News aggregator

wren gayle romano: A Word on Words

Planet Haskell - Fri, 07/18/2014 - 5:35am

I'd like to take this moment to point out that all forms of binarism are bad. (Including the binarist notion that all things are either "good" or "bad".) I feel like this has to be pointed out because we, every one of us, has a nasty habit: in our overzealousness to tear down one binary, we do so by reinforcing other binaries. So let me say again. All forms of binarism are bad.

It's well-known that I've had a long, fraught history with certain "feminist" communities, due to which I have heretofore disavowed that label. Because of these persistent conflicts, around ten years ago I retreated from feminist circles and communities. However, over the past year I have rejoined a number of feminist circles— or rather, I have joined womanist, black feminist, transfeminist, and queer feminist circles. And thanks to this reinvolvement with feminist activism I have come, once again, to feel a certain attachment to that word: "feminist". The attachment feels strange to me now, having disavowed it for so long in favor of "womanism", "black feminism", "transfeminism", and "queer feminism". But because of this attachment I feel, once more, the need to reclaim feminism away from those "feminist" communities whose philosophy and political methods I continue to disavow.

So, to piss everyone off once more: a manifesto. )

Edit 2014.07.13: Added footnotes [2] and [3].

Twitter Facebook Google+ Tumblr

comments
Categories: Offsite Blogs

wren gayle romano: Performativity is not performance

Planet Haskell - Fri, 07/18/2014 - 5:34am

Although the words have superficially similar pronunciations, performativity and performance are two extremely different notions. In her book Gender Trouble (1990) and its sequel Bodies That Matter (1993), Judith Butler put forth the thesis that gender identity is performative. Over the last decade performance-based theories of gender and identity have become popular, even mainstream, despite a number of deep-seated and readily-apparent flaws. Unfortunately, these latter performance-based theories are often portrayed as successors of Butlerean performativity. They're not.[1]

To understand performativity one should go back to Austin's original definition of performative speech acts. Whenever we speak, we speak for a reason. Austin was interested in explaining these reasons— in particular, explaining the contrast between what we say and why we say it. When we ask "could you pass the salt?" we are not literally interested in whether the addressee is capable of moving the salt shaker, we're making a request. When we ask "how do you do?" or "what's up?" we do not actually want an answer, we are merely greeting someone. It is within this context of discussing the why behind what we say that Austin became interested in performative speech acts: speech acts which through their very utterance do what it is they say, or speech acts which are what it is they mean. When the right person in the right context utters "I now pronounce you married", that vocalization is in fact the pronouncement itself. To state that you pronounce something, is itself to make the proclamation. In just the same way, when under the right circumstances someone says they promise such-and-so, they just did.

There are a number of interesting details about what it means to be a performative speech act. For instance, just uttering the words is not enough: if a random stranger comes up to you and pronounces you married, that does not actually mean you're married. For the performative speech act to have any force it must be uttered in a felicitous context (e.g., the words must be spoken with the proper intent, the pronouncer of marriage must be ordained with the ability to marry people, the partners must be willing, the pairing must be of an appropriate sort according to the bigotry of the times, etc). Another detail is that performative speech acts do more than just enact what they say, they also create something: pronouncing a marriage constructs the marriage itself, declaring war brings the war into existence, giving a promise makes the promise, sentencing someone creates the sentence, etc. Because of details like these, claiming that a particular speech act is performative says a heck of a lot more than just saying the act was performed (i.e., spoken).

On the other hand, a performance is the enactment of a particular variety of artistic expression ranging from theatrical plays, to musical opuses, to religious ceremonies, to performance art, and so on. Whether a particular act is performative is independent of whether it is (a part of) a performance. Many performative speech acts are of a ceremonial nature (e.g., marriages, divorces, christenings, declarations of war, etc) and consequently we like to make a big affair of it. Thus, these particular acts tend to be both: they're performative performances. However, many other performative speech acts are executed with little fanfare: ordering food in a restaurant, apologizing, accepting apologies, resigning from a game, etc. These are all performative acts, and yet there's absolutely no need for any sort of performance behind them. Indeed we often find it humorous, or rude, or severe, when someone chooses to turn these performative acts into performances.

