I feel for technical subjects, you need to sit down with a pen and paper, concentrate, understand and absorb the material. You can try listen to Coursera or Edx lectures. But to be honest, if you are learning well with that, you are probably not driving safely/likely to miss your stop.
I used to feel that way, but having listened to a few technical podcasts, I find they are a good way to get a quick but nuanced introduction to topics outside of my day-to-day. They are also a good way to learn about things that are very new and are not part of a canonical body of knowledge yet.
For instance, I've read a lot of about containerization and microservices, but actually listening to interviews with prominent people who work on building these types of things helped me learn much faster about the nuances, tricks and downsides that people don't normally talk about.
One consideration is that if fossil fuel cars drop to a very low level in cities, the spending put into maintaining the fossil fuel infrastructure might become unsustainable. That would in turn drive up the price in rural area as well. In the end, it is very expensive to maintain parallel infrastructures as such and densely populated cities (unfortunately maybe) drive the trend of which infrastructure is going to win.
This seems like some hosted video player with a confusing interface and a set of strange functions (look closer, world wide chat).... Am I wrong? This is confusing.....
In fact changing historical records and emphasizing advantageous parts of history are not communist inventions. In China, this has been a very old tradition. Since Qin dynasty, history books and records were heavily regulated by the government. Almost at every change of the dynasties, the historical records were changed/destroyed to justify the new situation. The communists are just continuing that, in fact, in a rather blatant way. I remember, in high school, we would learn that history is a useful tool for propaganda (which is a good word in China) and that is one of the reason why the history we learned implies that "only communism can save China". I would chuckle whenever I wrote that very sentence in exams (which was the basis of the correct answer to most questions). In the end, people understand conceptually that history and facts are different things. I guess in the west, the distinction between history as passed on in religious texts and traditions and history as archaeological findings is similar (of course, here there are people who confuse the two as well).
In the end, history, being in the past, denies direct access or verification. In some sense it is just what we choose to remember, which is a very fluid thing. I guess culturally the Chinese are just more flexible about it. It is not necessarily bad, as it is a less fanatic ideology.
Maybe that's my own perspective only, but I prefer my own memories to be exactly as I felt while experiencing them (which is far from easy!). Then, and and only then, true long-term lessons can be learned from one's past (well, that's my attitude, feel free to disagree here).
If we keep painting past as rosy garden with only few carefully selected facts and rest is bent/invented as needed, we will keep repeating same mistakes and not reach our potential, be it on personal or society level.. which is the land of say not-so-clever people. sure we can aim higher than that
>If we keep painting past as rosy garden with only few carefully selected facts and rest is bent/invented as needed, we will keep repeating same mistakes and not reach our potential, be it on personal or society level.
That is the key point. We study the the past so we can make intelligent decisions going forward. When each new regime re-writes the past to promote support, it short-circuits this process.
An honest understanding of the past is especially important for China because of grave problems in its present political philosophy. It is said to be Confucianism, but it isn't. So for instance, education today does not focus on the traditional Chinese subjects, but modern Western ones. The present Chinese political political philosophy is a strange blend of marxism, traditional ideas, and modern liberal ones.
The problem is that Confucianism was designed for an agrarian society, but China has become a modern industrial one. So for instance filial piety, which is the foundation of Confucianism, made sense when you had large farming families that stayed in the same location for many generations, but not with the individual mobility and much smaller families typical in industrial society. In this and many other ways, Confucianism is simply out of step with modern realities.
Confucianism came about through extended discussion starting with basic realities and principles, and the same sort of process lead to modern Western political philosophy. Today the Chinese need to go through a similar process, but my impression this sort of thinking is suppressed by the government, and what we get is just what the latest president happens to think. I think that is going to lead to a lot of bad decisions.
I agree with you, but if you really practice what you preach, then you know how difficult what you're suggesting can be on the individual level, never mind the group level. It's painful to sit with unvarnished reality and analyze it, analyze yourself, and try to think from new perspectives. Most people probably could do it if they tried for long enough, but it's too difficult and sometimes painful to maintain under times of great stress.
