 3rd sex. Come up with a better name if you like.
I'd suggest if you need a better name for people that are neither male nor female you educate yourself. Lumping people into "other" isn't particularly useful for those people or even descriptive.
> Why do you, of all the people in the world, get to decide what is and isn't absurd?
I get to decide what I think is absurd, because:
a) I'm free.
b) I would still value my opinion as good enough for me even if I wasn't.
To think otherwise would be absurd, and the irony of being told this by one who wishes to impose their view upon others else they be othered is, at the very least, amusing.
> It is if how I wish them to act is to care about minorities
You're running around in circles now and thus, there is little point in continuing.
Why do you even bother to share your very free personal own opinion if you can't argue it in a broader context? If you're going to pose something as a general objective idea, then backpedal and defending it as only your very own personal views which you are entitled to hold but really if they have no bearing on the general context of discussion you might as well not share it because who wants to hear this?
It appears that you are misinterpreting the form of my argument because you don’t understand how people who aren’t authoritarian can hold an opinion of their own while it also being valid generally because we don’t need to impose them on others, its authority comes from its truth not who I am, which is why you also fail to understand the retort. Thus, my opinion is good enough for me. Only you think it’s backpedaling to point out what should be obvious.
If you’re so keen on educating yourself then you should start with Orwell and move on to J S Mill.
Ahhhh awesome, so when you were talking about your perspective on the interplay of sex and gender you weren't implying that there was anything inherently, objectively absurd about there being 42 sexes, you were just implying you felt that was absurd for some... personal reason? By the way, there's probably way more than 42 since so many things play into sex characteristics, and some of the measures are continuous rather than discrete.
> You're running around in circles now and thus, there is little point in continuing.
By saying there existed an "overwhelmingly binary" sex spectrum, you implied the existence of a minority, so I'm simply saying to give those people the respect they deserve. That's how I "wish them to act" so it absolutely follows, based on your words, that someone who doesn't "wish to act the way you wish them to" doesn't want to respect those minorities. Easy logical reasoning to follow.
No one is arguing for disrespect of anyone so there's not much else to say about your argument, other than you might try showing more respect to those you disagree with in future.
You think you aren't, but you are when you say the categories of "male, female and 3rd sex" are appropriate for simplifying the "absurdities". You should show people who fit in your "absurd" minority sexual categories with more respect in future.
Please don't do tit-for-tat flamewars like this on HN. The further they get to the right of the page, the nastier and more repetitive they get, and curiosity has been lost long ago.
You guys have been going at it in other subthreads too. That's not what this site is for. In the future, please take a step back and refrain.
Please don't do tit-for-tat flamewars like this on HN. The further they get to the right of the page, the nastier and more repetitive they get, and curiosity has been lost long ago.
You guys have been going at it in other subthreads too. That's not what this site is for. In the future, please take a step back and refrain.
You've said a few times that "No one is arguing for disrespect of anyone", but the case you quote does argue that point explicitly.
He knew his stance would cause offence and even harm. His argument was that his employers should ignore that because of his convention rights to religious freedom.
> It is deeply disturbing that this is the first time in the history of English law that a judge has ruled that free citizens must engage in compelled speech
For one thing this isn't anything like the first case where the courts have found that a company hasn't done something wrong for firing an employee for not saying what the company wants them to say.
The judgment is saying that when you're a doctor employed by a government department you'll have to obey the law and the government department's policies. Note that the judgment doesn't force this doctor to use any particular pronoun, it only says that the government department can fire him.
And, in this particular context, everything about the meetings the doctor had with service users was "compelled" speech -- there's literally a template the doctor has to read from.
His legal team didn't attempt a freedom of speech defence. They tried to use a discrimination against religious beliefs defence, and that failed because...
> It was confirmed by the representatives at the start of the hearing that it was agreed that Dr Mackereth did not assert that he was treated less favourably than a person who, for reasons unrelated to Christianity or other belief refused to comply with the DWP’s gender reassignment or equal opportunities policy
> You've said a few times that "No one is arguing for disrespect of anyone", but the case you quote does argue that point explicitly.
> He knew his stance would cause offence and even harm. His argument was that his employers should ignore that because of his convention rights to religious freedom.
Knowing that what you say may be offensive is not the same as arguing for the disrespect of someone. The judgement also does not contain the word disrepect and it is not part of his defence that it is his intention to disrespect anyone. Much as I disagree with why he's doing it, he is being compelled. Again, to compel has a well worn definition, if you will be fired unless you do certain things you are being compelled, so I disagree with your description.
So your argument is that being offensive to someone isn't the same as being disrespectful? Like, I am genuinely curious about how you're justifying this to yourself.
I have very little experience in compiled languages. Coming to Go after Python was not only a joy, but I was able to easily implement concurrency and improve the performance of my game of life simulation side project by something like 25x.
So to me it feels like they did something right.
I guess maybe there just sometimes being a way to do something right only one way, makes searching for solutions, easier. I contrast that with another language I love, Ruby, where it can sometimes feel like there are so many ways to do things that the language isn't opinionated at all.
>Coming to Go after Python was not only a joy, but I was able to easily implement concurrency and improve the performance of my game of life simulation side project by something like 25x.
Python is notoriously bad at both these things though, so it's not a very high bar. I think a more meaningful comparison would be to languages like Clojure, Erlang/Elixir, Rust, or any other that has concurrency as one of the top priories, but makes different tradeoffs.
