In Spain both are still taught in the standard high-school curriculum.
Not everyone takes those classes of course, but Latin is one of the core optatives in the humanities path, it can be chosen in the university entrance exam as one of the core tests, and many students do pick it.
It's not really taught as a foreign language though, it is used to teach fundamental concepts in linguistic analysis and translation, and it can be a legitimately valuable foundation to have a strong general literacy across romance languages.
I'm not sure how common it is elsewhere, but Roman law also makes up a non-trivial fraction of the compulsory curriculum in the first years of studying law at university. Most of the concepts are still relevant, it's what all modern legal systems are founded on.
I remember that a good friend of mine somehow avoided studying maths for the last four years of high-school by choosing all the alternatives, which included both Latin and ancient Greek. He was and still is a fantastic programmer despite hating maths though, obsessed with Linux distros from early teens.
It's in Spanish, proof based, but not as hard as Spivak. If he is good at programming he must be good at logic and thus if he understands Math as something to apply rules, he we will ace the book.
He can use Maxima to locally solve the equations. Forget LLM's, these will just make him dumber. Maxima to test the solutions, pen and paper:
The Windows version comes with everything in the installer.
Linux distros have it in its repos, install "wxmaxima" and "maxima-doc"
for documentation. It's weights very little, less than 100MB. Install Gnuplot too for plots/charts/graphs (altough it might come preinstalled for Windows).
And a Math background, even a basic one will be extremeley helpful while coding.
Most schools in Spain thaught us Math as methods to blindly apply formulae based on rote memorization and everyone was just clueless.
What's called "Roman law" in Europe derives from the Justinian Code, which was nominally a codification of but in many respects a radical reinterpretation of late roman law. Prior to the Justinian Code, and especially Scholastic era glosses, Roman law was arguably more like a very rigid style of common law; that is, requiring judges to hew closely to precedent rather than applying abstract legal principles.
It was the rediscovery of the Justinian Code during the Scholastic age which kickstarted a blossoming of legal theory in Europe. But they didn't understand that the Justinian Code wasn't a reflection of Roman law so much as a reflection of Emperor Justinian's reforms, which were in part an attempt to reassert control over and simplify the legal system.
Probably not. They were not learning it for funsies, but because it was the business language. English took its place now. If English goes away, it will be replaced by a language by another dominant business power.
Still would be very valuable to be able to read works that shaped western civilization in their original language, since a lot of nuance is lost translating to English. Just see how many crazy readings of the Bible people have (american evangelicals particularly ) because English can’t express the original idea in Greek well enough.
Even this subjective interpretation shows why the question is so good. Someone on the other side would say the fundamentals are completely different.
It is meant to point out how many people say they would be willing to sacrifice even their very lives for a stranger, but in reality they only sacrifice if they already know others had to sacrifice and now they're forced to.
Like if you took the combined wealth of every person who thinks we should tax people more to help the less fortunate - do they give anything freely? They want others to sacrifice first. I'll believe people would actually press blue in a majority, when I see people who claim we should pay more taxes, voluntarily paying more themselves.
I'd love to live in a world where I was confident a vast majority of people would press blue. But I've literally seen people say they would press blue - then go on to say that in a communist revolution certainly we will have to end the lives of all the bourgeois.
I would most definitely press red, because I don't believe anywhere near half the population are actually that good, and don't think I'm a good enough person to actually think I'd risk pressing blue. (Trump won the popular vote in America, and so based on the rhetoric I hear from my left leaning acquaintances, neither would they)
Sad world really. Also why this question is so good.
This question is genius like the way secret hitler is a genius game.
All the different ways to frame it and think about it, and the balance between them all.
Saying "I would press blue" is different than actually pressing blue. Many people have insisted if I strike it rich, I'm going to give all my money away, and then... they don't.
Oh and the amount of ways you can ask it differently "If more than 50% vote for Trump/Kamala everyone lives, but if less than 50% all Trump/Kamala voters die" - and then seeing how the responses change. And the way the whole calculus changes depending on what other parameters could be added/presumed.
Once again just such a good rage-bait question.
Though I can't for the life of me figure out why people get so mad at people's answers, unless it's like in secret hitler where someone accuses of me being a fascist, and we get all mad, but we all laugh at the end because it's just a silly game, like this silly but fun question.
Hmm, it seems pretty clear that climate is getting hotter, so it seems natural for some people to be worried about what will happen to the planet in a few decades (me for one).
And, you may be right, it may not be that big a deal and that we're being alarmists, but it seems like we currently have the tools to slow it down greatly. Why not be on the safe side and use them?
... but to be honest, guessing my opinion won't sway you in any way, still thought I'd try. thanks!
The value of plowing ahead and using more energy is worth far more than making sure Florida doesn’t lose some coastline.
The presumptions I see that annoy me with the alarmists, is that they completely negate human agency and ingenuity, and they ignore the economic cost of many of the proposed plans.
Natural gas is far better than coal and should be encouraged rather than condemned. Nuclear power is best of all, is the cleanest and safest energy, and yet is hardly ever the first choice of the alarmists.
I’d rather spend double the energy unlocking breakthroughs in science with the help of AI, and address the problems when they come. I don’t go out of my way to lower my “carbon footprint”, but I also don’t just do things that are wasteful and deliberately harmful to the environment.
AI making us forget how to think for ourselves is a far bigger risk to mankind than climate change. Thanks.
Agree that you need to balance costs with benefits, but nowadays, solar and wind are often the cheapest options (southern states or states with lots of wind). And nuclear is an option that even some staunch environmentalists support these days.
Yeah, don't think most people who support battling climate change are extremists. We just believe it's a big problem, and, to put it in monetary terms, having to deal with major changes in climate could cost the world tens of trillions of dollars by some scientist predictions. Yeah, it's like any problem, doing relatively small fixes now could save enormous amounts of time and money later down the line. Seems like it would probably good usage of our efforts.
I probably just overreact and judge too quickly certain statements from my experiences of people who act like I’m destroying the earth because I have more than 3 kids.
I appreciate reasonable people though, and I should not assume, everyone is a crazy alarmist because they have any concern, so I apologize.
... and not just giving you lip service, but I do find the far left to have gone too far themselves (am a moderate independent myself). They're assuredness that everything they believe is the only correct way to think is frustrating (they are often the least understanding). Yeah, it seems if you step out of line and say anything against their beliefs, you're apart of the far right.
But, feels like things are shifting back to the middle for various reasons. Think this is a good trend
Competition is for losers, is a way to say to go and compete in a super crowded market where it is impossible to differentiate yourself is not going to make you a winner.
But usually people are called idiots because they don’t swallow the progressive propaganda wholesale.
The word monotheism didn’t even exist until the 17th century.
I’m doubtful of some of the article’s claims, that seem to project our modern ideas onto the ancient world.
But I think ancient israel saw there were many “gods”, but they viewed Yahweh as “God most high” or even “creator God”.
It’s like saying “Hinduism” is this singular religion, that is actually full of different gods and different practices, but we just lump it all together as one thing.
I don't think you have ancient Israel quite right here. Much of the old testament assumes that Yahweh is the god of Israel, and that other nations have their own gods. The idea of one most powerful god took time to develop.
My kids at least are all learning Latin, and later, Greek.