I understand if you pay is a different story.

I mean ... "how does this work?"

I have exception for Tor (and pretty much only Tor) because of the nature of what an anonymity network is and how it functions it requires everyone to use it independent of gov, background, country etc - and the security of adversary sometimes contributes to secuirty of self - so for instance - if they have vested interest in maintaining anonymity of undercover assets in the gulf or something, it helps human rights activists also, etc

To me it's like one of those universal things - I believe humanity with the power to read and write without exception and to chose who to communicate with, independent of considerations of who is watching / reading etc is a great good. And humans will be human.

So yes some peoples backgrounds mean that is them communicating to do shady shit based in greed, or hatred etc. but it's also simultaneously the ability of person who knows about shady shit to get information to others to prevent etc.

If not, that means that Tor can be crippled by any authoritarian government, and thus making sure authoritarian parties don't get into power is important.

The rage may be too much but the taboo on taking photo that is real and cultural normal that will be enforced or made to feel embarrassed for doing (i.e. 'lets not be the stasi'). That's the cultural norm of there and that scene. You visited from the states, correct? Bay area but the guess "small negative experience" - the idea of we are going around experiencing things and our life is a product of these experiences we consume and interpersonal politics - that's very california "the personal is the political" or that it's some how a consumption experience we "have" and who we "are" is coloured by these "experiences" etc (a fish in the water "what is water?")

One thing in German culture I very appreciate (as australian) is the "polite complaining" as in - you know a German cares if they will share with you what is wrong (and then they will have solution) as Australian we just complain about the big things (but never on your mates or people on your level) hehe "the government" etc - German - politely complain (and here's the patch) etc hehe In both cases it's a sort of affection or closeness if they tell you what they really think

it's not seen negative it's seen like 'of course we have feelings good and bad' etc

All generalising of course.

This could I see easily clash with american culture where often it's positivity all the time and it's seen taboo to say something bad - as if it's letting down the 'team' or it must be personal again 'you' or something - where as kinda truthfulness and integrity seen as the thing there - say as it is or as feel etc

Also another thing you might notice (probably less in Hamburg but in Berlin or something) in winter you want to go for a swim - that's the spa. Everyone is naked. This can come a shock to, say, a culture like the US that had the puritans - that people being naked is not sexualised any way. Actually the US because the norm is "naked" = "naked fun" that can lead to perhaps the most confusing cultural mishap. This might be related to photos also. For instance - in Australia it's increasingly less common people sunbath naked. In east europe and nordics - being naked in spa is just common.

Also: new years eve - they try to blow up everything. In a civilised city it blew my mind to see folks firing guns in the air.

Yes! There's some differences.

Saying that: there's assholes everywhere and don't let the 5-20% allocation of asshole influence your opinion of the 80% of the cool calm quiet

Hmmm... this comment is long... I may be the asshole. Ok,

Ciao

you might be giving them another small negative experience. you've certainly given me one.

That's a very superficial reduction of the meaning of that phrase. It's worth reading the original 1969 essay with that title:

https://www.carolhanisch.org/CHwritings/PIP.html

This quote might help understand the context:

> The bad things that are said about us as women are either myths (women are stupid), tactics women use to struggle individually (women are bitches), or are actually things that we want to carry into the new society and want men to share too (women are sensitive, emotional). Women as oppressed people act out of necessity (act dumb in the presence of men), not out of choice. Women have developed great shuffling techniques for their own survival (look pretty and giggle to get or keep a job or man) which should be used when necessary until such time as the power of unity can take its place. Women are smart not to struggle alone (as are blacks and workers). It is no worse to be in the home than in the rat race of the job world. They are both bad. Women, like blacks, workers, must stop blaming ourselves for our “failures.”

The author was dealing with and responding to very real oppression, and pointing out in part that day-to-day interactions were consequences of, and contributors to, that oppression. That's one sense in which "the personal is political."

The introduction also points out where the overall insight came from:

> However, many on the SCEF [Southern Conference Educational Fund] staff, both men and women, ended up joining the criticism of women getting together in consciousness-raising groups to discuss their own oppression as “[navel]-gazing” and “personal therapy”—and certainly “not political.”

> They could sometimes admit that women were oppressed (but only by “the system”) and said that we should have equal pay for equal work, and some other “rights.” But they belittled us no end for trying to bring our so-called “personal problems” into the public arena—especially “all those body issues” like sex, appearance, and abortion. Our demands that men share the housework and childcare were likewise deemed a personal problem between a woman and her individual man.

In that context, the personal was political in a very concrete, direct sense.