The distinction between performativity and performance is crucial to understanding the thesis Butler put forth. We can expand the idea of performativity to include not just speech acts, but other acts as well. Doing so, Butler's thesis is that one's identity as a particular gender is not something which exists a priori, but rather that it is constructed by the enactment —and especially the continuous ritualistic re-enactment— of performative gender actions. The specific claim being made is that one's gender identity is an artifact whose ontological existence arises from particular deeds, in the exact same way that a marriage is an artifact arising from nuptial ceremony, that a promise is an artifact arising from the swearing of a vow, that a state of war is an artifact arising from the declaration of its existence, and so on. The performative theory of gender is often paraphrased as "gender is something we do"— but this paraphrase is grossly misleading. The paraphrase elides the entire specific content of the thesis! Sure, gender is something we do, but it's something we do in very specific ways and it is in virtue of doing those things in those ways that we come to identify with our gender. That's the thesis.

As discussed before, there are some crucial issues with performativity as a theory of gender. (Though these issues can be corrected by changing the focus without giving up the crucial insight.) But the issue with performativity has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that performances are artificial, that performances are interruptible, that performances can be altered on whimsy, that performances can be disingenuous, that performances are "only" art, etc. Those latter complaints are why performance-based theories of gender are flat out wrong. And they're evidence of why claiming that performance-based theories were built upon performative theories grossly misconceptualizes performativity.

[1] Don't take my word for it, Butler herself has continually argued that performance-based theories are a gross misinterpretation of her work (Gender Trouble, xxii–xxiv; Bodies That Matter, 125–126; "Gender as Performance: An interview with Judith Butler", 32–39; Judith Butler (by Sara Salih), 62–71).

Twitter Facebook Google+ Tumblr

comments
Categories: Offsite Blogs

wren gayle romano: I Don't Hear You Talking: a silence on Silence Culture

Planet Haskell - Fri, 07/18/2014 - 5:31am

A lot of ink has been spilt over trigger warnings lately. And I don't want to write about it because I feel like I don't have much to add to the conversation. But when I stop, that feeling nags at me. You can't think with your mouth open; and as someone who always had issues keeping her damn mouth shut, it took me a long time to learn that to listen you must be silent. ... And yet. ... And yet, when someone experiences strong emotions about her own marginalization, but feels compelled to self-silence: that's when you need to listen harder.

Because there are a lot of voices I know full well, and I don't hear them talking.

I know them because they're the voices of my friends, and among friends we talk about things we don't talk about. In the workaday world we put on our faces and never hint at the behemoths raging through our china cabinets. And when we let down our hair, those faces stay on, because you always know who might be listening. And behind closed doors, still, we keep them on because elsewise love would be too tragic. But in secret spaces, we talk. We are, every one of us, damaged. I may not know who hurt you yet, I may not know your story of pain, but I never assume there isn't one; because every single person I've known, when we get close enough, they tell me things we don't talk about. Sometimes it takes years before they feel safe enough, sometimes they never feel safe enough, but if they've ever lowered their guard to me, they've told me. Every. single. person.

We are born and raised and live in a world drenched in abuse. And that abuse doesn't leave scars, it leaves open wounds waiting to have dirt rubbed in them. The first rule of what doesn't happen is that it cannot be spoken of. So healing only happens in those secret spaces, one-on-one, in the dark of night, far far from friends and strangers alike. This privatization of healing only compounds the problem of abuse. When we cannot see past others' faces, when we cannot see the living wounds they bear, when we do not hear their daily resistance against reiterations of violence, we come to think that somehow maybe they haven't been hurt as badly as we. When we see our own people succeed, or see leaders of resistance and "survivors" and "healed" voices speaking up against the injustice of the world, we think that somehow maybe they must be stronger than us, more resilient than us, more determined than us. When we cannot witness their struggle, we think that somehow maybe when they go to bed at nights they need not take the time to scrub out that daily dirt from their wounds. And when we cannot bear that witness, we see ourselves as lesser, broken, impostors.

