> I would be surprised if you could find an example of anyone at all prominent or influential on the left expressing in writing the position that you quote.

How about this for a prominent and influential source:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00677-x

The headline is "Neurosexism: the myth that men and women have different brains"

Under the sub-heading "Cultural paths":

"So if it’s not brain hard-wiring, how do we explain the often stark differences in behaviour and interests between men and women? Here is where we get to Rippon’s thesis on the impact of a gendered world on the human brain."

You can inject people with testosterone and estrogen and observe behavioral changes (as people attest to in this very thread), so it's certainly a pretty strange position to have. Neuroscience is too important for these nonfactual statements to be accepted, let alone be published in Nature. There's a pretty thorough counter argument here: https://quillette.com/2019/03/29/denying-the-neuroscience-of...

That's the headline. The actual content of the article consists in discussion of various instances in which male/female brain differences have been exaggerated.

The brain is a bit of a red herring here. We know little about the brain -- far too little to be able to draw any conclusions from whatever differences there may be between average male and female brains. We do, however, have reliable behavioral evidence of small cognitive differences between men and women on average. My point was that there are few if any people who deny the existence of such differences.

It feels like you keep moving the goalposts and your initial argument was "I have no personal experience with [x] so I don't believe [x] is a thing."

I can't leave links to my life experiences, but as I finish my undergrad I have heard every type of teacher and student maintain that the only differences between men and women are socially constructed. It is common knowledge and thus not really debated. The one time I saw a teacher maintain otherwise, it was a guy in the biology department who was retiring. The class session dissolved into a shouting match between students with the teacher looking on.

If that is a common point of view, it should be easy to provide a reference to someone expressing it in writing.

I suspect that you weren't listening very carefully to what people were actually saying.

You've been given evidence ITT and you've shifted the goalposts. From your posts here it is very clear that you are making a concerted yet subtle effort to minimize an issue at least 4 other posters and myself have had direct interactions with. I'm sure you have subjectively good reasons for playing this game.

This isn't a problem, though. This is probably what happens when it turns out the Russian bogeyman was just a fever dream. Indeed, being in a public University in the North East as well as 2 of my 3 concentrations being in the liberal arts, I'm quite used to people ignoring actual fires as they continuously harangue everyone about potential fires.

I don't know what ITT stands for. Which evidence are you referring to?

I cannot see any connection between the second paragraph of your comment and what we're talking about.

Why does the headline get a free pass?

Because it typically wouldn't be written by the author of the article.

> You can inject people with testosterone and estrogen and observe behavioral changes (as people attest to in this very thread)

If sex-linked behavioral changes at explainable by hormone differences and can reproduced by in vivo manipulation of hormone levels, that supports rather than refutes the idea that intrinsic brain differences are not responsible for the differences.

In any case, though, the article does not support the upthread claims of either a view that there are no sex differences in mentality or that there are no physically-based differences in behavior, and all are social, because it addresses not behavior or mentality but brains.

I am essentially a hash table fetishist, and I'm a little bummed out that this doesn't go into more detail about how the damn thing works. How do you do implement a chaining hash table that uses a single flat array?

Like a FAT format but with relative indices. It should be pretty trivial pointer arithmetic.

Edit: bytell_hash_map.cpp:464 bytell_hash_map.cpp:58

Apparently there's one extra layer of indirection via a lookup table to get the final offset.

So basically the metadata byte is a bitfield union of + status flag + status code (not sure it's actually required) or offset enum. The offset enum then indexes into a look up table, the result of which is the relative offset from the current index.

He mentions he'll update the blog post with a link to the talk he gave once it's online

You can look at the source in his github repository: https://github.com/skarupke/flat_hash_map

I looked through the code and o_O there is a lot of C++ boilerplate. The core part of it is not really documented well, and there is this mysterious jump bits array...if I had more time, I could figure out it. But that's the point of a writeup, explaining things with a diagram, etc.

> I looked through the code and o_O there is a lot of C++ boilerplate.

This boilerplate allows me to choose between std::unordered_map and flat_hash_map in my whole code just by toggling a compile time switch in my code. It ensures that the data structures has the same API than all other C++ containers.

I understand what it is for. YMMV but for me C++ is pretty much a constant mental stack overflow when reading the guts like this. It seems like C++ libraries are getting more and more configurable in a way that hurts readability and understandability and library designers don't seem to recognize there is a fundamental tradeoff here.

I actually have separate implementations of an algorithm with and without templates; the template one is for benchmarking with different combinations of options; the non-template one is for readability, and it's only about 60 lines.

> It seems like C++ libraries are getting more and more configurable in a way that hurts readability and understandability and library designers don't seem to recognize there is a fundamental tradeoff here.

well, I mean... if it was not configurable, it would not really be useful, except for toy examples, and for those the default std::unordered_map is more than sufficient. To be useful, a hash table implementation at least needs to allow to configure the hash function and the comparison operator.

To be honest, when it comes to C++ boilerplate, I've seen much, much worse. At a first glance the code looks somewhat clean.

That's not the same as having a high level description of the concepts used. For details I can still dive into the details later.

You do hash % bucketCount to find your bucket/slot. Each array element is also a linked list node (with a next pointer), thus if the slot is populated you follow the linked list until an empty slot is found and attach to the end of the linked list.

I figure it works best if you over allocate slots, so that on average you only have to do very few hops on each linked list walk (or no walk at all).

Aside: This is the method employed by .NET's Dictionary<K,V> class.

Further - it's generally faster to use structure of arrays rather than array of structures, thus in the above scheme the dictionary items/payloads and the linked list pointers could be in separate arrays.

I think there is tremendous potential in baking in these sorts of games into some kind of chat application.

The creators of Chatroulette originally wanted an app that could connect people around the world, it just turned out become a platform for people exposing themselves over webcam. If you could avoid that, and build a platform that nudges people into building these intimate conversations across the world, you might bring huge value to a world where people are increasingly lonely.

Omegle used to do something like this. The random stranger chats often started with prompts (but I don't remember what they were).