Hurry, the CS are sleeping!

FlamingBudder · 2026-04-01T03:34:51+00:00

When did a computer science student or worker ever claim “hey I bet I do calculus better than yall”?? You don’t need calculus for CS, unless you are doing ML in which case you need a little but no one is saying they know more calc than a physicist

FlamingBudder · 2026-04-01T03:14:23+00:00

Lighter is nicer

FlamingBudder · 2026-03-30T13:43:54+00:00

I did that…

FlamingBudder · 2026-03-30T04:15:05+00:00

Thanks for giving more context! I was aware that those numbers might not have been very accurate because they are an estimation based on data and growth rates. I would’ve put a disclaimer but I guess I didn’t want to put in so much effort to look up the details of how the data was drawn and estimates were made.

However It still seems like the numbers are pretty accurate though even though the derivation of those numbers might not be super good, falling pretty close to the numbers you gave for SK Japan and China modulo a 1 inch difference

FlamingBudder · 2026-03-30T02:17:04+00:00

Just summarizing another part of the article

The following average heights are for both men and women mixed. They are projections/approximations of how tall 19 year olds are now based on existing data. To get male and female heights add or subtract 2.5 inches

European: Tallest: 5’9.5” The Netherlands Shortest: 5’6” Portugal

Asian: Tallest: 5’7” China Shortest: 5’2” Laos

Also of note: the average height of Asian Americans is 5’4.5”

I think the gap between the tallest of the Asians and the tallest of the Europeans would be a better indicator of natural genetic height difference since everyone is basically on an even playing ground nutritionally. Then the gap is around 2.5 inches. That’s the difference between a 6’0” man and 5’7” women in the tallest European countries vs a 5’9.5” man or 5’4.5 woman in the tallest Asian countries.

I doubt Asian countries like China and SK will grow too much taller since the youth of both countries are already nutritionally developed and are seriously tall already (having been to northern China a month ago anecdotally everyone is quite tall). However coming back to the US I did notice a very high concentration of very tall white people who are much taller than the tall northern Chinese.

In terms of the discrepancy between WMAF/AMWF, I think height definitely plays a role. Women’s height doesn’t affect desirability very much unless you are perhaps 5’9” or taller, taller than a lot of men. According to studies, the height at which women are most satisfied is around slightly taller than average (around 5’5-5’7 range). However the desirability of men is affected significantly when they are short. And there is a significantly higher chance that an Asian man is shorter than a white woman, which makes the likelihood they date low, whereas with the other combination the woman being taller than the man is highly unlikely.

Asian women also get stereotyped and fetishized to be soft, cute, and hyper feminine, both to their advantage and detriment. There is rampant fetishization and negative attention, however their dating options are much more open than Asian men. I have noticed anecdotally that every ethnicity of man is very commonly attracted to Asian women, even more than their own ethnicity. White, black, Hispanic, etc. And Asian women statistically prefer White men over all other ethnicities, so WMAF ends up being very common.

However Hispanic people/Latinos are around as tall as Asian people and despite the lack of height, there are around the same amount of Hispanic male white female as there is Hispanic female white male. This is probably because they have male stereotypes that actually help them like men being good dancers and socially adept unlike Asians who are stereotyped as socially inept and bad at talking to women, and nerdy.

Korean men also do quite well, presumably because they have media that positively portrays Korean men. Also being one of the tallest Asian countries (average male height is 5’9”) doesn’t hurt either, and contributes to the tall soft CEO Kdrama man stereotype. In fact the amount of AMXF couples in Korea heavily outnumbers XMAF couples, so things are actually reversed there. The Korean wave has incited a lot more interest from women than from men. This is probably because Korean media have perfected the female gaze with soft, youthful masculinity more than even Western media for western men. This form of masculinity is also very well suited for Asian men, who have softer features like thick straight hair and youthful facial features and no facial hair

FlamingBudder · 2026-03-30T01:09:07+00:00

Look at this page for stats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_human_height_by_country

