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.
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.
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.
Suppose one year you spend $60k, but only earned $50k. You lost $10k.
The next year, you spend $57k, and earned $53k. You lost $4k, and your losses narrowed by $6k.
Disney+ lost 1.3 million subscribers in the final quarter of 2023 amid a hefty price hike that went into effect last fall, but managed to narrow its streaming business’ losses by $300 million during the October-December period.
That doesn't really sound like it backfired to me. They lost subscribers but made more money.
If you'd like to look up more about the origins of PIE, look up the Kurgan Hypothesis, which suggests that Proto-Indoeuropean originated on the steppes.
Basically everything we know about PIE, we know from looking at its descendants. If a word appears in multiple unrelated branches, it's probably from the common ancestor. Particularly if there's consistent sound changes on one or more branches.
For example, it seems that a lot of PIE words with a p morphed into f in germanic languages. So, given the English father, Dutch Vader, Old Saxon fadar, Latin pater, Sanskrit pitar, Old Persian pita, etc. we can figure out that father goes back to some original PIE word which was probably something like pəter.
Similarly, we see similar words for salmon both in Germanic and Slavic. And in the extinct Tocharian language, the word for fish in general was laks. Lox originating only 1500 years ago means that the Slavic and Tocharian would be a pretty strange coincidence.
The Italian word for earth is la terra, while in Spanish it's la tierra.
Does it make any sense to say that one language had it first? Both are directly from Latin terra.
English, German, Dutch, Swedish, etc. all descend from a common ancestor, Proto- Germanic. There's a lot of vocabulary they all inherited from it.
Yeah. Power plants are nowhere near 90% efficient.
It's worth emphasizing, though, that they're still way, way more efficient than car engines are.
Also, regenerative breaking saves a lot of energy. Basically, instead of using the motor to increase the cars speed, you use it as a generator to recharge the battery.