As the saying goes, when you're privileged equality feels like oppression.

Do Germans complain/rage every time they see a security camera?

I think they are quite privacy conscious, as a country.

Blurring faces (and I assume license plates) was a thing before they started serving imagery for Germany

Source: living in Berlin.

Basically, westerners need to realize that the war shock is still reverberating through DACH cultures - remember, German’s were perfectly okay with having their neighborhoods ‘cleansed’ of those their state considered inferior - and then had to suffer decades of persecution for it - whereas Americans see themselves as victors in the freedom game, which is quite pathetic because the freedoms enjoyed in German streets on the regular would have half the American nation birth kittens in conniptions.

I’ll never forget how relieved I felt when I first cracked open a beer on the street in Germany. I don’t do it often, it’s not a thing I really see myself doing a lot. But just the idea of being able to take a couple beers to the park on a picnic with my new German girlfriend, and take a few naughty pictures of her (at her request and with full consent), washed away all the pretense I had, having (at the time) recently relocated from California, where I literally witnessed kids getting their heads bashed in by police for complaining about getting a ticket for having an unopened six pack in the back seat…. I don’t fear German cops, I find them completely amusing. I do everything I can to avoid American cops.

But you know .. Australians too, have their quirks in this regards. I’ve never met a more uncouth nation, frankly. The vitriol and invective I encountered, visiting my homeland again, just for speaking a bit of German on the train with my kids, was overwhelming… from little old ladies who should know better than to challenge a well-traveled cosmopolitan sandgroper on the subject of language. Oh, how their faces vacuumed into themselves once I explained that I was, in fact, Australian, and that I consider anyone who only speaks a single language vastly inferior to those who speak many - just as the original caretakers of the stolen land did!

All in, I prefer living in a DACH nation than either Australia or USA, unwashed totalitarian personalities notwithstanding. It’s just a more relaxed culture, all things considered. The war shock reverberates, but in the corners of it all you will find a lot more free thought than most of the western world.

And that’s another great reason to go to CCC and see for yourself: the freedoms of thought on display.

No it wasn't.

And you did not read it.

EDIT: source: took logic as undergrad + wrote on the tractatus which required a lot of pre-reqs to understand. 0 chance a course at undergrad level ever assigns principia mathematica. I don't care if you went to yale or oxford or ecole normale ... 0 chance. Most charitable interepretation: some pages of it + was on a bibliography. not required reading.

if feel embarrassed, that is the consequence for lieing. There is such a thing as intellectual honesty.

Thanks for calling out these sort of posers and charlatans on HN. We should not tolerate these people if we are to discuss/argue/motivate interesting/hard subjects productively.

I automatically discount anybody on HN (until i have looked at their profile/comment history/any personal bio websites etc.) who claim they have read/studied a) Euclid's Elements b) Newton's Principia c) Maxwell's Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism d) Einstein's 1905 Annus Mirabilis papers. e) Principia Mathematica by Russell/WhiteHead f) Godel's Theorem g) Bourbaki's mathematics books etc. etc. They might have browsed it out of curiosity but that is not the same as reading/studying it.

Actual conceptual mathematics/science is intrinsically hard even ignoring the archaic language/notations.

As a good example; the Nobel-prize winning physicist S.Chandrasekhar wrote Newton's Principia for the Common Reader where he explains a subset of the principia (only dealing with gravitation) using modern notation and language. He himself found it quite hard and thus the "common reader" in the title is somebody who has had a good course in calculus and has the motivation to put forth the effort in understanding it.

(Of course, if you don't read German, you should get yourself a translation.)

See https://myweb.rz.uni-augsburg.de/~eckern/adp/history/einstei...

I don't think I'm smart enough to casually read and understand original works on General relativity, but the Annus Mirabilis work seems much simpler. The famous E=MC2 paper is only three pages.

See https://myweb.rz.uni-augsburg.de/~eckern/adp/history/einstei...

About Gödel: if you are interested in the theorems, and not necessarily their original presentation, you can get plenty of rigorous modern treatments. It's very common for mathematicians to work out simpler proofs and more appealing presentations of famous results over time.

See https://dn721807.ca.archive.org/0/items/uber-formal-unentsch... if you want to give one of Gödel's work a go. It's only 26 pages. Footnote 48a is especially interesting. Overall the prose is crisp, but the notation is rather archaic to modern eyes.

I agree with your general sentiment, and your heuristic in general.

So what i do is try and find books which are written for the "educated common reader" by an expert who guides you through the original paper/book. It is still difficult to understand if you do not have the necessary background but at least you have a good starting point.

