Actually "Kleidermacher" is a genderless word in German.
Source: I'm German. :D
But historically this has been a complicated topic.
Basically about a hundred years ago the genus and sexus of words started to get separated.
Thanks to that you can say "Katze" to both male and female cats.
Historically you had to say "Kater" to a male cat.
But of course there were people in the 90s (it started earlier than that) who considered the generic masculinum uninclusive for women, since why is the male genus allowed to be the generic form of the language? Everything had to be gendered explicitly again! Awesome! /s
Instead of rolling back the split of genus and sexus of the past decades, they instead opted for just sticking the already existing, but less popular -in suffix to everything and anything.
A generic word like "Student" now had it's proper sexus again as "Student und Studentin".
But as you might already know that's uninclusive for nonbinary people and thus we're now at a point where we say "Studierende" or "Studentx" or "Student:in" instead, which linguistically really doesn’t make much sense at all anymore. Awesome! /s
One step forward, two steps backwards.
But again, as explained above, the "Kleidermacher" can be of any genus, because...
Genus and sexus are two different things in German.
Is Kleidermacher genderless though or do you mean that the male version has been historically also applied as the genderless term which is kind of the whole problem of the last few years? Macher is male and Macherin is female. Same as Bäcker and Bäckerin, Polizist and Polizistin, Programmierer and Programmiererin. That's why in German people have to say things like "Liebe Bekannte und Bekanntinnen" now.
Kleidermacher is in my understanding the (current) male version which was historically the gender/ sex inclusive word. Interestingly Bäcker (the male term) used to be inclusive too (a long time ago) because the ending -er simply implied that there‘s a person who does something. For Bäcker that means that that’s someone who bakes.
Item_Boring already clarified what I meant better than I could ever express it.
But yeah basically "Kleidermacher" was historically a genderless term for quite a long time (potentially always) and was then gendered again, by people who seemingly misunderstood the generic masculinum. The people who made this worse misunderstood that sexus and genus are two different things.
As I explained before, this is quite ironic given that the -in suffix is now being said to be not inclusive.
Hmm... Sometimes even I say "maybe women just prefer [...]", but actually mean exactly that, what you said: There are social trends and in this case there is a social trend specific to women wrongly being taught that they are not as good as men in STEM fields. So much in fact (here in Germany) that it's kind of unsettling, when they tell you "haha I'm just not good in math haha" and you can't even, because it's so effing wrong.
I believe many (young) people will tell you that women are "just" like that, but actually mean "they are just taught to think so", because in their male position there is no need to choose are careful wording. I'm also pretty sure that, while the society at large is fault for this herd thinking about this, the parents play the biggest role in where the daughter places herself in the world.
Could be, but a lot of people take that "just" as meaning "there are essential gender differences rooted in the very fabric of the universe, so there's no point in talking about it". So if I were trying to point at the social factors that shape general preferences, I'd look for a phrasing that can't be taken for a call, as here, to ignore those factors.
Somehow it seems that currently everything happening in the USA is "Dead on Arrival" - including Swift.
This time due to shipping an utterly broken compiler to an unfinished language, without being able to contribute to it. Because if we could contribute to it, Swift might still be soon something that people love to use. But I somehow really don't believe that this will ever truly happen.
function foo(s) {
function generator(i) {
return function () {
return i;
};
}
var r = new Array(s);
for (var i = 0; i < s; i++) {
r[i] = generator(i);
}
return r;
}
console.log(foo(1000)[42]());
Using Function.prototype.bind():
function foo(s) {
function generator(i) {
return i;
}
var r = new Array(s);
for (var i = 0; i < s; i++) {
r[i] = generator.bind(window, i);
}
return r;
}
console.log(foo(1000)[42]());
Let's say we poll the roughly 1b people living in first world, and ask them each to pay $10 to see SpaceX do whatever SpaceX does. How many people even think it's worth $10?
I just wan't to add that the problem is not that SpaceX provides less to humanity than WhatsApp.
The problem is that most people are not really far-sighted, but only see things which benefit themselves in a predictable amount of time.
