@ruario@oulipo.socialI am straight and cis but I think it's so important to show solidarity.
This amazing short shows why. ❤️
https://youtu.be/UVepoXddTW4
[And I also think it works with that rainbow band. An additional pop of colour. 🏳️🌈 😉]
@arXiv_astrophSR_bot@mastoxiv.pageCoupling 1D stellar evolution with 3D-hydrodynamical simulations on-the-fly III: stellar evolution at different metallicities
Yixiao Zhou, Jakob L. R{\o}rsted, Achim Weiss, Andreas C. S. J{\o}rgensen, Cis Lagae, Luisa F. Rodr\'iguez D\'iaz, Yaguang Li, Mark L. Winther, Jens R. Larsen, J{\o}rgen Christensen-Dalsgaard, Oleg Kochukhov, Karen R. Pollard, Tanda Li
@fanf@mendeddrum.orgfrom my link log —
I Got Plenty o’ Nuttin’: linear dependent types.
https://personal.cis.strath.ac.uk/conor.mcbride/PlentyO-CR.pdf
saved 2025-04-09
@detondev@social.linux.pizzashoutout to cis men that follow me lmao
@UlrikeHeiss@eldritch.cafeIch habe keine Worte mehr für das, was Frauen und Queers angetan wird. Wenn ich etwas Negatives über cis Männer poste, kommt immer jemand gelaufen, häufig auch cis Frauen, und sagt "not all men" oder "nicht gleich den Krieg zwischen den Geschlechtern erklären" usw. Ich bin es so leid. Was ist das anderes als ein Feldzug gegen Frauen?
@tiotasram@kolektiva.socialHow popular media gets love wrong
Now a bit of background about why I have this "engineered" model of love:
First, I'm a white straight cis man. I've got a few traits that might work against my relationship chances (e.g., neurodivergence; I generally fit pretty well into the "weird geek" stereotype), but as I was recently reminded, it's possible my experience derives more from luck than other factors, and since things are tilted more in my favor than most people on the planet, my advice could be worse than useless if it leads people towards strategies that would only have worked for someone like me. I don't *think* that's the case, but it's worth mentioning explicitly.
When I first started dating my now-wife, we were both in graduate school. I was 26, and had exactly zero dating/romantic experience though that point in my life. In other words, a pretty stereotypical "incel" although I definitely didn't subscribe to incel ideology at all. I felt lonely, and vaguely wanted a romantic relationship (I'm neither aromantic nor asexual), but had never felt socially comfortable enough to pursue one before. I don't drink and dislike most social gatherings like parties or bars; I mostly hung around the fringes of the few college parties I attended, and although I had a reasonable college social life in terms of friends, I didn't really do anything to pursue romance, feeling too awkward to know where to start. I had the beginnings of crushes in both high school and college, but never developed a really strong crush, probably correlated with not putting myself in many social situations outside of close all-male friend gatherings. I never felt remotely comfortable enough to act on any of the proto-crushes I did have. I did watch porn and masturbate, so one motivation for pursuing a relationship was physical intimacy, but loneliness was as much of a motivating factor, and of course the social pressure to date was a factor too, even though I'm quite contrarian.
When I first started dating my now-wife, we were both in graduate school. I was 26, and had exactly zero dating/romantic experience though that point in my life. In other words, a pretty stereotypical "incel" although I definitely didn't subscribe to incel ideology at all. I felt lonely, and vaguely wanted a romantic relationship (I'm neither aromantic nor asexual), but had never felt socially comfortable enough to pursue one before. I don't drink and dislike most social gatherings like parties or bars; I mostly hung around the fringes of the few college parties I attended, and although I had a reasonable college social life in terms of friends, I didn't really do anything to pursue romance, feeling too awkward to know where to start. I had the beginnings of crushes in both high school and college, but never developed a really strong crush, probably correlated with not putting myself in many social situations outside of close all-male friend gatherings. I never felt remotely comfortable enough to act on any of the proto-crushes I did have. I did watch porn and masturbate, so one motivation for pursuing a relationship was physical intimacy, but loneliness was as much of a motivating factor, and of course the social pressure to date was a factor too, even though I'm quite contrarian.
I'm lucky in that I had some mixed-gender social circles already like intramural soccer and a graduate-student housing potluck. Graduate school makes a *lot* more of these social spaces accessible, so I recognize that those not in school of some sort have a harder time of things, especially if like me they don't feel like they fit in in typical adult social spaces like bars.
