Looks like a less feature-full version of livecode [0], which I'd argue is more of a HyperCard successor", since they were formerly revolution & MetaCard, and can import HyperCard stacks.
There is also Decker (https://github.com/JohnEarnest/Decker) that is open source and feels much more "Hypercardy", although the retro dithering asthetic may put some people off.
I found a path from Piano to Volcano with 40 generated topics!
Piano → Instrument (broader)
Instrument → Juilliard School (places)
Juilliard School → American conservatories (past)
American conservatories → Historic music conservatories (past)
Historic music conservatories → Paris Conservatoire (places)
Paris Conservatoire → European conservatories (broader)
European conservatories → Europe (broader)
Europe → Sicily (places)
Sicily → Mount Etna (similar)
Mount Etna → Volcanoes of Italy (similar).
I've been looking forward to watching these, since last year's. Some really interesting projects this year. The feeling of computing[0] (formerly future of coding) community is also a great place for live programming and related topics.
Interesting, if unsurprising, to see that a large factor in the interest in YouTube was based purely on location, as well as knowledge of the people working there, their backgrounds, and who specifically they were funded by.
Where you are and who you know often outweighs having the best product, features, etc.
I didn’t get that at all. They talked about the funding round as a signal for what the asking price might be, and then “Mike from Sequoia” because they know Mike and therefore know which partner at Sequoia to reach out to broker a conversation.
These very commonly considered success-probability multipliers and derisking factors -- at this stage, the makeup, expertise, and reputations of the individuals leading a company are the biggest success factors. Even if the acquisition fails, having a strong (and nearby) team adds a lot of value to the acquirer.
It is hard, but only if you try to find the general solution. If instead you think in the way the problem designer (who had a target audience of 3rd graders in mind) intended the solution to be found, then it becomes easy to find a solution: one of each toy from the yo-yo to the car (inclusive). That gets you $5.18 from the goal of $43.94, so get another car (the problem doesn't state you can't have repeats).
Then it's a matter of luck whether you tried that pattern. I started with the highest prices items and didn't get far. It's mostly a lottery if it depends on people guessing that way.
I would start several approaches like writing a formula, bounding the number of toys (6 to 50?), looking for easy multiples, etc. the declare them all too hard and quit.
Unfortunately that’s exactly the issue here. That justification puts more focus on training a (simplified and flawed) process rather than understanding the fundamental nature of the problem being presented.
I would argue that arithmetic is overvalued in early mathematics education. Category theory, as an example, has many more practical applications and leads into arithmetic. In my experience, early education in mathematics skips many of the prerequisites and you end up learning these things through rote-learning instead of building that knowledge from the fundamentals.
> Category theory, as an example, has many more practical applications and leads into arithmetic.
Now this is a sentence I never expected to read.
I aheb thought before about the fact that derivatives are a much simpler and more useful concept than exponentials and logarithms, but I very much fail to see how category theory is useful for anything other than researching the foundations of math.
Arithmetic is just decategorified set theory. The main advantage of teaching arithmetic via set theory is that it allows for building intuitions about counting.
It shouldn't be surprising that two sheep plus two sheep is four sheep. We can go further. Suppose that we have lots of longhair sheep and shorthair sheep. If we choose some sheep, how many ways can we have some shorthair and some longhair? This gives exponentiation intuitively, so that we could ask how many ways we could choose zero sheep from a collection of zero sheep, or in other words, why zero to the zeroth power is one.
The parts of category theory that you're imagining, with the morphisms and natural transformations, doesn't have to be taught before arithmetic. It can be taught when lambdas are first introduced, when we write "f(x)" on the board for the first time.
But none of this modern theoretical understanding helps me see what is 131 + 121, or 2^10. Expressing arithmetic operations as set operations and counting elements is only useful for really small numbers - if you actually want to know the answer, you ignore the set-based or category based foundations and use an algorithm.
This is the major problem I have always had with examples of category theory use: they always sound nice and give very illuminating intuitions for certain mathematical structures, which is very useful for doing mathematics and furthering your understanding. But they never directly answer any practical questions - for those, you always abandon the abstractions and start getting into the nitty gritty of the specific domain. At best, they help you take a specific algorithm from domain 1 and apply it in domain 2.