In the national case, you also have to have each subsequent generation share your conviction, and any break in that will taint the record.
sure, it's a limit we will probably never achieve, but we should at least try to do so, not because it's easy, but because it's right thing to do (damn, now i sound like some sort of preacher)
A lot of American writers and even academics who should know better immediately reach for "communism" when describing China as if there weren't over 2000 years of confucian governing philosophy established before Marx was even born.
The author of this piece even quotes Xi's harping on "harmonious society" and still goes on about communism as if it's the dominant ideology at play.
My understanding is that the official histories of Chinese dynasties were written by their successors and then passed down through generations largely intact, isn't it the case?
Of course it would be biased as the next dynasty has reason to justify the demise of its predecessor, but that's a far cry from saying that every dynasty "changed/destroyed historical records" to justify their policies.
> emphasizing advantageous parts of history are not communist inventions. In China, this has been a very old tradition.
OT: Having read much Chinese history (though I'm by no means an expert), I've noticed the Communists recently have taken on many other characteristics of the old imperial dynasties that ruled China through 1911.
* The pretense of natural superiority to other nations, and of the others' natural submission. The Chinese nationalists publicly claim about their superiority, and you can read stories about Chinese diplomacy actively pushing this position behind the scenes. I read stories about it happening in SE Asia [1] and recently the press got hold of Queen Elizabeth's complaints about it during President Xi's visit to the UK.[2] She should have read (if she hasn't) Emporer Qianlong's famous letter to her predecessor, King George III, in the early 19th century, calling the UK inferior barbarians who had nothing of value to offer China.
* Territorial claims, including those outside of their current boundries very similar to the Qing dynasty (the last dynasty, 1644-1911). China's territory has varied greatly over the centuries.
* The attempt to adopt the economic and military power of the West, without adopting the political (democracy, individual rights, rule of law) and intellectual (intellectual freedom) necessary to them. This is what the 'Self-Strengthening Movements' in the late 19th century tried to different degrees. All failed: For example, it's hard to have an advanced economy without an educated population, and it's hard to have an educated population without intellectual freedom.
* The primacy of corruption and the fight against it. A well-known pattern of Chinese history is that, after a dynasty was established, corruption would grow and eventually bring it down.[3]
* The emphasis on the rule of one person, Xi Jinping, in some way similar to an emperor (though also similar to Mao's cult of personality).
----
[1] [An ASEAN foriegn minister] told me that the Chinese Ambassador to his country had forced him to shift an ASEAN leader attending a Summit out of a hotel ... so that then-Premier Wen Jiabao could stay there. The Ambassador insisted on this although the hotel allocated to Premier Wen was of equal quality. ... Every ASEAN diplomat who has dealt with China has a fund of such anecdotes. ... China does not merely want consideration of its interests. China expects deference to its interests to be internalised by ASEAN members as a mode of thought; as not just a correct calculation of ASEAN interests vis-a-vis China but "correct thinking" which leads to "correct behaviour". Foreign policy calculations are subject to continual revision; correct thinking is a permanent part of the sub-conscious. - Bilahari Kausikan, former Permanent Secretary of Sinapore's Ministry of Foreign Affairs - http://www.todayonline.com/world/bilahari-speech-us-china
In the end, history, being in the past, denies direct access or verification. In some sense it is just what we choose to remember, which is a very fluid thing. I guess culturally the Chinese are just more flexible about it. It is not necessarily bad, as it is a less fanatic ideology.
This is the extreme end of moral relativism that leads to dark places. There are things that should be remembered, no matter how uncomfortable they are or whether people would rather they be forgotten, because they have to be avoided. See the ongoing controversy between Turkey and Germany over the Armenian genocide and Turkey's attempt at erasing this history, while Germany legally opposes any attempts to erase its own crimes from its history. The holocaust is a fact, and attempts to deny it are not some kind of morally neutral "flexibility".