However, at one point I just decided that my desire for a relationship would need action on my part and so I'd try to build a relationship and see what happened. I worked up my courage and asked one of the people in my potluck if she'd like to go for a hike (pretty much clearly a date but not explicitly one; in retrospect not the best first-date modality in a lot of ways, but it made a little more sense in our setting where we could go for a hike from our front door). To emphasize this point: I was not in love with (or even infatuated with) my now-wife at that point. I made a decision to be open to building a relationship, but didn't follow the typical romance story formula beyond that. Now of course, in real life as opposed to popular media, this isn't anything special. People ask each other out all the time just because they're lonely, and some of those relationships turn out fine (although many do not).
I was lucky in that some aspects of who I am and what I do happened to be naturally comforting to my wife (natural advantage in the "appeal" model of love) but of course there are some aspects of me that annoy my wife, and we negotiate that. In the other direction, there's some things I instantly liked about my wife, and other things that still annoy me. We've figured out how to accept a little, change a little, and overall be happy with each other (though we do still have arguments; it's not like the operation/construction/maintenance of the "love mechanism" is always perfectly smooth). In particular though, I approached the relationship with the attitude of "I want to try to build a relationship with this person," at first just because of my own desires for *any* relationship, and then gradually more and more through my desire to build *this specific* relationship as I enjoyed the rewards of companionship.
So for example, while I think my wife is objectively beautiful, she's also *subjectively* very beautiful *to me* because having decided to build a relationship with her, I actively tried to see her as beautiful, rather than trying to judge whether I wanted a relationship with her based on her beauty. In other words, our relationship is more causative of her beauty-to-me than her beauty-to-me is causative of our relationship. This is the biggest way I think the "engineered" model of love differs from the "fire" and "appeal" models: you can just decide to build love independent of factors we typically think of as engendering love (NOT independent of your partner's willingness to participate, of course), and then all of those things like "thinking your partner is beautiful" can be a result of the relationship you're building. For sure those factors might affect who is willing to try building a relationship with you in the first place, but if more people were willing to jump into relationship building (not necessarily with full commitment from the start) without worrying about those other factors, they might find that those factors can come out of the relationship instead of being prerequisites for it. I think this is the biggest failure of the "appeal" model in particular: yes you *do* need to do things that appeal to your partner, but it's not just "make myself lovable" it's also: is your partner putting in the effort to see the ways that you are beautiful/lovable/etc., or are they just expecting you to become exactly some perfect person they've imagined (and/or been told to desire by society)? The former is perfectly possible, and no less satisfying than the latter.
To cut off my rambling a bit here, I'll just add that in our progress from dating through marriage through staying-married, my wife and I have both talked at times explicitly about commitment, and especially when deciding to get married, I told her that I knew I couldn't live up to the perfect model of a husband that I'd want to be, but that if she wanted to deepen our commitment, I was happy to do that, and so we did. I also rearranged my priorities at that point, deciding that I knew I wanted to prioritize this relationship above things like my career or my research interests, and while I've not always been perfect at that in my little decisions, I've been good at holding to that in my big decisions at least. In the end, *once we had built a somewhat-committed relationship*, we had something that we both recognized was worth more than most other things in life, and that let us commit even more, thus getting even more out of it in the long term. Obviously you can't start the first date with an expectation of life-long commitment, and you need to synchronize your increasing commitment to a relationship so that it doesn't become lopsided, which is hard. But if you take the commitment as an active decision and as the *precursor* to things like infatuation, attraction, etc., you can build up to something that's incredibly strong and rewarding.
I'll follow this up with one more post trying to distill some advice from my ramblings.
#relationships #love
@arXiv_csHC_bot@mastoxiv.pageInvisible Architectures of Thought: Toward a New Science of AI as Cognitive Infrastructure
Giuseppe Riva
https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.22893 https://arxiv.org…
@arXiv_csSE_bot@mastoxiv.pageCultural Impact on Requirements Engineering Activities: Bangladeshi Practitioners' View
Chowdhury Shahriar Muzammel, Maria Spichkova, James Harland
https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.15188
@detondev@social.linux.pizzacis people eat with their hands. cis people wipe with their bare left hand after they poop. cis people recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa
@AimeeMaroux@mastodon.socialI'm not on #Reddit but for any #trans woman reading this I want to say: I (AFAB cis woman) know *exactly* what you feel like because this is the same as waiting for your first period as a girl, especially if you get it later than your friends. It's exciting, a sign of growing up and "becom…
@arXiv_physicschemph_bot@mastoxiv.pagePySEQM 2.0: Accelerated Semiempirical Excited State Calculations on Graphical Processing Units
Vishikh Athavale, Nikita Fedik, William Colglazier, Anders M. N. Niklasson, Maksim Kulichenko, Sergei Tretiak
https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.24807
@fanf@mendeddrum.orgfrom my link log —
Dana Scott on the lambda calculus, then and now.
https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~cis5110/lambda_calculus_timeline-Scott.pdf
saved 2025-07-18
@fennek@cyberplace.socialHug a middle-aged cis white guy tomorrow.