Am I wrong? Is there some way to actually get the answer to how many ways you can combine longhair and shorthair sheep in sets of 10 sheep, other than simply counting all combinations, or using traditional arithmetic/geometry etc. (e.g. repeated multiplication, angle measurements)?
I think that you're overreacting a little to an imagined strawman. We already teach kids a decategorified set theory in order to give them an understanding of counting. We don't take the next step into category theory, which is to explain mappings between sets: If I can trade one sheep for two goats, and I have five sheep which I all trade for goats, how many goats do I get?
Remember: Sets are 0-categories, so set theory is 0-category theory.
Yes, which is most bizarre, since school-level arithmetic is the first kind of mathematics ever invented, far before writing, specifically for its practical uses.
Are you really claiming that it's of more practical use to understand the properties of monoids and rings than it is to understand that 2 + 2 = 4? Or are you actually talking about arithmetic beyond what is normally taught in school?
It shows that tipping is not consistent with mathematics and pizza people should be formally compensated as to achieve this consistency. Perfectly congruent.
If you keep reading it asks if your solution was the only possible solution. This implies that you only have to give one solution and prove that there are no other solutions (very difficult) or find two solutions to show that there could be many more than just one.
When the son said that some people in the class got the problem exactly right, I doubt they spit out all 279 combinations.
Yes. I'm halfway through it now, and while I do have a degree in CS, all that's really needed is knowledge of Java and C. If anything, it's less formal than a compiler / PL course one would normally take during undergrad.
It depends what you mean by "very limited". All the code is provided to you, so you can get through the book by simply copying and pasting the provided code snippets. As long as you understand what the code is actually doing just by reading it, you'll be okay. The book has some "challenges" where you can implement additional features if you want to, but you don't need to. However if your knowledge of Java or C is so limited that you'll have a hard time even understanding what the code is doing, then it's probably not worth the effort going through the book. It will be too confusing, and you won't learn much.
That’s putting a lot of faith on the gov’t to correctly report CPI, when they have every incentive to underreport it.
In fact, they’ve changed the CPI methodology twice in order to report lower average inflation (under the premise that the old measures “overstated” inflation).
Can you please define what/who you mean by "the government"? The CPI changed in the 1990s after a Senate Finance Committee report said it was over-estimated (i.e., too high):
>In fact, they’ve changed the CPI methodology twice in order to report lower average inflation (under the premise that the old measures “overstated” inflation).
>Over the years, the methodology used to calculate the CPI has undergone numerous revisions. According to the BLS, the changes removed biases that caused the CPI to overstate the inflation rate. The new methodology takes into account changes in the quality of goods and substitution. Substitution, the change in purchases by consumers in response to price changes, changes the relative weighting of the goods in the basket.2 The overall result tends to be a lower CPI. However, critics view the methodological changes and the switch from a COGI to a COLI as a purposeful manipulation that allows the U.S. government to report a lower CPI.
But adjusting the basket totally makes sense from a reporting point of view. Consider the reverse. As countries have gotten richer/industrialized, so have their consumption of meats. If a country is undergoing development, should their CPI basket continue to assume that people eat meat once a week, even though most people eat meat multiple times per week?
On the surface the adjustments seem pretty reasonable to me. As a thought experiment, would you want to live in the 70s just to earn 5x more? I wouldn't. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dL5G4QYEhc
While it certainly provides some hedge inflation adjusted bonds don't seem that helpful when the government can pick and choose what's in the basket of goods the government uses to calculate inflation to get the number it wants.
IMHO this is one of the worst ways to deal with inflation. As I understand it, bond yield rates rise with inflation and so a current low interest yielding bond will drop in value when higher yielding coupons hit the market. But I’m not an expert.
If it's not descriptive, then memorable is a good substitute.
Been many years since I went to uni and haven't used much of the math since, but I still recall the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, what the Kronecker product is and how to do Taylor expansion.
[0] https://livecode.com/