These are the voices I do not hear speaking out, or hear speaking in only roundabout whispers. These are the voices for whom trigger warnings are writ. As so precisely put by Aoife,

Here's something I need you to understand: the vast majority of students when 'triggered' don't write howlers to department heads or flip laptops over in crowded classrooms for YouTube counts.

On the contrary, they most often shut down and collapse into numbness.

That numbness, that collapse, is the last tool our minds have to keep our faces in place when some sudden shock reopens sore wounds. The second rule of what we do not talk about is that wounds never heal, not entirely. We —some of us— can manage not flinching when someone raises their hand. We —some of us— learn to laugh along when someone touches our back. We —some of us— learn to feel safe in a room alone with a man. We —some of us— learn to turn blind to the "tranny" jokes, to the blackface, to the jibes about trailer parks and country living, to the "sex" scene where she lay sleeping, the scene where he takes the other man 'round back, the man who slaps his wife, the mother who cuffs her child, being told to go pick a switch, to the child starving on the street, to the college kids playing "tricks" on the homeless. We —some of us— learn to live as stone. But stone don't heal, and we all have our rituals of self-care we won't talk about. But when everywhere all you ever see is stone, you know your flesh will never make it if the light still shines in your eyes.

And I too am guilty of this silence culture. Because the fact of the matter is, in this day and age, to speak is to jeopardize my career. I can talk about being trans or being a dyke, and I can at least pretend that the laws on the books will mean a damn. But if I talk about my childhood, I won't be seen as an adult. If I talk about my abuse, I won't be seen as stable. If I bring up my mental life, I won't be seen as professional. If I talk about spoons, I won't be seen as reliable. And so I stuff it down and self-silence and hide what it's like, that daily living with depression and PTSD, til some trigger sets it off and out comes that rage which grows on silence. Some full-force punch to the gut, some words like "I'm not sure suicide is ever the answer" and my eyes go black, and words come out, and they sound nice enough, but every one means "I hate you".

Not to be rude, but sometimes suicide is the answer. It may not be the best answer, but it is an answer. And, unfortunately, sometimes that is all that's required. Sometimes a terrible fucking answer is the only answer to be found.

I say this as someone who's spent more of her life being suicidal than not, as someone who's survived multiple attempts, as someone whose friends have almost invariably spent years being suicidal. Yes, it sucks. And no, it doesn't "solve" anything. But think of the suffering of the victim. It is incredibly difficult to overcome the self-preservation instinct. Profoundly difficult. Imagine the volume of suffering it takes, the depths and duration of misery required to actively overcome the single most powerful compulsion any living creature can experience. There comes a point, long after endurance has already given out, when the full weight of that volume cannot be borne.

Whenever this happens, my thoughts are always with the victim. I cannot help but empathize with that terrible terrible suffering

Because the fact of the matter is, I'm too scared to talk. We live in a culture where suicide is "the easy way" and you're supposed to "take it like a man", but the fact of the matter is noone can take it. We are, every one of us, damaged. We privatize our healing because the first rule of abuse is that it must never be mentioned, must never never be discussed. The learning of silence is the first abuse: it is how we are taught to abuse ourselves, to never never hear that we're not alone.

This isn't about suicide and depression. Isn't about rape and racism. Isn't about violence and neglect. This is about silence. About the words we don't use to not say what you can't talk about. This is about learning to speak using words. About how we must open our mouths in order to listen.