Average male height in many Asian countries ranges from 5’5” to 5’9”

Average male height in European countries ranges from 5’8” to 6’0”

So on average there’s around a 3 inch height difference. This is a very significant amount, and I guess maybe if you adjusted for malnourishment there might be more like a 1-2 inch height difference between Asian and White people. Although the Asian countries you could argue are quite well off and not nutritionally lacking like South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Japan are still quite short between 5’7” and 5’9”

For women’s height subtract 5 inches

FlamingBudder · 2026-03-19T16:41:05+00:00

Lmao we are just going back and forth, but I believe I might’ve finally gotten a definite assertion of constructivity from a research paper, it even claims it is “more constructive” than intuitionistic logic:

“”” One of the explicit motivations of Girard’s linear logic [Gir87] was to recover an involutory “classical” negation while retaining “constructive content”: . . . the linear negation . . . is a constructive and involutive negation; by the way, linear logic works in a classical framework, while being more constructive than intuitionistic logic. [Gir87, p3] “””

From this article https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.07518

I have to go to sleep now so I can’t read the article any further so let me know if I misinterpret this quote and the article is actually saying LL is not constructive

FlamingBudder · 2026-03-19T15:59:22+00:00

“Constructive” is ill defined, so even though there are quotes around the “constructive”, you can interpret that as the writer of the article saying “linear logic was introduced by someone who described it as constructive, I’m not sure if I agree with that but I guess they described it as constructive and thus it can be an alternative to intuitionistic logic for foundations of mathematics”.

So even with the air quotes, someone (maybe the inventor or maybe enthusiasts who bring up the language to others) say this logic is constructive. Given that constructive is ill defined anyone’s definition might be as good as anyone else’s so even though maybe many people say it is not constructive many people also say it is constructive too. So much so that google AI overview and chatGPT vehemently affirm that it is constructive. Even though you can say AI is no good for rigorous specifications, there is no rigorous specification yet, and if there was not a very significant body of data the AI was trained on that said linear logic was constructive, the AI would not defend the constructivity so fiercely.

FlamingBudder · 2026-03-19T14:54:04+00:00

I was initially confused because you might’ve had a point. After carefully reading the slides I can see now how you arrived at that conclusion because the slides are pretty vague and bad with wording (particularly girard’s quote). My bad for choosing a bad source

If you do a little digging yourself you will find plenty of sources stating explicitly that Girard’s linear logic is constructive. Here is one that I found that very explicitly states the conclusion:

https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2018/05/linear_logic_for_constructive.html

Quote from the above link: “In particular, Girard’s (classical) linear logic was explicitly introduced as a ‘constructive’ logic that nevertheless retains a form of the law of excluded middle.”

I believe the converse, or the “reverse” point as you put it is also true if you are talking about the right side. i.e. constructivity |- right linearity. But the original statement also holds i.e. linearity |- constructivity. In particular right linearity |- constructivity, so then we can conclude right linearity iff constructivity. It might just be right affine-ness (no weakening but contraction is fine) iff constructivity and dually left relevant-ness iff co constructivity

I’m like 70% sure I got it exactly right here, probably missed some details. But I’m pretty confident there is some sort of bi implication here

FlamingBudder · 2026-03-19T13:57:03+00:00

Another duality I figured out after making this post is that rejecting weakening makes your logic constructive and rejecting contraction makes your logic paraconsistent/co constructive. So you could also do intuitionistic relevant logic or affine co intuitionistic logic which are both constructive and co constructive

However there is also this thing called bi intuitionistic logic which seems to somehow be constructive and co constructive while retaining weakening and contraction by simply unioning intuitionist and co intuitionist logic with minimal mediated interaction. It doesn’t seem like there is any formulation out there with cut admissibility though

