names arent descriptions

if( ... )
    if( ... ) {
        ...
    }
else if( ... ) {
    ...
}

Two hours later…

if( ... ) {
    if( ... ) {
        ...
    }
}
else if( ... ) {
    ...
}

Mother fucker.

In computer science, there is an extremely important concept that has been given multiple names. Each new name refers to a slightly different concept, so the duplication is not completely unwarranted.

One of the first popular names was “subroutine”. When the concept of returning values caught on, terms were introduced to clarify which subroutines returned values. A “function” has the ability to return a value, while a “procedure” does not. Then came “method” in object-oriented programming, which is part of a class, object, and/or interface. A term that has been gaining more popularity is “lambda”.

This term comes from lambda calculus, where “λ” (the Greek letter lambda) is used to denote function expressions. The term “lambda” is increasingly used in relation to software development to refer to closure-forming inline anonymous function expressions. Rather than binding a function to a name, a lambda expression evaluates to a callable object/value.

I really dislike this term.

• It is not very descriptive.
• “Lambda” already has a billion other meanings.
• The name is derived from notation, not semantics.
• It isn’t clear whether “lambda” refers to the expression that produces the callable object, or to the callable object that is produced.

As the term becomes more popular, most of these problems are lessening. Its etymology is strange, but there are certainly many words with much stranger origins. However, the last problem I listed is not lessing. Rather, it is actually getting worse.

Imagine we have an identifier that is bound to something such that we can call whatever it’s bound to. What can we call this thing? It wouldn’t be at all strange to call it a “subroutine”, “function”, or “procedure”. If it is associated with a parent object, we could even call it a “method”. But can we call it a “lambda”? This isn’t so clear. The term “lambda” is used to refer to a particular type of expression. Can the thing produced by that expression also be called “lambda”?

Example of this usage:

Functions in Simplified JavaScript are lambdas with lexical scoping.

Notice it says functions are lambdas. Not that functions are produced by lambdas, or that function producers are lambdas.

I’ve seen this usage elsewhere. It seems normal already. But what does it mean? Is it a callable object that was produced by a lambda expression? Is it any callable object that is not inherently associated with a certain name? Is it any callable object that is being referred to through some means other than its original name?

I don’t like this word, not at all. If nothing else, it’s spelled with a silent letter. Doesn’t everybody hate those?

(Let’s not even start on the term “delegate” as seen in C#. Ugh.)

I really hate global warming. Not because of environmental concerns, but because there’s so much conflicting information. I have no idea what to believe.

I think there’s a general consensus among scientists studying this stuff that the average global temperature is rising, and that it is caused by human activity. So I’m going to go along with that.

But is global warming a bad thing? I have no idea.

For example, some people claim global warming will lead to lots of hurricanes, while others claim in won’t. But we can just look at the actual weather to settle this issue, right? Well the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, which included Katrina, was the most active Atlantic hurricane season in recorded history. But the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season, which was predicted to be quite active, was so inactive that not a single hurricane made landfall in the United States.

Some say the ocean levels are going to rise and flood a lot of land, while others say that’s ridiculous. The earth is again no help in deciding this issue, since while the north pole is melting away, the south pole is growing thicker.

But what about wildlife? Will that suffer? Today I heard that supposedly the earth’s biosphere is booming. Plants are loving the increased warmth and CO₂. And animals are loving the increased vegetation. But of course there are other people claiming global warming will lead to much of the world converting to hot desert devoid of live.

Part of the problem is the media. It is the main way in which information about global warming passes from the scientists studying this stuff to normal people. Yet the media is notoriously bad when it comes to anything remotely related to science (or technology). Or pretty much anything besides entertainment.

I guess what really bothers me the most is that so many people who don’t have a clue about global warming have very strong opinions about it. So I feel like I also need to form a strong opinion about it. But I don’t have a clue either, and I don’t want to decide something without good evidence to support my decision.

Why can’t more people just say they have no idea? It seems like people are embarrassed to say they don’t know, like it’s better to have unsupported beliefs than to be undecided. Well I think that’s bullshit. I, for one, have decided to be a proud undecided. I don’t have a clue how detrimental or beneficial global warming will be, and I think that’s the most reasonable position for a normal person to have on the matter right now.

I just watched the Polar Express. It was awful, but one interesting aspect was the surprisingly high level of creepiness. The entire movie was like this:

Of course they blamed the high creepy factor on the uncanny valley. But I think googly eyes are going to creep people out no matter what the level of realism is.

