/edu/ - Education

If learning programming be it for work or for fun or just self improvement, don't do those stupid template starter projects like the eternal to-do list. Program software that you want to use.

Real Programmers write in FORTRAN.

Maybe they do now,
in this decadent era of
Lite beer, hand calculators, and "user-friendly" software
but back in the Good Old Days,
when the term "software" sounded funny
and Real Computers were made out of drums and vacuum tubes,
Real Programmers wrote in machine code.
Not FORtranshumanistot RATFOR. Not, even, assembly language.
Machine Code.
Raw, unadorned, inscrutable hexadecimal numbers.
Directly.

Lest a whole new generation of programmers
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Learn C/C++ (C# is very similar but there are some differences that are noticeable for those who know what computers do at the hardware/assembly level, all of which are mostly there to make writing business programs easier, while in C/C++ the programmer has to manually do things.) Few languages do anything particularly better than C unless you're getting into base-level OS stuff or security stuff (since C has some security vulnerabilities).

After that it's helpful to have some experience in an assembly language and then learn how C translates common instructions to assembly, to get an idea of how to write the most efficient and elegant programs. If you can do that, learning any other language or system is a lot easier.

Real heart of being a good programmer is systems analysis rather than "coding". Any idiot can write code, but what you're going to do as a programmer is solve problems, some of which happen in the real world and have to be modeled the smart way. It's an art and so many people have difficulty with this.

A lot of people want to learn for game programming, but I can tell you that games are simultaneously some of the most frustrating projects and also the least rewarding, and a lot of game programs are kept simple (and can be pretty badly programmed when you look at them). Games are frustrating as a starting project because you're worried about graphics, music, and gameplay. I find a better way for a novice-intermediate programmer to get used to programming is to program simple applications.

The ideal for a programmer is to build a program that does one thing and does it really well, rather than a big application with lots of features. I'd like instead to type in command line "timer" and get the thing I wanted. You can reuse code and even build libraries if several different programs are going to call the same functions.

Another thing that's helpful for learners: use g++ and, this is really useful, learn how to use Makefile at some point. There are versions of this for Windows and Linux both, and on Linux you're going to get very used to Makefiles since a lot of stuff you would install uses them. The advanced IDEs are helpful (and most helpful for experienced programmers working on a team project), but the best way to learn is to be as close to the computer's simplest operations as possible.

These things can be pretty difficult to pick up. For a code editor, Visual Studio Code is pretty good,Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch04.htm
Reading chapter 4 again
Worth reading to the end

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch07.htm
Chapter 7, The Gens among the Germans and Celts

The Origin of the Family is a piece of trash and should be flushed down the toilet. There's practically no empirical evidence for any of Engels' claims and his theoretical model is junk, debunked well over a century ago. I really wish commies would stop reading that outdated piece of shit and taking it seriously.

Reading is fed.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch08.htm
Chapter 8 on the Germans
>[2] According to Bishop Liutprand of Cremona, in the tenth century the chief industry of Verdun – in the Holy German Empire, observe – was the manufacture of eunuchs, who were exported at great profit to Spain for the Moorish harems.

>>25010
>muh marx
you mean the guy who thought philosophy is religion rendered into thought and hence to be condemned?

no scientist has ever used bullshit like dialectics to do analysis LMAO. even marx himself insisted dialectics were merely a matter of presentation to him. kys

>>25155
>no scientist uses dialectics waah
Rotflma
Gould, punctuated equilibrium

So, Continental Sloppa is irrelevant to socialism theory, bros?

>>25156
>this scientist believed in le holy science of dialectical materialism ergo he used dialectics
by this logic catholic scientists used catholicism to do analysis too
engels' dialectics of nature was bullshit too btw

>>25157
its plenty relevant considering socialism is the bourgeois ideology in opposition to communism

>>25114
you probably shouldn't post if you dont know what you are talking about

>>25122
explain what im misunderstanding

Anon all dialectics is - it's literally just a way to understand the truth.

think of plato's "dialectics" - a platonic dialectic is when two people argue about something, they're arguing because they both have the same idea about something and the only way for them to discover what that idea really is about is by hashing it via words.

i havent read hegel and I only know a bit - but from what i gather it's basically that hegel believes that the truth reveals itself over time - that truth is a substance? I think? like an actual thing that is apart of the pyhsical world, and that physical thing called "truth" was always embedded in everything, and only reveals itself over time through??? people living in history? I think??