Twitter Facebook Google+ Tumblr

comments
Categories: Offsite Blogs

awesome-haskell

Haskell on Reddit - Fri, 07/18/2014 - 3:25am
Categories: Incoming News

Extensible Effects & Multiple Operations

haskell-cafe - Thu, 07/17/2014 - 9:43pm
I am playing around with the extensible-effects framework and cannot figure out how to solve this problem. I am trying to define a set of operations that only work after a file has been opened. For example, reading a character from a file or detecting EOF. My problem is I cannot figure out how to define one "runner" for my Effect that can deal with operations with different result types. For example, I would like my `readFrom` and `atEOF` operations to have the following types: data OpenFile r v = ... -- my "OpenFile" effect -- read a character from the file readFrom :: Eff r Char -- detect EOF atEOF :: Eff r Bool And I would like to use this operations as follows (where I read a byte from the file, check EOF, and return the concatenation of the two values): main = do c <- runOpenFile "Setup.hs" (do a <- readFrom -- `a` has `Char` type eof <- atEOF -- `eof` has `Bool` type return $ [a] ++ show eof) putStrLn c However, I cannot define a `runOpenFile` that
Categories: Offsite Discussion

Workshop on Evaluation and Usability of Programming Languages and Tools (PLATEAU)

Lambda the Ultimate - Thu, 07/17/2014 - 4:19pm

We are having another PLATEAU workshop at SPLASH 2014. We have a new category for "Hypotheses Papers" and thought this would be particularly appealing to the LTU community.

http://2014.splashcon.org/track/plateau2014

Programming languages exist to enable programmers to develop software effectively. But how efficiently programmers can write software depends on the usability of the languages and tools that they develop with. The aim of this workshop is to discuss methods, metrics and techniques for evaluating the usability of languages and language tools. The supposed benefits of such languages and tools cover a large space, including making programs easier to read, write, and maintain; allowing programmers to write more flexible and powerful programs; and restricting programs to make them more safe and secure.

PLATEAU gathers the intersection of researchers in the programming language, programming tool, and human-computer interaction communities to share their research and discuss the future of evaluation and usability of programming languages and tools.

Some particular areas of interest are:
- empirical studies of programming languages
- methodologies and philosophies behind language and tool evaluation
- software design metrics and their relations to the underlying language
- user studies of language features and software engineering tools
- visual techniques for understanding programming languages
- critical comparisons of programming paradigms
- tools to support evaluating programming languages
- psychology of programming

Submission Details

PLATEAU encourages submissions of three types of papers:

Research and position papers: We encourage papers that describe work-in-progress or recently completed work based on the themes and goals of the workshop or related topics, report on experiences gained, question accepted wisdom, raise challenging open problems, or propose speculative new approaches. We will accept two types of papers: research papers up to 8 pages in length; and position papers up to 2 pages in length.

Hypotheses papers: Hypotheses papers explicitly identify beliefs of the research community or software industry about how a programming language, programming language feature, or programming language tool affects programming practice. Hypotheses can be collected from mailing lists, blog posts, paper introductions, developer forums, or interviews. Papers should clearly document the source(s) of each hypothesis and discuss the importance, use, and relevance of the hypotheses on research or practice. Papers may also, but are not required to, review evidence for or against the hypotheses identified. Hypotheses papers can be up to 4 pages in length.

Papers will be published in the ACM Digital Library at the authors’ discretion.

Important Dates

Workshop paper submission due - 1 August, 2014
Notification to authors - 22 August, 2014
Early registration deadline - 19 September, 2014

Keynote

Josh Bloch, former Chief Java Architect at Google and Distinguished Engineer at Sun Microsystems.

Categories: Offsite Discussion

[Fixed] cc1.exe extraction error on install of Haskell Platform

Haskell on Reddit - Thu, 07/17/2014 - 12:07pm

I want to archive this solution if anyone else hits this issue.

On x64 Windows installing 2013.2.0.0

Close all running programs, for me this included but was not limited to eclipse, skype and firefox. I'm not sure which was the offender. Now re-run the installer and you should be good.

This post doesn't need upvotes but i want to store this solution for if someone searches for it.

submitted by IndexPlusPlus
[link] [1 comment]
Categories: Incoming News

[noob question] Monadic equivalent to <*

Haskell on Reddit - Thu, 07/17/2014 - 11:57am

Sorry for the newbie question, but Google wasn't too helpful (googlebot doesn't parse punctuation).