The movie felt like a training video for religion. “You have to believe! Faith is good!” Using the terms of religious fundamentalist, “They’re indoctrinating our children!”, which means teaching with a bias. But I’m pretty paranoid when it comes to religion, so it’s probably just my imagination.

I kept waiting for the loli here in the pink nightie to flash us her clams, but she never did. Jumping around and soaring through the air in a little dress and not even a glance. Stupid little tease.

Some people believe that Scientology is a cult, and that because it is a cult, it is not a religion. These people think cults and religions are mutually exclusive.

But cults and religions are not mutually exclusive. In fact, if you look up “cult” in a dictionary, you’ll find that being a religion is often part of the definition of a cult. (Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster, Wiktionary)

People who think that cults and religions are mutually exclusive are probably thinking, “Cults are bad, and religion is good. So if something is a cult (bad), it can’t be a religion (good).”

It is merely another case of religious/superstitious people deluding themselves into believing something which is clearly not true. When you don’t have a grip on reality, you can imagine reality to be whatever you want it to be.

I recently realized that Shikijo Saori from Mahoromatic = Yoshimine Mitsuka from DearS + Tanizaki Yukari from Azumanga Daioh. It’s sad for me because Mitsuka (who came later than Saori) is one of my favorite characters.

It’s bad enough when plots are copied, like in Chobits, DearS, and Elfen Lied, but I hate when characters are copied. How am I supposed to develop an emotional attachment for a character if I’ve seen the exact same personality multiple times already?

It makes me wonder if the vapidness of fanservice anime/manga is intentional and actually desired. Do Japanese audiences really prefer flat empty characters, and dislike personalities that have any real depth?

When I think about this, it seems obvious to me that this is probably true. Most anime/manga do their best to make all characters’ personalities as simplistic and easy-to-understand as possible. The reader/viewer never has to think to understand a character’s emotions and motivation.

Shallow simplistic personalities are pervasive in comedy from many (maybe all) cultures. But in Japanese anime/manga, it is present throughout all genres. No matter how sad or depressing the story, personalities in anime/manga are kept to a minimum.

This isn’t necessarily bad, but I think it’s worth noting.

I recently came across a blog entry that claims the ACLU hates Christians and loves Muslims, of course written by the type of fundamentalist Christian who thinks Harry Potter will lead children to getting involved with magic and demons. It’s mainly just a list references to articles and other blog entries that agree with his position.

The first reference I looked at mentioned a federal lawsuit against a school district that was interesting enough to look into. But I soon became more interested in tracking down the ridiculous chain of references that never really lead to a reliable original source.

Here’s the deal: A personal blog cites another personal blog which cites an article on StopTheACLU.com which cites another article on StopTheACLU.com which cites an article on WorldNetDaily which cites six other articles on WorldNetDaily all about the same lawsuit. Each article on WorldNetDaily adds to the story, making it slightly more sensational each time. (The WorldNetDaily produces such fine articles as Soy is making kids ‘gay’.)

The original article on WorldNetDaily, upon which the others were based, refers only to “ASSIST News Service”. But it doesn’t actually link to the ASSIST article, and it doesn’t even link to the homepage of ASSIST News Service. Instead, it links to the homepage of ASSIST Ministries, which in turn links to the ASSIST News Service. There, you can find this article which only refers to the homepage of the law firm which brought the case. A federal case against a school, and ASSIST couldn’t find anything about it on the internet to link to other than the firm which brought the case?

I bet many writers excuse idirect sources by claiming they’re being polite by giving credit to the people who got the information to them. But if that were really true, they would simply include the indirect source along with the original source. But they don’t do that.

Looking around for more information about this case, I learned that other sources weren’t much better. Even the BBC article on the lawsuit only links to the website of the school district. None of the articles discussing this case give a case number or anything else which could be used to learn more about the case.

Many articles, essays, and blog entries are this way. Most writers are too lazy to find good references, even when it’s obvious they should exist. (e.g. a federal lawsuit should be listed on a government website) It’s a sad state of affairs. (Not that I’m any better.)

I’ve heard several times that Wal-Mart is an awful place, and I’ve never understood why anybody would think that. Their selection is huge, their prices are low, their parking lots always has plenty of free room, and there’s a Wal-Mart in almost every town with a reasonable population.

Usually when you ask someone why they hate Wal-Mart, they can’t really say much. I usually hear something lame about their stores taking up too much space, or traffic congestion, or low wages. None of that sways me at all.

But recently I noticed a huge difference between Wal-Mart and other stores: Wal-Mart employees are sad. Most of them act like they’re longing for death. It’s really quite depressing once you’ve noticed it.

