Yes, you must have individual constructors for the left and right cases in order to distinguish them. In C# you would use two distinct record types for this. Haskell’s syntax is more concise though, since you define the constructors inline in the declaration of the sum type.
As an old-timer it is easy to forget that we all started as beginners and had to learn all the things which now are second nature to us. At some point the material which is valuable to a beginner seems trite, obvious and simplistic to a senior.
> E.g. preferring inheritance over switch is less readable.
Surely this depends on the context? If you have a many different classes it tend to lead to cleaner code if you encapsulate the class-specific logic with the class definition rather than intermingled in multiple giant switch statements. In particular you can add new classes without making the rest of the code more complex.
Of course there are cases where a switch is the right choice.
> I find people applying it religiously often create over-complex designs like FizzBuzz Enterprise.
To be fair, this can be said about any technique. Lots of bad code results from people taking a reasonable principle and applying it religiously rather than judiciously.
> But you don't have to look hard to see the results of discrimination against men: something like 60% of awarded bachelor degrees are to women.
Why do you think this is due to discrimination? Isn't it more likely women are just more willing and able to put in the hard work necessary? If some men feel it is "unfair" that they have to put in the same amount of concentrated study as women to achieve the same degrees, then it is understandable these men are not as successful academically.
If we define any difference in outcome as discrimination (which I don't find useful, but I'll accept it for the sake of argument), then I think we should make a clear distinction between discriminatory factors which the individual affected can control and change, and discriminatory factors which are outside of the control of the individual.
I don't question the particular claims in isolation, but they are obviously cherry-picked. If having more female middle-school teachers have a discriminatory effect towards males, then surly having more male university professors and are discriminatory towards women, right? Somehow women have still been able to overcome that, historically.
I assume your personal experience with regard to women have been quite limited, if you have never met a women who cared about anything beyond "getting compliments".
No, this is not "generally accepted". Of course historically in traditional patriarchal cultures, women have been forced to submit, and men have had more individual freedom. That does not mean women are more more "suited" to submit any more than say enslaved peoples are more suited to submit than their captors.
There are plenty of examples of men willingly submitting to authority, e.g. in the military.
It said things like "Women have always been better suited for taking orders and submitting." "women are better suited to thrive under oligarchic tyranny." Just enable showdead on your profile if you want to see all of it.
Maybe it is the assertion that "They [women] don't care about history or the future. They just want to look good and get complements." which have people worry about the posters mental health? This is far beyond just saying society favors women.
To be fair, I don't think the quote necessarily implies mental issues. It could also just be a person which had very limited interaction with women or people in general.