Will be interesting so see how they plan to tackle the issues of factuality and bias in the articles they feed users (if they plan to address that at all).
Media Bias Fact Check describes it as a very right-biased outlet with questionable factuality. They are also categorized as "right-biased" by Ground News, "right-leaning" by AllSides and "far-right" by Wikipedia. Maybe not the best source for neutral and factual news coverage?
It's a Falun Gong outlet. Its views are their views.
IMHO it never makes sense to measure media's bias from right to left but it makes even less sense when the power center they represent is so obvious.
It's like arguing whether RT is conservative because they like Trump or liberal because they are skeptical of Israel. RT is simply pro Russia above all and will turn on a dime on any issue if it serves their core master.
Any hard evidence for the claim that Epoch is a Falun Gong outlet vs. the actual case that its one of the best objective news reporting currently available? For the latter claim, read the stories and compare to the "truth" that eventually comes out on things. They are always reporting factually as it happens, whether they like what happens or not.
Curious about the leanings of the Media Bias Fact Check, Ground News, AllSides and that Wikipedia assessment?
Epoch Times is the most objective news outlet I've been able to find - actually reporting the news for what it is. Not censoring out stories it doesn't like, etc. If anyone knows of a more objective outlet, please let me know.
While I love the premise, it should do a better job of keeping track of active and secure instances of the different services. I've had a lot of trouble with broken redirects.
I sympathize with that problem, but I think Redirector may not be the right tool for that job. Redirector is pretty small and flexible - I imagine pinging servers and rotating hosts in a redirect is out of scope. Have you tried a more full-featured privacy service redirector? Google brought up https://github.com/SimonBrazell/privacy-redirect.
If I had to learn algorithms again, and especially if I had to self-study the topic, I would personally choose a somewhat lighter textbook as an entry point, and then use CLRS for more rigor when needed. I used Skiena's excellent book for this purpose, but Sedgewick's might also be a good option. Note that Skiena doesn't cover all the topics in CLRS, but you should find most of it in there. But what you DO find is a much entertaining and motivating read.
What would you say are the prerequisites to the Analysis books? I did single-variable calculus and linear algebra in university a few years ago, but I have to admit that I'm a bit rusty.
I'd definitely recommend having taken a college level Calculus course before and you'll get more out of it if you are basically comfortable with Abstract Algebra (know what sets, groups, rings, and fields are, and be able to think fairly abstractly about operations on those kinds of objects). That said, I think you could get through the first one with just high school level pre-calc although I think it would be hard to motivate yourself if you don't know enough calculus to see where it's heading. It does an absolutely brilliant job of starting with Peano's axioms to define the natural numbers, using those to define integers, using integers to define the rationals, introducing Cauchy sequences and using them to define the Reals, then introducing limits, continuity, etc. and Riemann integrals. That whole part is pretty much self contained with each concept rigorously (but clearly) built out of the previous ones. Some basic algebra and the ability to follow a mathematical argument are pretty much all you need. As it gets into the second volume, it expects some familiarity with logarithms and starts building into more advanced Calculus. It's still fairly self-contained but you might struggle if you don't remember, eg, what integration by parts looks like.
You can check the analysis courses offered where you took calc and linear algebra to see if you have sufficient prereqs.
Depending on the level of comfort or exposure you've previously had to proofs, it could be good to have a book covering introduction to proof handy. A book on counterexamples in analysis is also something I've seen recommended.
For proofs, something that covers direct proof, proof by contrapositive, proof by contradiction, and mathematical induction are good to be familiar with.
Delta-epsilon proofs are also good to have alternative or more accessible explanations to draw on.
If you're covering topics in multivariable calculus, then it might also be handy to cover some of the calculations from a calc 3/4 book to see implementations of it.
A good intro real analysis book will have no prerequisites, really! I learned from Ross, "Elementary Analysis: The Theory of Calculus", which starts with sequences of natural numbers.
(I'm of the opinion that the usual Calc1+2+3 sequence should be scrapped in favor of everyone taking "Advanced Calculus" first. It should probably even be taught in 10th/11th grade in place of the dreadful "pre-calc" courses many schools have. Calculus didn't click for me until my first proof-based course. That's also when I learned that a "proof" is just a detailed explanation of exactly why something is true.)
Thank you so much for posting this! Found it a while ago and found it very inspiring, but I recently tried to find it again without succeeding. So thank you!
Will be interesting so see how they plan to tackle the issues of factuality and bias in the articles they feed users (if they plan to address that at all).