How did you compose the Latin? It seems... not very classical both in word selection and grammar. For example,
/* Est c consonans (non vocalis, non spatium, non littera non-Latina)? */
seems a word-by-word translation of English words into Latin words ignoring the structure and syntax of classical Latin. Perhaps it ought to be something more like:
/* Estne c litera consonans (neque vocalis, neque spatium, neque litera linguae aliae)?
edit: On reflection, notes on the return values of boolean functions probably ought to be some sort of utrum ...an construction.
One way I felt the prerogative to influence it was in choice of vocabulary, for example "files" are plicae, non fasciculi, brevity FTW. I have a (private) CLAUDIUS.md file where I accumulated such guidance. Frankly I can't really tell where it lies on the spectrum of classical to vulgar, my memories of reading Cicero and Pliny have faded quite a bit, but I understand your point about the barbaric word order (next expeditio I'll take this into account). But it was still a worthwhile campaign in terms of refreshing that knowledge. Salve!
Oh - this is llm generated. That's disappointing, but not surprising, and explains the bad grammar and style. On the spectrum of classical to vulgar, it lands in the "just plain incorrect" bucket quite frequently. Case usage, word choice, syntax, it's got it all. Whatever llm did this needs to spend some more time with Bennet.
Euclid distinguishes the unit (VII, Def.1) and number -- a multitude composed of units -- (VII, Def.2). His definition of prime and composite numbers (VII, Def.11 and Def.13) clearly exclude one from the group of numbers, otherwise every number would be composite.
I think this is good to argue that my assertion is likely too strong. I fear this is close to arguing that early programmers were not familiar with map/flatMap. They did not discuss it as a first class thing, sure. Was it completely alien to all practitioners? I find that harder to swallow and it is likely that we are debating methods versus functions completely removed from the context in which the words were largely used.
http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm does a nice job of outlining how hilariously overmatched the IJN was in terms of naval production. In addition to that, the IJN didn't have an effective pilot training pipeline, so by mid war they were struggling to outfit their air groups for their carriers, and after the Battle of the Philippine Sea, their naval air arm was absolutely broken.
While that might (or might not) mitigate one perverse incentive, there are lots more. It's important for policy proposals to take unintended consequences into account. What others can you foresee and how would you mitigate them?
> A certificate authority (that only verifies surgeons' skills, and doesn't bundle the process with "learning").
It seems like you've just moved the cheating problem from one organization to a different organization? How would this new certificate authority measure learning better than universities are currently measuring learning? Are there examples of such certificate authorities existing now? Do they also have cheating problems?
> It seems like you've just moved the cheating problem from one organization to a different organization?
While that might seem redundant, keep in mind that most of the cheating happens because responsibility for both teaching and testing falls on the professor of the subject, and there is not much incentive to prevent cheating when the school must print X diplomas a year or disappear. I assume that an organization whose sole purpose is to certificate knowledge can be much more specialized for testing and spend most of their time trying to combat cheating.
> Are there examples of such certificate authorities existing now?
Samuel Eliot Morison wrote a definitive history of the naval war in the Pacific, so your memory is good! Ian Toll's new series is shorter, but also top notch and benefits from more access to Japanese sources.
It's unclear what you're asking for here? The Raspberry Pi Pico and Raspberry Pi Zero are existing and very well documented ARM based single board computers.
Fair enough. I suppose what I'm asking is whether it's possible to purchase a more modern CPU independently of a SOC and design my own single board computer built around that. Can you buy a naked Cortex M0 in a PDIP package? Are there data sheets for it?
A search of the interned didn't turn up what I was looking for, but I'm very new at hardware work. Perhaps newer chips have such tight timing requirements that you can't work with them without using a SOC?
Nearly everything is going to be a SOC because that's what commercial applications need to minimize part count and cost; there's negligible demand for a standalone processor.
If you're just looking to breadboard up a computer but don't want to go back to 8-bit processors, the Motorola MC68000 / MC68008 used in the original Apple Macintosh is a 32-bit processor in a DIP package running at a manageably low frequency and can be found on eBay inexpensively.
