Nope. I only learned to use computers as an adult, and only learned programming incidentally as a tool for other work.

The truth is that it’s actually much faster to learn as an adult, you just have more momentum if you start as a child.

Ada particularly the SPARK subset. It’s approach is quite different than most languages, focusing on minimising errors and correctness. It’s fairly difficult but I like to use it to teach people to actually understand the problem and how to solve it before they ever write the code.

This blog covers a lot of topics, but very superficially.

This blog covers a lot of topics, but very superficially.

“From computer science papers/academic texts I know this method of reading works perfectly”

This is almost certainly due to pure familiarity. CS papers are just as indecipherable to unfamiliar persons. Possibly even more since things like complexity are heavily used, without any explanation of what it is. Data structures are another common one that the vast majority of non-CS people would not understand when referenced.

I know because this is exactly how I felt coming from an intermediate mathematics background.

“So many papers are extremely hard to read because the formulas are obfuscated like that”

This isn’t really an issue though, of you don’t have enough foundational knowledge to understand what the formula means or how it could be conceivably derived, does knowing how it’s calculated matter?

Mathematicians are good at writing algorithms, but not at the development aspect, which is basically building for different systems, packaging software and documentation.

I would disagree on the performance part, the vast majority of software developers aren’t writing high performance software and the ones that are tend to be computational mathematicians or physicists.

“seeing the differences in the result”

This just means that you are testing against a very narrow output. It’s actually pretty common to run across tests that don’t even check for the likely failure cases, because the developer(s) don’t actually understand the algorithm.

A common example is prime factorisation, most nontrivial factorisation algorithms (Pollard rho, elliptic curves), don’t guarantee producing a prime factor they simply tend to produce them because they prioritize small factors. Programmers see that their function produces primes for the one or 2 test cases (out of say 2^64) and assume that it works. It generally does, but when it doesn’t you get incorrect results (often undetectably) which poisons all the rest of your calculations.

Ukraine also engages in a fair amount of propaganda (so much so that US and UK intelligence regularly contradict them), so asking for evidence isn’t too unreasonable.

“none still faced any repercussions,”

Because nobody ever does. This has happened several times in the past, and it’s always coughed up as an accident because making a scene out of it would cause more problems.

You can do both? If you contract someone to provide you with a car, and they go out and steal a car and give it to you. You didn’t actually commit that crime, because the contract wasn’t to commit a crime it was to provide you with legally permitted service.

Charter flights are usually handled differently than public flights to begin with, because the clientele (usually groups of related people) and legal contracts are different.

You could write bindings to machine-prime . Hardly anything challenging for an actual programmer, but I’ll take the free labor if it is available.

Wrote a basic primality checker library, it’s not by far my most interesting or complex project but I like that I accomplished all my initial goals in a timely fashion.

If you’ve spent any time on the “dark web” this is super-obvious. They all love encryption, and most software developers are completely incompetent when it comes to encryption so backdooring an app is trivial. Hell, even well-known crypto libraries have implementations that rely on clearly false assumptions.

Unless it’s edited, that seems to be the exact opposite of what they are saying. They even clarify using the same poor English.

This requires many assumptions that you or any computational system have no formal reason to make. Having an interpreter that just guesstimates exactly how you want the program structured, is going to run into problems when you, say want to extend the program.

This is actually something that people are intended to understand by design.

Reading Goldwasser’s paper on elliptic curves, got me into math and then automating math calculations.

I haven’t disabled autocorrect yet.

Nope, just like George Orwell you are asserting an unsupported form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

“Doublespeak” doesn’t fundamentally change how people think, it is just deception by obfuscation.

The fact that the word anti-Semitism doesn’t include anti-Arab sentiments is not the cause of why anti-Arab sentiments are not as criticised. The Holocaust is why anti-Semitism (the concept and by extension the word) holds a place of special concern. (And Islamic terrorist incidents are why anti-Arab sentiments are more accepted).