Some books in my collection;

1) Newton's Principia for the Common Reader by S.Chandrasekhar

2) Maxwell on the Electromagnetic Field: A Guided Study (Masterworks of Discovery) by Thomas Simpson

3) Einstein's Miraculous Year by John Stachel.

4) The Annotated Turing by Charles Petzold.

What we need is for a group of professors to get together and start writing a series on explaining the original papers to the "educated common reader" i.e. not too trivial nor too overwhelming. I think there is a huge market for this since it humanizes how science is done in real life which is fundamental for motivation.

We should read the original great works but with intellectual honesty to accept that some/most of it might be over our heads (depending on one's background) and not feel ashamed about it. The point is to not be completely clueless/ignorant but at least have some correct ideas even if it is a simplification/approximation. It is just one stage in the learning process and as we re-read little-by-little over time we begin to understand more and more. This is real education.

I must dissent. Einstein's Annus Mirabilis papers are really quite approachable. You don't need a book to guide you through.

Though if you are having fun with the book, more power to you! Enjoy!

For a general reader, even though they might not get the whole thing they can still get an appreciation for the whole from the commentary/details added by the editor.

The book contains the English translations of the 5 papers with Einstein's original introduction and a short discussion on each, a informative introduction and a foreword by Roger Penrose.

A very hard Nope!

No high school teaches you Electrodynamics at the level needed to understand his Relativity/Photoelectric-effect papers, the idea of Stochastic Randomness behind Kinetic theory/Brownian motion etc. You need both background physics theory and the mathematical tools.

For your edification see;

John Stachel: Einstein papers - https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/february-2005/john-...

Annus Mirabilis Papers - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_mirabilis_papers

It's a bit more involved than the one about Brownian motion, but it's still fairly accessible for the motivated layman.

I'm not sure why you are so convinced that this is so hard. Nor what you are trying to convince me that I should find it hard: I've literally had a look at the German originals. No amount of secondary or tertiary writing is going to overrule that.

Schools differ in what they teach, of course. And many of them aren't very good. But Wikipedia is always available and these days you can ask your favourite LLM for explanations, too.

Of course, as I said already, the books you are suggesting are probably great and fun to read. They just aren't necessary.

As already mentioned, I already have the english translations of all the five papers, have spent some time with them, and they most certainly are not "accessible for the motivated layman" without the necessary physics/mathematics background. No amount of motivation/enthusiasm can make up for lack of necessary knowledge.

Since you kept mentioning the brownian motion paper as being "easy to read", the second section on "osmotic pressure from the standpoint of the moleculer-kinetic theory of heat" starts with the equations for entropy and free energy of the system which i would like to see a "motivated layman"/"high school student" understand, much less derive. They need knowledge of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics (assuming they are already comfortable with multivariable calculus/PDEs) to even get started.

Similar criticisms apply to the rest of your claims regarding other papers.

That is why you need guidance from teachers who do have knowledge of all the required sub-domains and can help the student navigate the paper. Of course one can also use all other available tools like LLMs etc. but their veracity again needs to be checked by a human in conceptually complex subjects like these.

Of the lot, Elements feels misplaced.

Lots of people actually do read Elements as part of their course of study. It's niche but there's a whole cottage industry within academia for that sort of thing. There are probably over a dozen institutions that have either a degree program or a core curriculum that is organized around original texts, with Euclid usually serving as the math distribution of that sequence. So running into people who have read (big chunks of) Elements is not that uncommon. That's true even IRL outside of online discussions forums on thread topics that likely select for such people.

My impression is that this is not really true of the other examples. Except maybe Godel's proofs; I do think a sufficiently motivated instructor could pull a decent chunk of college students through the original text in a semester. Probably better ways to spend everyone's time, though.

... plus it's relatively approachable as such things go, and short enough that closely reading most or all of it isn't a crazy idea, and it was recently-enough widely used as an actual textbook that between that and ongoing modern interest in its use in that capacity, there are tons of study-oriented editions of it floating around and still being published. I mean hell "recreational mathematics" is a thing and lightly-annotated-and-updated Euclid's a pretty solid text for people with that kind of interest to noodle on, with bonus historical appeal since it's super-old and also is assumed background for all educated people into at least the early 20th century, so pops up all the time in historical writing and literature.

Now, Newton? That's more like it. Nobody reads a large amount of his mathematics unless they're some variety of mathematical historian.

