31–40 of 188 posts
For people that want to argue about salesperson vs salesman you may be comforted to know that you don't need to, it's already being done! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Travelling_salesman_probl...
For people that want to argue about salesperson vs salesman you may be comforted to know that you don't need to, it's already being done! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Travelling_salesman_probl...
If we are renaming things from the past to quell the moderns, it should be renamed Traveling Seller since it rolls off the tongue so much better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, because it says "man" and that means a male. Never mind its from the German where 'man' meant 'person'; today in English we are where we are. And 'a hundred years' is not much of a defense. Women couldn't sign a mortgage in the US in the 70's. I imagine folks defended that too - "Its the way we've always done it."
> Women couldn't sign a mortgage in the US in the 70's. yeah you're going to need to provide a source for such a ridiculous claim. My grandmother has owned her house for much longer than that. * edit: all you downvoters need to look at the claim being made instead of bringing up different issues. credit cards are not mortgages. "couldn't sign" is not the same as "needed a cosigner" or "discounted rates". the original…
Oh man, it's actually a real improvement! I was afraid it was more pop sci, but not this is pretty cool. I think this is the paper? https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.01409
Heh. For some definitions of "real". > they were only able to subtract 0.2 billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a percent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, the generally-accepted term has been "salesman" for over a hundred years. Whether or not you approve, it's definitely a conscious choice. As an aside, can someone explain why a generic "-man" suffix is taken to indicate only the masculine by some people? It's no different than using the masculine for indefinite gender, so why the objections?
Look buddy, if you don't understand that certain things just mean certain things, I don't know what to tell you. Stop making everything complicated and just get with the plan.
The paper is really nicely written: https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.01409 It's lengthy and full of some quite technical sections, but those are interspersed with sections sketching the high-level intuition and proving more informal versions of the technical theorems in simplified cases. An example is on p. 19, section 3.1, "Ideas underlying proof of Theorem 3.1".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From my point of view, having negative emotions about this at all seems "ridiculous", much more describing it as "a mouthful", and framing it as their having "insisted" on doing something, rather than simply having done it.
Well, the generally-accepted term has been "salesman" for over a hundred years. Whether or not you approve, it's definitely a conscious choice. As an aside, can someone explain why a generic "-man" suffix is taken to indicate only the masculine by some people? It's no different than using the masculine for indefinite gender, so why the objections?
Who cares? Did your ancestors coin the term or something? You can keep writing "salesman" whenever you write things yourself. "Salesperson" doesn't seem at all offensive, and I think it's bizarre to nitpick such a trivial and irrelevant aspect of the article. It reads to me like political virtue-signaling since the article has nothing to do with the gender of the traveling agent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, the generally-accepted term has been "salesman" for over a hundred years. Whether or not you approve, it's definitely a conscious choice. As an aside, can someone explain why a generic "-man" suffix is taken to indicate only the masculine by some people? It's no different than using the masculine for indefinite gender, so why the objections?
Well, because it says "man" and that means a male. Never mind its from the German where 'man' meant 'person'; today in English we are where we are. And 'a hundred years' is not much of a defense. Women couldn't sign a mortgage in the US in the 70's. I imagine folks defended that too - "Its the way we've always done it."
Not to mention wopeople...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Women couldn't sign a mortgage in the US in the 70's. yeah you're going to need to provide a source for such a ridiculous claim. My grandmother has owned her house for much longer than that. * edit: all you downvoters need to look at the claim being made instead of bringing up different issues. credit cards are not mortgages. "couldn't sign" is not the same as "needed a cosigner" or "discounted rates". the original…
It is ridiculous, but also true. It's not that there was a law prohibiting women from signing a mortgage, but there was no law prohibiting banks from discriminating against women - which they did by discounting their income or requiring a male co-signer. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1802323?seq=1