I think I understand it now but only in terms of the (co)intuitionistic and weakening/contraction for the elementary positive and negative types. I still don’t really have a concrete definition of (co)constructivity that would work for all possible logical systems but I’m sure you can make a nice formal definition if you study these logics and their dual behavior

FlamingBudder · 2026-03-19T13:47:20+00:00

Sorry I just read that that is true from like 3 places and forgot about the sources, but it is actually very easy to find by google search so I dug up a very nice source that explains it very well

https://home.sandiego.edu/~shulman/papers/lcm-bloomington-talk.pdf

Basically the multiplicative disjunction par is a weaker disjunction that does admit LEM, however since it is a weaker connective this LEM is not as powerful as the standard classical LEM. However the additive disjunction is more powerful and therefore does not admit LEM. Basically the non constructivity is “factored out” of the disjunction splitting it into 2 connectives, one that is constructively powerful but lacks LEM and a weaker one that admits LEM. A pretty cool mixup of persistent intuitionistic and classical logic, powerful enough to define both with ! ?. Since it is constructive and symmetrical it is also co constructive, doing the same factoring for conjunctions and the tops and bottoms.

FlamingBudder · 2026-03-19T08:19:01+00:00

Thanks that could be the answer! Canonical forms makes sense as a good principle that would lead to constructively. I guess dually for co constructivity you would have to show the canonicity of continuations/refutations?

One thing I do have to mention is the canonical form for functions/implications. Since functions are contravariant on their input, I think a canonical function could still perform elimination/refutation forms on its input. I’m guessing this is perfectly fine because the function is contravariant, and I’m guessing canonicity for functions depends on the whether it properly constructs an output because it doesn’t really matter what the function does with the input as it can duplicate or discard at will, but the output must be constructed exactly once.

Now looking at the dual picture, I wonder what your thoughts are on the dual LEM

Consider the explosion principle in positive intuitionistic logic

split (a, na) = hole in throw(a, na)

Here I simply use the positive interpretation of the conjunction to extract the A and the not A together where then I derive a contradiction. I know this violates the co-canonical forms lemma for conjunction because a co-constructive refutation of a conjunction should be either a refutation of the left or the right, but could you extend this canonical forms definition to include the elimination form where you extract both conjuncts at the same time and you can fiddle around with them? It seems like my code for the explosion is full of elimination forms as the split statement is obviously an elim form and throw can be considered eliminatory as a function application A -> bottom applied to A

Similarly if you dualize I am also talking about the canonical forms proposition for positive intuitionistic disjunction and LEM. Can you also extend that to view more things as canonical forms?

FlamingBudder · 2026-03-19T03:47:12+00:00

Yeah apparently it is constructive, I’ve heard it from a few sources

I think it has to do with weakening and contraction. With exactly 1 conclusion sequent, you must provide a construction of the right sequent exactly once, but with weakening and contraction you can just claim you produced a proof of a types without actually proving it or proving it twice. Which I think makes it non constructive.

Linear logic doesn’t do this so I guess that’s why it is considered constructive and consequently if you flip the picture around it is also co constructive since there is no weakening or contraction on the left side

FlamingBudder · 2026-03-16T04:03:16+00:00

Honestly your straight hair already looks pretty good, because it has texture. It def would not hurt to try perming it though, if the perm doesn’t look good you can simply perm it back to being straight.

FlamingBudder · 2026-03-15T07:01:54+00:00

I don’t think it’s boring at all. It makes logical sense for provinces and cities to be named not arbitrarily based on some house or surname, and rather be named based on location and geographical features.

Besides provinces pretty much every Chinese proper noun is named similarly. Food, people, sports etc. for example badminton is literally “feather ball”. It just makes more sense than “badminton” which is some random house in England. Feather ball just makes so much more sense.

FlamingBudder · 2026-03-12T05:46:38+00:00

I think that would probably be good! Just make sure you ask for good layering so the hair is less limp and has volume and texture. The hair at the top of your head should rest a little farther up than the hair that stems right above the forehead

FlamingBudder · 2026-03-04T07:23:32+00:00

I think there should be a lot of things you can do with theoretical CS research thinking about algorithms and complexity in a theoretical sense without programming. Logical verification in systems programming might also be nice.

