Although it's been used for a fairly wide array of algorithms for decades. Everything from alpha-beta tree search to k-nearest-neighbors to decision forests to neural nets are considered AI.
Edit: The paper is called
Avoiding fusion plasma tearing instability with deep reinforcement learning
Reinforcement learning and deep neural nets are buzzwordy these days, but neural nets have been an AI thing for decades and decades.
Emacs unfortunately uses Emacs lisp, not common lisp or scheme.
That wall isn't structural. There's a much thicker wall behind it; this is just a thin internal layer for running electric and mounting drywall.
So everyone who retires transitions from the working class to the owner class?
I'm not sure it's that useful to say that a 70 year old retired engineer is owner class because they're living off of the stock market returns of their 401k.
One important thing to realize is that different dialects of English have slightly different grammars.
One place where different dialects differ is around negation. Some dialects, like Appalachian English or West Texas English, exhibit 'negative concord', where parts of a sentence must agree in negation. For example, "Nobody ain't doin' nothing' wrong".
One of the most important thing to understanding a sentence is to figure out the dialect of its speaker. You'll also notice that with sentences with ambiguous terminology like "he ate biscuits" - were they cookies, or something that looked like a scone? Rules are always contextual, based on the variety of the language being spoken.
Crosswords have clues going across and down.
The words just use common letters so they're things puzzle creators wish were real words. They're not currently words.
English definitely has rules.
It's why you can't say something like "girl the will boy the paid" to mean "the boy is paying the girl" and have people understand you.
Less vs fewer, though, isn't really a rule. It's more an 18th century style guideline some people took too seriously.
No.
There's two types of grammar rules. There's the real grammar rules, which you intuitively learn as a kid and don't have to be explicitly taught.
For example, any native English speaker can tell you that there's something off about "the iron great purple old big ball" and that it should really be "the great big old purple iron ball", even though many aren't even aware that English has an adjective precedence rule.
Then there's the fake rules like "ain't ain't a real word", 'don't split infinitives' or "no double negatives". Those ones are trumped up preferences, often with a classist or racist origin.
What do you think is more likely: disciples telling taller and taller tales after their master died that spun out into the Bible after a while, or a mythological preacher being invented a few decades after his death?
From what I understand, the consensus view of historians is that Moses and the exodus is probably wholly legendary - there's no archeological evidence of the exodus and the Torah was written 500+ years after the events supposedly happened.
By contrast, the earliest sources for Jesus are from within a century of his death. It's way more likely that we have a mythologized story of a real preacher named Jesus than that we have a wholly legendary story.
The beginning of the 'Final Solution' was in June of 1941, and began with the death squads of the Einsatzgruppen murduring Jews as part of Operation Barbarossa.
The commander of Einsatzkommando 3 submitted a fairly detailed report of his squad's daily murder count by location. Through November 25th of that year, his squad alone murdered 57,338 Jewish men, 48,592 Jewish women, and 29,461 Jewish children.
Babi Yar happened on September 29th and 30th, 1941 - only about 4 months into the Final Solution. Germans put posters up in Kyiv, saying that any Jews who didn't show up to be relocated would be shot. They took the crowd of 33k people to a ravine, herded them forwards and machine gunned them all down.
Is the Holocaust really the most apt historical comparison? Yes, the Holocaust is in the past, while this is ongoing. But the early days of the Holocaust were incredibly bloody; the massacres didn't ramp up slowly once the killings commenced.
Two things can both be bad without being equally bad.
The war has been terrible. But do you really think it's been as bad as Treblinka or Babi Yar?
Emacs is a bunch older than common lisp.
One of its more idiosyncratic design decisions was using dynamic scope, rather than lexical scope. They did add in per-file lexical scope, though.
It also just doesn't implement a lot of common lisp's standard library.