>>25133
a platonic dialectic is not a two-sided dispute over a common idea, but is a process of negating propositions by investigating their fundamental elements. children engage dialectically when they constantly ask "why?" - trying to reach for a first principle. i have compared the platonic dialectic to algorithms before: >>24881
where chains of reasoning reach a final value:
>if no, then no, then yes, then no = X
i find it very helpful to think in this way.

hegel's dialectic is a process by which truth is totality, or thought thinking itself, in contradiction with its constitutive parts. the unity of being is a medium between particulars as they self-relate by otherness. for A to relate to B, it must become not-A, yet in its movement to B, it must likewise negate its negation. yet in each movement, A and B are still preserved. history to hegel represents society's self-consciousness (geist) in different epochs. each era is the fulfilment of its movement to self-realisation, but at the moment of self-realisation, we conceive of something already lost (retroactivity) - hence the vanishing mediator. an example in psychoanalysis is in desire (pleasure principle). hunger creates a fantasy and in realising the fantasy, our desire also leaves us. so for something to be, it must also not-be.

so both are pursuing the completion of thought by arriving at final conclusions. the difference is perhaps that plato conceives of a non-contradictory unity while hegel perceives of a contradictory unity.

>>25133
This is the sort of thing that makes German philosophy so insidious.

The truth is in the world. It is not "revealed" to us in some ready-made form. Everything that can be communicated in language is necessarily inferior to the truth, and can never be the truth in of itself. Regardless of any investigation we undertake, the truth will always be in the world. Nothing about the universe guarantees that we will ever know anything more than we started with, or that our knowledge tells us anything profound about existence. All we do is build on a set of knowledge that is effectively inborn, or that is reproduced very trivially and can be compared with other such trivially reproduced knowledge to assess that everyone contemplating the universe will arrive at certain facts regarding the world. For example, a bullet will always be a bullet, and if it impacts the brain, that brain is likely going to cease functioning or become damaged in ways we can predict. There's no mystery inherent to the universe about that fact. Yet, it's not something we know automatically, for there was a time where we didn't know what a bullet or a firearm was, or that the brain had the functions it does. Even the most basic knowledge of facts is reproduced by us, rather than handed down pedagogically and without anyone talking back.

At the end of the day, the universe can "truly" be something far different from anything we perceive or that is relevant to our temporal existence. We wouldn't be able to credibly pretend that the temporal existence we have is inconsequential to understanding what we are, as if we can just wish the world to go away by magic. We are, though, not at all obligated by any law of nature to regard this rank dishonesty simply by its assertion. The dishonest always have to use some force, some trick, to make the world and people in it comply with the power of Lie. So too does the truth not possess any power in of itself. We can protect ourselves from bullets by wearing armor or not becoming reliant on the brain as we are, thus upsetting the common knowledge that bullet to brain = dead.

>>25087
>There's only one "marxism" and only one "communism", moron.
So why do different AES states look so different?

>Bleak.
It's the only thing that will give me a straight answer. All you guys have done is make fun of me for asking the question to begin with. Deepseek will at the very least respond to what I said in good faith.

>>25088
>why dont you tell us where you are getting these ideas
Based on the small amount of Analytical Marxism I've read. I'm open to being wrong, I just want to know why I'm wrong.

>>25039
G. A Cohen is the main one, apparently it's technological determinism rather than class struggle as a reaction against the periodic crises of capitalism

>>25083
The appeal is demystifying Marxism from its idealistic continental slop and salvaging whats left using analytical frameworks and methods grounded.

>>25039
>while I like his stuff, he is still a Westerner.
marxism is a western zeitgeist:
<The Marxist doctrine is omnipotent because it is true. It is comprehensive and harmonious, and provides men with an integral world outlook irreconcilable with any form of superstition, reaction, or defence of bourgeois oppression. It is the legitimate successor to the best that man produced in the nineteenth century, as represented by German philosophy, English political economy and French socialism.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/mar/x01.htm

>>25015
>normal
idealism

>>25017
Okay totally not dysfunctional and damaging to the development of a person then.

>>25018
and what determines this?

>>24969
absolutely accurate. the ussr suffered this post-stalin as well as yugoslavia post-tito

Bump for interest

what do I need to understand Hegel? should i start with the greeks? should I start with Marx and move backwards and end with ababobabu of the gray cave? can you word it in a way that an ant that is now human would understand.

>>25093
- The Very Hungry Caterpillar
- ASPCA Ultimate Cat Care Manual
- Max Stirner's Art and Religion
- Marx's stuff
- The rest of Max Stirner's stuff
- Main story in arknights
- Hegel's stuff
- Side stories in arknights
- The Very Hungry Caterpillar (again)

>>25094
What if I want to learn League of Legends lore?

>>25094
ok now could you be kind and sincere with me? where do I start, where do I go?

>>16626

Births like anything else are a social relation that is materially subject to external or internal influences and contradictions, and to that you say Birth Rates and the effect of industrialisation and living standards, I absolutely missed that and had made a truism or naturalistic assumption of progressive growth when Birth Rates can fluctuate, good spot there!

>>16622
>what would you say these countertendencies are?
>would be interested in finding more marxist critiques of marx himself, haven't found many academically even.
Its not a critique. Notice how its the "tendency" for the profit rate to fall.

Profit rate falls because the share of material capital grows in relation to the rate of organic capital. IE you have to pay more for the upkeep or replacement of machines relatively than for labour, meaning that there is less total labour in society to be put into creating new capital and more is spend on maintaining what we already have.

