Few years ago I took a course by prof. Dan Grossman on Coursera, there was a part about SML and I so liked it (the language and the course). Now I want to read Okasaki's "Purely Functional Data Structures" book and try to reproduce the code examples in SML.
Programming Languages by Dan Grossman, I took it too. Pretty good course, and a nice intro to static typing and FP with SML. Also nice: the DrRacket part, I wasn't familiar with lisp/scheme-like languages. Also also nice: how you can tell he doesn't really like Ruby ;)
Oh yes, and I can remember the episode when he jumped while explaining some idea in order to make this moment unforgettable. Shame on me, I forgot what idea it was but still remember his jumps :)
Somehow I have an impression that I tried something and could not repeat it in SML/NJ. I can recall it was about streams and lazy evaluations, but now I think that I just misused Lazy lib since I haven't used SML for a while. So this is getting easier, great, thanks! :)
How is it going? FOr advent 2018 I use scheme but after 4 stars I think that kdb+/q actually quite suitable for such kind of tasks (at least so far). I'm not very good at it but now I'm thinking about trying to redo the exercises in it.
I consider freelance as a side project (miserable, I know) and I'm able to devote ~15 hours per week to it. Plus I take several hours for English, coursera and functional programming exercises.
My next goal is to leave my job (it takes 11 hours per day including commute and lunch time) - it will free ~2.5 hours a day! So actually freelance is a side project which should help me to say goodbye to my full-time job.
- your attention can change an particle's experiment outcome (you choose future)
- we see quantum effects on tiny particles only
- perhaps gravity makes quantum effects for "heavy" objects impossible
Which leads to an idea that actually all objects have quantum effects but someone watches for all objects in the universe and makes choices (chooses future) ahead of us. And apparently we can feel his attention as gravity. But his wathcing power is restriced and he/she/it can't watch every particle in the world.
So to see the quantum world and to say hello to the god we should overload his attention with DDOS attack (perhaps Babylon tower experiment was about this).
Afaik 'observe' is not in the human context, it's in the measurement context. Our eyes don't change the outcome, it's that we don't know the outcome of quantum happening without measuring in some manner, and because quantum physics is essentially nature's statistics, measuring those physics themselves provides different outcomes.
As far as I understood the article, there is a possibility that our brain can choose one of experiment's outcome. So basically we do not change the outcome, but select one of possible options. And we continue living in that chosen reality after the choice.
"because of Napoleons ambitions" - it is pretty unfair to lay the blame for the wars solely on Napoleon. The wars started because the monarchies of Europe ganged up against France after the revolution because they saw France was weakened and they wanted to prevent the ideas of the revolution to spread. Napoleon rose to prominence during these wars but just happened be be an extremely successful general. When France started winning, the propaganda of the monarchies like England painted him as a "madman" who wanted to "conquer the world", but from the viewpoint of France these were defensive wars.
Of course England at the time was fighting merciless wars of conquest all around the world in building their colonial empire. So they couldn't claim there were anything morally wrong with conquering the world. Instead their propaganda focused on the fact that Napoleon was a commoner rather than of old royal stock - something which was both offensive and scary to the old monarchies.
I understand your point of view. Of course I simplifed his reasons too much. But still, I have strong impression that he was too 'romantic' and passionate to be a winner who would remain in the history of mankind as one of the greatests rulers. His war in Russia was unbelievably daring plan, for example. Did he just want to be equal to Batu khan and others who had taken Moscow too? I would not be surprized at all.
Again, it is just my personal impression, it can be far from reality of course.
It is pretty fair I think to blame it solely on him. Yes, they started as defensive wars, and yes he did a great job defending the republic. But at some point they turned into offensive wars. One can argue at what point exactly defense turned into lust for conquest but it is beyond doubt that this happened. You do not conquer most of Europe out of desire to defend yourself.
