Readit NewsDead Comment
In any case, it's not entirely clear that other than the (wonderful) Bill of Rights, the American Revolution was anything other than the elites over here wanting more control. 3/5 compromise, male property owning voters, indirect election of senators, it really sounds like the new aristocracy, with an Enlightenment tinged bent, was taking control. After all, the UK was being run mainly by Parliament, not by the King.
Only popular struggle has made the US more democratic, direct election of senators, freeing the slaves, universal suffrage, but we see even that is being rolled back in the modern era with voter suppression, dark money, and the dark legacy of US foreign policy.
Dead Comment
Google used to say "Don't be evil," but no company or individual should be in the position where they can sit there and think "Should I be evil or not?"
https://catalyst-journal.com/vol2/no1/between-cambridge-and-...
>"The language doesn't really matter", as such it's imperative Scheme is used.
This is an obvious contradiction and clearly you meant it that way but what do you imply exactly?
>I strongly feel that if you've worked your way through SICP, and, once finished, you think "Neat. I'll rewrite this but with language X," you've really missed out on value of SICP.
>It's challenging enough to follow for people who know a Lisp going in, but using a language more mainstream and familiar to make it easier is largely counter-productive.
You claim that using an other language for SICP is "[missing] out on value" and "largely counter-productive" but you don't produce any evidence or argument to support that.
Going through SICP using a static and non-reflective language like C does seem very frustrating but using a very dynamic language like Python might indeed be a decent fit. At least I can't see what's so obviously wrong about it.
https://www.amazon.com/Artificial-Intelligence-Modern-Approa...
I read D. Kahneman's book Thinking Fast and Slow a number of years back and it did present some pretty clear looking graphs demonstrating loss aversion of 2:1 iirc. I've since lost my copy due to a friend's "borrowing". ;) Certain other elements of his book have come into question, including priming. I'm eagerly waiting to see how the cookie crumbles here.