It's a university project, so it wouldn't have been expected to be perfect. I had to do something similar as an assignment, but if I had the choice, I would have chosen anything else because the project was anything but fun.
Everything was implemented using transistors, so it involved a lot of calculations, and simulation in LTSpice.
The credit for the labour theory of value goes to Adam Smith, specifically the Wealth of Nations. Whether it was true or not is a separate question, but it was based on empirical data available at the time. Marx is usually credited with it because he altered it, and saw a flaw in Adam Smith's version. The idea that "what something costs is what people are willing to pay for it" was something Adam Smith was familiar with and addressed in the Wealth of Nations.
> Those who believe the things should be treated preferentially, and those who don't should be persecuted because they stand in the way of the implementation of those things.
The Gnostics and followers of Hermes were one of the most hounded and persecuted groups throughout history. The Cathars were wiped out, and Giordano Bruno, an early proponent of the Copernican model of the solar system was burnt at the stake by the inquisition. It seems to be the other way around.
> Hermeticism, specifically the emerald tablet, says that we can make things become believable by just willing them with our minds.
I don't think this is correct, but I can't prove a negative.
You're talking about genocide and religious discrimination.
Wikipedia: Raphael Lemkin, who coined the word "genocide" in the 20th century,[110] referred to the Albigensian Crusade as "one of the most conclusive cases of genocide in religious history".[111]
"Do you know what it’s like? What it’s like when you get the feeling that you’re about to die? And that you were ready to collapse at a moment’s notice?"
It sounds like the author had a bad experience with energy drinks. Everyone reacts differently to substances such as caffeine, or a combination of substances.
Some people are lactose intolerant, or gluten intolerant. The author is energy drink intolerant.
This is intentional. They're called Arabic numerals for a reason - when they were imported to Europe to replace Roman numerals, they weren't flipped. This is why mental arithmetic is harder than it needs to be.
Nope. These numerals got to Arabic from India, where writing is LTR, and the digit order was unchanged during that transition and the transition to Europe. The order we use is the original order. They're called Hindu-Arabic numerals [1] for a reason, and in Arabic the equivalent [2] are called Indian numbers (أَرْقَام هِنْدِيَّة) [3]!
No one switched it around, that's my point. The digit order everyone uses is the one best suited to mental arithmetic in LTR languages, where the most significant digit is first. See the book Secrets of Mental Math by Arthur Benjamin. It's also the best suited to getting a rough idea of the number quickly in LTR languages. That's because the digit order everyone uses was designed for LTR languages.
Leibniz did that from memory, although the stoics deserve the credit for propositional logic (which can be reduced to a collection of truth tables). and contrary to popular belief Boole actually extended Aristotle’s syllogisms (reduced the conventional syllogisms to computation using matrices of 1s and 0s) rather than create a today’s binary logic.
No, I’m fact the best female chess player, Judith Polgar was known for her aggression while the best male chess player Magnus Carlsen is known for his conservative style. They are different generations, however, but there have always been aggressive and defensive players.
I'm not a Foucault fan, and I used to hold the same opinion as you. But now I realise the exchange was, as you say, a "waste of time".
Chomsky doesn't seem to have read up on the issues Foucault is talking about, and he admits as much in an interview on the topic, about how he was surprised that he could not find /any/ common ground from which to build a conversation with Foucault.
This is more of a failure of communication on the part of French intellectuals, who use verbose language helps keep their radical tradition so insular.
So... it's what you would expect an exchange between the analytic and continental philosophers to be like. Chomsky takes the enlightenment humanism tradition for granted, and assumes he can find common ground with Foucault there, but Foucault had been working in a tradition where the humanism vs anti-humanism debate (e.g. Althusser) was front and center.
In fact, Foucault himself was on the anti-humanist side. (anti-humanism doesn't mean "evil", it's just an unfortunate
tongue-in-cheek terminology). What you end up with is Foucault trying his best to introduce Chomsky to the basics of a core part of the French intellectual tradition, more-or-less unsuccessfully.
What the debate highlights is the extent of the divide between continental philosophy and analytical philosophy. It doesn't make new ground.