The counter tendency is situations where labour saving in one sectors brings down the capital cost in another. Such as improving steel production by 30%. That makes machine upkeep cheaper in terms of labour, and frees labour to build new capital.

But in practice, the implementation of labour saving technologies in non-capital-producing sectors outpaces that of capital producing sectors (because the sectors that produced non-capital commodities, such as food, clothing, etc, are smaller than those that produce or work to maintain material capital), meaning that overall, there is more and more machines that need to be maintained relatively.

>>16630
Thank you for rare theory post

https://gauthierroussilhe.com/en/articles/how-to-use-computing-power-faster
Courtesy of >>>/tech/31265

Okay I'm a little disappointed that this didn't get a single reply lmao so maybe I should give some context. I basically suspect after reading more economic history that the transition from "developing" to "development" is in a sense an extraordinary event, as it's not enough for a country to prop up its industry, but it's necessary for it to harness lucky circumstances into a self-sustaining cycle that guarantees a reliable and perpetual post-industrial economy. Simple industrialization does not guarantee success because it's necessary for an economy to have a competitive advantage in a global market. My suspicion is that "good policy" can never suffice for this, which goes against the prevailing ideologies of development that get pushed in the Third World (especially Latin America and certain parts of Asia).
However, it should also be obvious that I am essentially talking out of my ass, and this is a half-baked theory based on reading basic history. This is why I'm looking for books that can help me develop and stress test this view, as I think it's essentially one of the central questions of politics in our part of the world.

>>22816
There are two main theories about the role of the borgeousie in pre-capitalist countries that were introduced to the capitalist world system.

The first one is used by Maoists, which utilizes concepts such as semi-feudalism and semi-colonialism, comprador and bureaucratic borgeousies.

The other is the Marxists Dependency Theory, developed by Latin American intellectuals in the latter half of the 20th century, such as Ruy Mauro Marini and Vânia Bambirra.

>>22816
>whether it's possible for "developing" and "underdeveloped" countries to actually become "developed", and in what circumstances (I recognize the vagueness of these concepts)
The first step is to question what we mean by "developed" and "underdeveloped." When we see a group of rural peasants in India living in thatched roof mud brick homes or nomads in the Sahara, the instant assumption that these people shouldn't be living this way. Now, one can live a happy and decent life as a nomadic pastoralist and many choose to do so. What we have here is a kind of value judgement about the lives of others who are branded 'poor' or 'backward' because they don't live urban lifestyles. Often, poverty is slapped onto groups of people who are not, by their own standards, poor. So where does this development discourse come from? Whose interests does it serve? And how is it used?

You will notice that development policies almost always involve some form of intervention by state authorities, UN agencies, or NGOs (the staff of which are almost all from the North American-European world) over the lives of "underdeveloped" people. Sometimes, this intervention is violent (e.g. US occupation of Afghanistan, Plan Colombia, Israeli displacement of Bedouins). Another feature is a tendency to discredit the political and social institutions of local communities in favor of top down solutions implemented by technocrats and a culture where liberal "modern" people must save local people from a series of "harmful cultural practices." Compare the way "female genital mutilation" is treated compared to the widespread practice of labiaplasty or transgender surgery in "developed" countries, which are not seen as "harmful cultural practices." Lastly, there's a whole phenomena of "third world" communities outright rejecting or avoiding development projects e.g. Afghan villagers refusing to participate in road building or rejecting schooling, North Sentinelese Islanders isolating themselves, Nomads who refuse to settle down, widespread rejection of vaccines.

>the extent to which the common problems of these countries (such as crime, disease, famine, lack of support and freedom) is tied to their place in the current world order, and the extent to which they can escape or limit these problems without some sort of major globPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Looking for good books on atheism

What's some good resources for getting into witchcraft, particularly Wicca, proper? Like I understand the basics sort of, but I'd like to develop an understanding of it that isn't just scrapped together from youtube videos.

>>9083
Alawites are "ghulat", ie extermists, meaning they worship ali as an aspect of god, making them technically heretical to all mainstream forms of shia islam.

>>9052
I will say one of the bad consequences of Marxism was that it separated socialism from spirituality and religion. Before Marx, most utopian socialist movements were religious or occult groups or freemason lodges. This separation made scientific socialism crude, mechanical, and soulless form of political scientism.

>>9106
>there's a good reason atheists tend to be angry about religion and all the barbarism it involves
That's because most of them are ironically fundmamentalists who portray religion in a specific way to alleviate themselves. Its similar to how the Germans pass the Holocaust guilt onto Nazis and immigrants. And although they champion criticism, they chimp out whenever you criticize them or imply their narratives are flawed. The myth of an essentially evil and barbaric religion, timeless and everywhere the same, is pure projection, a myth cooked up by the atheist. The reason most online atheists are angry about religion is because they are as bigoted as Jerry Falwell.

>>10499
I've never liked Dabashi. I don't think this book is a good work of theology and the whole post-colonial studies thing is a dead end.

>>20208
Many people who go under the traditionalist Catholic label aren’t really traditionalists and many are borderline heretics.