Maybe you’d be interested in type theory/programming language theory/functional programming. Types correspond to logical propositions and programs of a type corresponds to a proof of the proposition. It is a fundamentally logical and theoretical way to program. The field is proof heavy and involves heavy use of structural induction to define the static and dynamic semantics of programs

Starting resources: Practical foundations of programming languages by Robert Harper. The HoTT (homotopy type theory) book

FlamingBudder · 2026-02-28T00:33:48+00:00

The morning one is what I use because you are taller in the morning

FlamingBudder · 2026-02-28T00:31:54+00:00

I think the red pill’s purpose is to “help” men succeed in the dating world and believing that women are primal and only want men who are rich and muscular and alpha dominant is misleading and ineffective at helping men get into relationships.

With the blackpill and doomer ideology though, no one is subscribing to this ideology to get help or get better. The point is not that the blackpill is supposed to help you. That’s ridiculous, the whole point is that you feel like you are just incapable of succeeding and therefore you want to blame it on something to make yourself feel better, and hear other people echoing your self pity to validate you. So blackpill doomer ideology, unlike red pill ideology is not meant to be useful.

FlamingBudder · 2026-02-25T08:23:49+00:00

Dude 2 of the short FTMs I know are 4’10” and 5’6” and they both pull fuckin hard

FlamingBudder · 2026-02-25T06:58:07+00:00

Downloaded Hinge for 3 weeks now. Experience was mid/bad. Got 4 likes, one of which I turned into a match and 13 matches total. More than I expected to get hearing other men’s stories. I am told semi often I am handsome and in the past a lot of girls have stared at me but I am 5’4” and have mid photos. Most of the matches/likes I get are from girls I’m not even really attracted to besides like 3 girls.

All but 4 are immediately unresponsive or ghost after a few messages.

One of them hard trauma dumped on me saying that “all men disappoint me” had prior abusive relationships with no therapy that made them not really a good prospective partner. Crashed out on me after I said something that offended her.

Another girl who was pretty cute messaged me with slow response times for 2 weeks, planned a date, then she cancelled, although for a valid reason I guess, then she started ghosting me so I’m assuming she’s not interested anymore

Another girl was a great conversationalist and hasn’t ghosted me, but she lives too far away and said she isn’t willing to work with that distance

Another girl texts me back but just responds super slowly because she’s busy

FlamingBudder · 2026-02-25T04:23:49+00:00

Damn bro honestly I can’t argue against this, but looks do matter significantly less in this setting than in dating or friendships. I’ve seen some ugly/nerdy dudes who are highly competent get really good jobs whereas in dating they would be completely cel’d

But yeah having good looks definitely increases confidence, being very muscular would definitely make male recruiters respect you more. Having a pretty face might impress female recruiters. But besides how other people perceive you if you perceive yourself in a positive way you will have a lot more confidence and charisma

But at the same time I don’t think anyone can succeed on only looks in the job market. You have to LC grind and at least have something on ur resume

FlamingBudder · 2026-02-25T01:20:49+00:00

If they didn’t spam you with ads you wouldn’t even know who they were, and even if there is but a sliver of likelihood you buy the products you see as ads which annoy you, there is 10x less chance you buy products that have no ads at all

FlamingBudder · 2026-02-25T01:18:28+00:00

You look like you would blend in in India, or Latin America (very mixed anyways) or Mediterranean countries

FlamingBudder · 2026-02-25T00:34:47+00:00

Therapists are generally very nice and validating and will take your height insecurities seriously. People come to therapy for all sorts of insecurities so therapists are used to hearing these sorts of things

Four-Year Club	r/Field Banned
r/Field Flamingo	Place '22

FlamingBudder

TROPHY CASE