Upvotes for apricot and zrobotics for thoughtful shared experiences.
One of the continuous battles I kept loosing when introducing an assembly language undergraduate course. Other higher up colleages and deans would say... too hard... nobody uses that anymore... and shut the course down. But I would always sneak it into other courses I taught, systems programming, computer languages, computer architecture. But I've always felt there was a hole in my student's understanding of computers.
I grew up in a time when assembly language was a part of the cariculum. It helped bridge the gap between higher level languages like C/C++ ...etc. Also why certain language features exist. Also how many language constructs work. Also more importantly, as pointed out by the two posters above, it gives you a way to think about the CPU one asm line at a time what is going on the CPU ecosystem. That is fantastic training!
Even though I kept loosing the assembly language course battles, I hope I planted enough seeds in students that they will take it up on their own at some point. Everyone should at least learn to program in one assembly language.
This piece of software has been my goto on transcribing music for all of the instruments I play for the past 25 years. I can't recommend it enough. It has been pivotal in me being a better musician. Works on Linux, Mac and Windows.
This also makes me think of drumming. There are the sticks that hit the surface and form a pattern of sounds. Lots of different kinds of spaces embedded there!
So how the heck does the change in TOS work for the processing.org environment? That was an IDE that wraps around Java and a bunch of libraries. Arduino came along and borrowed the processing IDE put in an older gcc crosscompiler for the fleet of Arduino chips. They are the same IDEs but with different backends. If you can't reverse engineer the Arduino IDE, it was already borrowed from the processing people and open sourced. So are the processing people in danger of TOS violation? Or is it the reverse?
This is one of those books that I read in the 80s that helped me change career directions to be a programmer in Silicon Valley and eventually get a PhD and teach programming at the university level.
The huge problem that I have with this post is that they are trying to use math to disprove math, but badly. Also, they are using a programming language, python or any language for that matter, to prove their point, which is ALSO math. When you program you are working in an axiomatic system to achieve some goal. This goes all the way back to Haskell Curry and Alonzo Church which WAS also math. Working with math is a way of thinking and working on problems, even in probabilistic realms that errant post suggests.
If you use the companion app called ebird, you can save your checklists. Later you can upload your photos and any audio you have recorded. Those get vetted by regional bird experts and get added to the scientific data. It's fun to go back and relive past hikes and trips viewing your pictures on the ebird.org website!
Areas of interest. Machine Learning, AI, Evolutionary Computation, and Data Science.
Also, I play a bunch of different kinds of bagpipes... mostly Scottish Highland and Irish Uilleann.