It’s amazing to see employees at other stores, like Target and Albertsons, that actually seem somewhat happy. Sure they’re not constantly overjoyed to be working there, but they seem to be satisfied with life. They don’t behave like zombies.

I’m still against attempts to prevent Wal-Mart from setting up stores and competing with others. If a Wal-Mart is built and is successful, people want it there. It wouldn’t get enough business to justify staying open if people didn’t. Rather than trying to stop Wal-Mart with legislation, people who dislike it should just prefer alternatives, and explain to others why they prefer to shop elsewhere.

Of course, there’s a trillion things a million times worse than shopping at a Wal-Mart. It’s just that when I have an easy alternative, I would prefer to go with the alternative.

Why do we describe our sexual orientation in terms of our sex/gender? Most monosexuals, when describing their sexual orientation, would say they are straight, gay, or lesbian, instead of just saying which sex/gender they are attracted to. Does that not seem strange to you?

Imagine if we described colors in terms of our skin color. People with light skin might describe white as “homocolor” and black as “heterocolor”. People with dark skin might similarly describe white as “heterocolor” and black as “homocolor”.

Would that make any sense? Not to me. The colors black and white don’t change depending on who is describing them. Why then should a male and a female, who are both attracted to males, use different terms to describe their sexual orientation? In my opinion, describing colors in terms of skin color is no more ridiculous than describing sexual orientation in terms of sex/gender.

Yet look at the way the American Psychological Association describes sexual orientation (source):

Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the other sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex. However, sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual […], gay/lesbian […], and bisexual […].

The Wikipedia article on sexual orientation is pretty similar:

The most common forms exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality […] to exclusive homosexuality […] and includes various forms of bisexuality […].

What about someone who is physically and/or mentally between, or different from, male and female (intersexual and/or genderqueer)? Because they aren’t male or female, there is no same-sex and opposite-sex for them. Their sexual orientation cannot be described in terms of heterosexuality and homosexuality. Does their sexuality then not exist on the same continuum?

The idea of a single line is flawed, but we could at least make it less flawed. If we were to describe the continuum of sexual orientation as ranging from exclusive attraction to males to exclusive attraction to females, it would also apply to people with many unusual sexes and genders that it currently excludes.

“Heterosexual” and “homosexual” puts all the importance on the relationship between a person’s sex/gender and who they are attracted to. These terms tell nothing about who the person is actually attracted to without knowing their sex/gender.

Terms describing sexual orientation should be about sexual orientation, and not say, “oh, its the same as this” or “it’s the opposite of that”. Often, instead of using the terms “homosexual” and “heterosexual”, it is better to use phrases like “attracted to men” and “attracted to women”. The best one-word terms I know of are “gynephilia” (attracted to women) or “androphilia” (attracted to men), but they also carry information about age.

(”Bisexual” seems fine in this regard, but the “bi” prefix implies attraction only to males and females, excluding anyone between or different. Some people prefer “pansexual” (or “omnisexual”) for that reason.)

What’s the big deal, though? Sure the terms are a little indirect, but it’s not like they’re broken. What’s so bad about them?

Do you see the difference? For each set, try dividing the four groups into two. Which groupings seem more obvious in each set?

Without terms that describe sexual orientation based on sex, it suddenly seems strange to group people based on whether their own sex/gender matches the sex/gender of people they are attracted to. But with such terms, the distinction is glaringly obvious.

As long as “homosexual” and “heterosexual” remain in popular use, male androphiles and female gynephiles (homosexuals) are going to have a hard time fitting in with male gynephiles and female androphiles (heterosexuals).

Have you ever gotten in an argument over the internet? And then been embarrassed afterwards? There’s a saying about this:

Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you’re still retarded.

I for one have had a horribly difficult time arguing on the internet. From upsetting admins continuously, to becoming almost universally hated at my favorite message board, to constantly getting modded troll and flamebait, arguing on the internet is something I’ve never been very good at.

The key is simple, but difficult. Just be nice. That doesn’t mean giving in. It means not cussing, not trashing your opponents, and not getting upset. Just stay calm and be nice. By doing this, even if you don’t win the argument, you’ll win at arguing.

But even when I try really really hard, I still often end up throwing in a mean-spirited word or two and losing my credibility. I’ve certainly improved greatly over the years, but it definitely continues to be a significant issue.

This problem seems to be extremely widespread. Even highly respected people who should have a lot of experience in this area are prone to losing their cool and criticizing individuals or entire groups of people. The internet would probably be much more enjoyable and productive if everybody had the preserve to remain calm and treat others kindly.