Is there a Monadic equivalent to <* that I've overlooked? Something like << ? I find myself doing things like:

mobitFoo >>= (\x -> bar >> return x)

or

do x <- mobitFoo bar return x

Also, I've only been Haskelling for a little while, and I'm pretty sure this is reason #97 I've found why Applicative should be a superclass of Monad.

submitted by Considered_Harmful
[link] [17 comments]
Categories: Incoming News

Q about last&init

haskell-cafe - Thu, 07/17/2014 - 10:35am
I am teaching myself haskell. The first impression is very good. But phrase "haskell is polynomially reducible" is making me sad :(. Anyway I am trying to backport my algorithm written in C. The key to performance is to have ability to remove element from the end of a list in O(1). But the original haskell functions last and init are O(n). My questions are: 1) Is last function is something like "black box" written in C++ which perform O(1)? So I shouldn't even try to imagine some haskell O(1) equivalent. 2) Or will optimizer (llvm?) reduce init&last complexity to 1? 3) Some people suggest to use sequences package, but still how do they implement O(1) init&last sequences equivalent in haskell?
Categories: Offsite Discussion

Num in value constructor

Haskell on Reddit - Thu, 07/17/2014 - 9:16am

Hi! I've started reading Learn you a haskell for great good! as I suppose most of you guys have read. I'm at the data type section where the author is making a 3D vector type. He goes on saying

Let’s implement a 3D vector type and add some operations for it. We’ll make it a parameterized type, because even though it will usually contain numeric types, it will still support several of them, like Int, Integer, and Double, to name a few.

data Vector a = Vector a a a

But what I truly want is "data Vector = Vector Num Num Num" right? Why is this not possible (or if it is, how to do it?). Num takes a parameter so I tried something like "data Vector a = Vector (Num a) (Num a) (Num a)" but this did not work. So what's the deal?

Thanks for the help!

submitted by frerom
[link] [36 comments]
Categories: Incoming News

Adding to list, GHCI compiling error

Haskell on Reddit - Thu, 07/17/2014 - 8:57am

-- Sample test data

type Sales = (String, String, Int)

-- First String is title of track, Second String is artist name, Int is number of tracks sold

testData :: [Sales]

testData :: [("Me and My Broken Heart","Rixton",5),("It’s My Birthday","will.i.am",4),("Problem","Ariana Grande",3)]

-- record a sale of a track

sellTrack :: String String Int -> [Sales]

sellTrack :: trackName artistName numberSold = [Sales] ++ [(trackName, artistName, numberSold)]

I get the error "illegal literal in type : "Me and My Broken Heart"

Thanks in advance.

submitted by Rifaz1
[link] [comment]
Categories: Incoming News

Ketil Malde: Information content and allele frequency difference

Planet Haskell - Thu, 07/17/2014 - 6:00am
ESI scores and allele frequency difference

Just a quick note on the relationship between ESI scores and allele frequencies. Allele frequency differences is of course related to – perhaps even the definition of – diversification, but the information we gain from observing an allele also depends on the specific allele frequencies involved. The graph below shows how this is related.

Each line represents a fixed allele difference, from 0.05 at the bottom, to 0.95 at the top, and the x-axis is the average allele frequency between populations. We see that for small differences, the actual frequencies matter little, but for moderate to large allele differences, allele frequencies near the extremes have a large effect.

Note that this is information per allele, and thus not ESI (which is the expected information from observing the site, in other words a weighted average over all alleles).

Categories: Offsite Blogs

Opening .hs files on GHCi

Haskell on Reddit - Thu, 07/17/2014 - 5:57am

Hi everyone, new to haskell and trying to open my .hs file.

I've tried ":cd" and ":L" both the haskell platform and my .hs file is on my desktop.