Apparently, the history is that the school lost its accreditation and had to shut down during the Great Depression, so to attract investors and reopen, it adopted an extremely unique identity with no watering down of curriculum and commitment to western classics in an attempt to combat the rise of fascism.

Euclid isn’t surprising. School children used to learn plane geometry from Euclid until the 1950s or so. I learned geometry at school using a syllabus from Euclid and we learned the modern form of Euclid’s postulates etc but we didn’t study Euclid itself.

[1] Taylor series were developed in the modern form by James Gregory who was trying to reverse engineer how Newton had come up with his series expansions. I say rediscovered above because they were first written down by Madhava of Sangamagrama who gave Taylor series expansions for the trigonometric functions and natural logarithms/exponential function in the 14th century.

It's as if a group of monks wanted to keep the quadrivium and trivium but their clock stopped at the 16th century. One of their faculty proudly said they study analysis by reading Descartes! Which I thought was a highbrow joke but nope, dead serious.

There's a reason that 'standing on the shoulders of giants' is a thing. Dive into the classics after you have gained the maturity from modern texts.

Take one of the easier problems from Rudin. Prove that a continuous function from the unit interval [0,1] to itself has a fixed point. I wonder how a student immersed in the 'classics' would even begin to tackle this.

So, to be fair: most philosophy majors wouldn't have much luck with Rudin.

> Dive into the classics after you have gained the maturity from modern texts.

Diving into old texts is a skill unto itself. That's why a lot of institutions do the great books thing as a core curriculum (so, maybe 2-3 courses taught in this style, as an alternative to more conventional phil 101/history 101 style distribution requirements). Then a more conventional education from there onward. The theory is that this is a mid-point precisely because it provides lots of transferable skills for diving into the classics in your chosen field, while avoiding the "let's learn analysis from descarte" excesses.

Some report it's pretty damn effective at that and leads to an impressive breadth of intellectual confidence in tackling material of almost any sort, but IDK. Anecdotes.

IIRC (it's been a while since I looked into their programs) they do a lot of supplemental reading of newer papers, articles, and book excerpts, and tend to used updated notation when it makes sense. Plus all their classes are heavily discussion-oriented so the reading is potentially enhanced and brought "forward" by whatever their instructors and peers bring to class in their heads.

> Take one of the easier problems from Rudin. Prove that a continuous function from the unit interval [0,1] to itself has a fixed point. I wonder how a student immersed in the 'classics' would even begin to tackle this.

I don't think they tend to train mathematicians, and I think for most students (graduating from any college or university) they never, ever, ever touch the specifics of their more-advanced e.g. math classes (I think this is true even for most programmers or engineers or what have you) any time in the entire rest of their lives, to the point that entirely forgetting most of that stuff by a decade or so later and suffering for that not at all is utterly typical. How much does it matter for students who aren't going into extremely narrow vocations that they come out of them unable to perform this specific task, without first needing to study further?

The usual defense of this fact is "well it's about learning how to learn, expecting the actual content to ever matter for any but a teensy tiny proportion of the students is unreasonable" in which case... see the rest of the post.

I recently came to know of The Annotated Godel: A Reader's Guide to his Classic Paper on Logic and Incompleteness by Hal Prince which i think i need to sit with :-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_program

Hilbert's idea was that by completely formalizing mathematics on a axiomatic/deductive basis, one can mechanically derive proofs so that you don't run into paradoxes/contradictions.

But then Godel showed such a formal system applied to basic mathematics can never be complete (if consistent) and never prove its own consistency.

The work is in creating the theorem / contradiction from that point, but in the big picture, the approach doesn’t have to come from nowhere.

But the "why and what" must always be explained first even if it is incomplete; since that is the problem we are trying to solve. With logic it is even more important since you can follow a proof from one step to the next but by the time you reach the conclusion you have lost the connecting thread to the starting point (for most general folks) i.e. "you have missed the forest for the trees". This is why many folks feel lost when doing mathematics as mere symbol-pushing.

That said, even if the OP was assigned the text at some point as an undergraduate, I remain a bit doubtful it was actually read.

[1] https://cfreer.org/18.515/

The textbooks they use in that course are written in modern notation and are accessible to a knowledgeable reader; neither can be said of the Principia Mathematica. The archaic syntax is a serious issue.

- “effort to refute bullshit is order of magnitude more than to refute it”.

(p.s. this whole comment section is wild - the green & getting downvoted accounts? They said the most credible things of anyone )

   x=ctrl-c("output error report")

   eval(ctrl-v(x))

   sleep(10)

   user("Input...")

Message Sent from Common Lisp