@arXiv_statME_bot@mastoxiv.pageConfidence Intervals for Random Forest Permutation Importance with Missing Data
Nico F\"oge, Markus Pauly
https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.13918 https://
@fanf@mendeddrum.orgfrom my link log —
Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right: dissecting and dividing algebraic data structures.
https://personal.cis.strath.ac.uk/conor.mcbride/Dissect.pdf
saved 2025-04-14
@tiotasram@kolektiva.socialJust read Fat Girls Dance by Cathleen Meredith, yet another semi-random venture into the currently-popular novels section of my library, rather than my recent YA staples. It's excellent. Fascinating and well-written just as fiction, but also empowering and perspective-upgrading (and I'm a married white cis man who is only beer-belly fat, plus already well into #BodyPositive thinking).
It bridges really well with Mama by Nikkya Hargrove, and with Does My Body Offend You by Mayra Cuevas and Marie Marquardt, both of which I went through recently. Yet another home fucking run for #OwnVoices, which felt extra good to read after Dream State was so disappointing. It really digs into and helps the reader explore body positivity just like Does My Body Offend You does with feminism.
#AmReading
@arXiv_physicschemph_bot@mastoxiv.pageThis https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.20823 has been replaced.
initial toot: https://mastoxiv.page/@ar…
@arXiv_astrophGA_bot@mastoxiv.pageDeriving physical parameters of unresolved star clusters. VIII. Limits of aperture photometry for star cluster studies
Karolis Daugevi\v{c}ius, Eimantas Kri\v{s}\v{c}i\=unas, Erikas Cic\.enas, Rima Stonkut\.e, Vladas Vansevi\v{c}ius
https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08674
@arXiv_condmatmeshall_bot@mastoxiv.pageLow-temperature cotunneling electron transport in photo-switchable molecule-nanoparticle networks
Yannick Viero, David Gu\'erin, Dominique Vuillaume
https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.05552
@detondev@social.linux.pizzawoke up an hour early. wandered into the woods. except for the slope with the spider. i gotta wait 15 minutes before the gender therapist joins the call. i forgot my water bottle. my clothes just feel alien as always.
he's a trans guy with this gay pride flag sorta-ribbon around his neck. i talk into my headphones like an old school telephone cause i wanna know how my voice sounds. while i have effective answers prepared to all cis people questions on my laptop (most people involv…
@arXiv_qbioGN_bot@mastoxiv.pageDeepPlantCRE: A Transformer-CNN Hybrid Framework for Plant Gene Expression Modeling and Cross-Species Generalization
Yingjun Wu, Jingyun Huang, Liang Ming, Pengcheng Deng, Maojun Wang, Zeyu Zhang
https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.09883
@ncf@types.plI've been reading the paper on small induction-recursion (which is really well-written btw!) and I think there might be a similar kind of terminological thingy about induction-recursion as with the "type-theoretic axiom of choice".
For context, "type-theoretic axiom of choice" is an old name for the distributivity of Π over Σ, which has nothing to do with choice. The reason it's named that is that, if you interpret ∀ as Π and ⊃ as Σ, the formulation of the axiom of choice in terms of relations
(∀ (x : X). ⊃ (y : Y). R(x, y)) − (⊃ (f : X − Y). ∀ (x : X). R(x, f(x)))
is just the distributivity of Π over Σ, which is trivial. The real mathematical content of the axiom of choice in type theory comes from the distributivity of Π over the propositional truncation, since the correct interpretation of ⊃ x. P x is ⊥ Σ x. P x ⊥.
Similarly, "induction-recursion" is made up of two parts: small induction-recursion, which is equivalent to indexed inductive definitions and thus rather anodyne, and the resizing of those definitions so that they live in U when they should live in U⁺, which is where the expressive power of IR comes from.
So, while "type-theoretic axiom of choice" is a very strong name for something innocuous, "induction-recursion" is an innocuous name for something very strong, essentially for dual reasons.
I hope this is not too obvious; I sure wish someone had explained this to me the first time I learned about induction-recursion.