Any help would be appreciated, Thanks all.

submitted by Rifaz1
[link] [2 comments]
Categories: Incoming News

Haskell Weekly News: Issue 299

haskell-cafe - Thu, 07/17/2014 - 4:30am
Welcome to issue 299 of the HWN, an issue covering crowd-sourced bits of information about Haskell from around the web. This issue covers from June 29 to July 12, 2014 Quotes of the Week * donri: maybe good thing Applicative isn't called StrongLaxSemimonoidalEndofunctor * ninja_code: haskell is used to debug thinking * johnw: the first rule of category theory club is to state your identity Top Reddit Stories * The new haskell.org design Domain: new-www.haskell.org, Score: 130, Comments: 95 Original: [1] http://new-www.haskell.org/ On Reddit: [2] http://goo.gl/qG7683 * GHC-7.8.3 is out! Domain: haskell.org, Score: 115, Comments: 40 Original: [3] http://goo.gl/fyHQZd On Reddit: [4] http://goo.gl/7bsDXj * Announcing rest - A Haskell REST framework Domain: engineering.silk.co, Score: 97, Comments: 41 Original: [5] http://goo.gl/F3W628 On Reddit: [6] http://goo.gl/VqWdi9 * GHC plans for 7.10.1 Domain: ghc.haskell.org, Score:
Categories: Offsite Discussion

Problems with type family in a class

haskell-cafe - Thu, 07/17/2014 - 3:32am
Hi, Consider the following type classes: class (Signal sx) => Complexable sx where type ComplexSignalType .... class (Complexable sx) => FourierTransformable sx where fft :: (cx ~ ComplexSignalType sx) => cx -> cx .... and an instance: instance (RealFloat e) => Complexable [e] where type ComplexSignalType = [Complex e] instance (RealFloat e) => FourierTransformable [e] where fft = ... Why this example will give errors: *DSP.Signals.Core Prelude Data.Complex> :t ax ax :: [Complex Double] *DSP.Signals.Core Prelude Data.Complex> fft ax <interactive>:90:1: No instance for (FourierTransformable s0 [Complex Double]) arising from a use of ‘fft’ The type variable ‘s0’ is ambiguous Note: there is a potential instance available: instance [overlap ok] (RealFloat e, Math.FFT.Base.FFTWReal e) => FourierTransformable [e] [Complex e]
Categories: Offsite Discussion

help with multiparam type class

haskell-cafe - Thu, 07/17/2014 - 2:40am
Hi, Given any Event constructor, the 'conv' method passes in the field name to 'val' for each field. There is a Z instance for each Event arity. The call "conv E1::E1" works but requires that I explicitly specify the type. Is there any way to avoid that having to do that? For some reason 'conv' does not have enough information to know the type. Is there a way to do this with functional dependencies or type classes or something else? Here is the paste http://lpaste.net/107632 and here is the error: *Main> conv E1 <interactive>:3:1: No instance for (Z e0 (String -> E1)) arising from a use of `conv' The type variable `e0' is ambiguous Possible fix: add a type signature that fixes these type variable(s) Note: there are several potential instances: instance (Event e, Field a) => Z e (a -> e) -- Defined at testfamily.hs:28:10 instance Event e => Z e e -- Defined at testfamily.hs:20:10 Possible fix: add an instance declaration for (Z e0 (String -> E1)) In the express
Categories: Offsite Discussion

extra "ambiguous type variable" errors after a "couldn't match" error?

glasgow-user - Thu, 07/17/2014 - 2:32am
7.8.3 has a new behaviour where a "plain" type error will cause "ambiguous type variable" errors, e.g.: module M where broken :: [Int] broken = () ambiguous :: a -> [String] ambiguous _ = map show [1..] When imported in ghci, I get: M.hs:4:10: Couldn't match expected type ‘[Int]’ with actual type ‘()’ In the expression: () In an equation for ‘broken’: broken = () M.hs:7:19: No instance for (Show a0) arising from a use of ‘show’ The type variable ‘a0’ is ambiguous [ ... and then more for Enum and Num ] It seems like the 'a' type variable causes this to happen. But I don't see why a type error in another place should cause 'ambiguous' to become ambiguous. _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users< at >haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Categories: Offsite Discussion