History is, as you say, not directly verifiable. But that just creates an obligation on us to be honest with the evidence we do have and recognise that plenty of things are well-verified enough to be called fact, even if the details are unclear.
Ultimately, history is written by the winner. It's impossible to separate biases from fact when the sources have opposing world views. To many, the US today is an imperialist power that props up strong-man dictators and oppresses people globally -- but what ends up in the history books will likely be about the liberalization of the US and our leadership on human rights within our borders (a narrative the GOP is all too happy to support since it fits their talking point of "things are changing too quickly and people can't adapt!")
Facts are often distorted decades later to suit political expediency (i.e. the myth that Reagan was a staunch conservative; he was a middle-of-the-road centrist Republican from one of the most liberal states in the US). In your example, Turkey's conservative government is using the Armenian genocide as a way to drive a wedge between Turkey and Europe -- because Erdogan and the AKP would much rather be allied with Russia and Iran (who have no qualms about his use of force to suppress dissent).
Do this often enough and you end up with a "history" that barely resembles contemporary thought on the matter. Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex actually tackles this matter with the "Individual Eleven" storyline -- what would happen if someone created a virus that infected the historical record? You could create a fake "cause" with supporting digital documentation, and people would swear to have a memory of it happening, even if it never did (it's a well-documented phenomenon that eyewitness accounts taken long after the fact are unreliable and often based on secondary sources; and that's not even part of the science fiction aspect of SAC). Change a few minor facts in the altered historical record to link it to a marginalized group in society and watch the violence unfold on both sides; with the marginalized population latching on to the "cause" and the rest of the populace using the violence of a small few to justify their discrimination / hatred against the minority.
Rewriting history is the entire purpose of governments. It's already exceedingly difficult to find information on events that happened early in the digital age; if anything, digital records are easier to purge / falsify. Hell, just try to read a CD or backup tape created 20 years ago and see how far you get.
I use docker for the development of FEniCS, an open source scientific computing package written mixing python and c++. FEniCS requires a lot of dependencies which can be hard to compile (PETSc alike) or need version hold (Boost alike). Docker helps to hold the environment constant. We currently plan to have build bots based on docker as well to streamline build testing.
When I write code inside docker, I always submit to a git repo like Bitbucket. Data persistency is easy. Besides you can always use --volume, which works out of box in Linux.
Vagrant requires some basic shared environment, which is not realistic in my case. For example, I use Archlinux myself and am forced to use old Scientific Linux at work, while many other FEniCS developers use Ubuntu, Fedora, or Mac stuff. It is too painful to write and maintain a Vagrant script for all these (different compiler, boost, blas, lapack and some other 10+ numerical specific stuff). I even tried Vagrant+docker. But in the end, with docker maturing, I switched to docker+bash script instead. It is just more convenient and needs less dependency.
So I'd endorse a docker only approach if you mostly use Linux and your project has a diverse group of people.
For those who do suffer from motion sickness (like me), be aware that while the effect might not be severe (no vomit for me), the headache lingers quite a while (~30 min for me) after watching the video closely full-screen....... Still, a fun experiment.
The classical collection seems to be small. For example, 24098 out of 658027 (3.7%) pop albums are prime, but only 894 of 171251 (0.5%) classical albums are prime. I expected the other way (wishfully, as a fan of classical music), that older less popular music is cheaper to be made prime for Amazon. Strange.
Not sure. The consumers of it are generally wealthier so it has always been a "premium" market, even if smaller. The fact that much of it is out of copyright doesnt mean you dont have to pay performance rights...
Makes sense. I also find myself primarily listening to classical music, and, as a side note, I hate that apps like Shazam, Google, and SoundHound can't recognize most of it.
It's not just those services and apps, it's pretty much anything that has to do with music.
Try rippig classical CDs and you quickly discover how bad the online music registries are at identifying albums, how bad ripping software is at sorting out composer from artist, etc.
In nearly all aspects of software dealing with music, classical is the odd man out. It's a constant frustration.
The search is also terrible, eg Spotify does not understand the semantics of composer vs performance, so although it has a lot it is very hard to find.