Why companies like SpaceX (or NASA) are important has already been answered with Why Explore Space? A 1970 Letter to a Nun in Africa
>The problem is that most people are not really far-sighted, but only see things which benefit themselves in a predictable amount of time.
Because most people are not upper middle class to wealthy. They are forced to be concerned about paying for food/healthcare/education so their life tends to have different priorities.
The other problem is that your line of 'far-sighted' is completely arbitrary. Someone could easily argue that SpaceX is wasting its time with rockets and we should be spending more time studying theoretical physics to figure out better ways to travel long distances in space.
> Because most people are not upper middle class to wealthy. They are forced to be concerned about paying for food/healthcare/education so their life tends to have different priorities.
Which is a problem because if only they could (not that the system will let them do that easily) stop and think a little further, in a little less selfish way, they'd likely figure a way to improve their living conditions.
But hell, that applies also to the "upper middle class to wealthy", especially in terms of convenience. See NIMBYsm, or people fighting tooth and nail for their right to use cars cheaply in dense urban areas. People tend to defect instead of cooperating, for their own demise (and of everyone else who knows better but can't do much against an uncoordinated mob).
>Which is a problem because if only they could (not that the system will let them do that easily) stop and think a little further, in a little less selfish way, they'd likely figure a way to improve their living conditions.
This is a completely uninformed view of what it's like to be in this position. Everything in life for them is essentially a borderline crisis (I witnessed my parents going through this). Finding new jobs is extremely difficult so you have to make major compromises to keep your current one. This is even more important when you can't build any savings to cushion the impact of unemployment.
What exactly do you think they can do to "stop and think a little further"? This might be an option if you have no family to support, but otherwise it's a ridiculous notion.
Practical experimentation doesn't equate to rocket use at all if someone fundamentally believes that rockets are not the way forward. e.g. We don't try to launch things to other solar systems with sling shots, but that doesn't mean we aren't doing practical experimentation.
People are already chipping in - SpaceX gets a big portion of its income from NASA which is funded by US taxpayers, and also indirectly by all the ISS partners (Russia, Europe, Japan, others?).
IMHO currently the worst bugs are in discoveryd, which replaces mDNSResponder for Bonjour.
If you remove a service on OSX 10.10 it's removal will be broadcast. But it doesn't stop there. No... Most of the time the service will be published again after that and after a second or so it will be finally removed. How the hell did this pass even the most basic QA checks?!
discoveryd is shit. The unofficial no broadcast argument breaks WiFi. You can't disable discoveryd, or it breaks DNS and DHCP.
If there's somwthing you want to block (multicast DNS), get icefloor and/or (Hand Off OR Little Snitch). I use the former and latter.former. OSX Yosemite contains the awesome pf firewall forked from FreeBSD which was forked from OpenBSD. (Apple send some cash to FreeBSD and OpenBSD plz.)
"crc-mark-adler-hw" uses SSE4.2 just like your "crc-sse42". The latter one is just very poorly written, since it only uses _mm_crc32_u8() once per iteration (instead of 3 times).
But historically this has been a complicated topic. Basically about a hundred years ago the genus and sexus of words started to get separated. Thanks to that you can say "Katze" to both male and female cats. Historically you had to say "Kater" to a male cat.
But of course there were people in the 90s (it started earlier than that) who considered the generic masculinum uninclusive for women, since why is the male genus allowed to be the generic form of the language? Everything had to be gendered explicitly again! Awesome! /s Instead of rolling back the split of genus and sexus of the past decades, they instead opted for just sticking the already existing, but less popular -in suffix to everything and anything. A generic word like "Student" now had it's proper sexus again as "Student und Studentin".
But as you might already know that's uninclusive for nonbinary people and thus we're now at a point where we say "Studierende" or "Studentx" or "Student:in" instead, which linguistically really doesn’t make much sense at all anymore. Awesome! /s
One step forward, two steps backwards. But again, as explained above, the "Kleidermacher" can be of any genus, because...
Genus and sexus are two different things in German.