irutirw222

Standards of rigor evolve with time and the level of rigor in the Elements is abysmal compared to today.

I agree that for anyone wanting to improve "logical thinking" these books are a good start. In particular the last one is recommended, if you want to start having doubts about logic itself and the limits of logical reasoning ;)

Then you, as Moicanu below, didn't understood my point: You learn less from the Elements than from later, curated sources. Analogously, no one would advocate reading Newton's Principia to "understand where we came from". You would first learn the theory (geometry resp physics) with up-to-date sources, then read a commentary of the original (which is often longer than the original), and only then you'd be able to get something out of reading a translation of the original.

Thus, by reading the original works you will confuse yourself with the obscure notation you will encounter, semi-circular arguments and other problems (both the Elements and the Principia are riddled with problems), which actually have prompted many many scholarly works commenting and fixing these.

I'm somewhat late to the game, but first of all, congrats not just for being bild and trying to shake up the state of fin-ed apps, but also for the excellent job of communicating that you are doing here.

I have lightly researched David Pronk you provides you with the actual financial content, and he himself claims on his website he is not a financial advisor. While I don't mean to discredit him in any way and don't want to imply his advice is bad (it seams reasonable enough for someone like me who doesn't know too much about finance), I am still wondering why you didn't also hire a professional to audit what Daniel has written? There are various certificates within the finance industry and it would increase my trust in our offering if I knew that a professional with at least some experience and/or certificats has vetted it.

I can't comment on the compsci books (they do seem interesting), but I can comment on the mathematical ones where I have expertise:

- Using Euclid is manifestly a really bad idea, since his way of formalizing geometry is not the sharpest. Mathematical logic has developed since Euclid published his book thousands of years ago and Euclidean geometry has been re-formalized a number of times to really flesh out the theory behind it (where the word theory is a precisely defined mathematical word), the most well known being oerhaps the one by Hilbert (still 100 years old).

- Motivating Spivak with "the most important thing to learn is the method. That is, to develop a method for thinking, based on demonstration following a fixed and known set of starting-points or axioms ...". This can be actually said of any mathematical theory (here I use the word 'theory' in its colloquial meaning). Studying calculus in particular makes little sens for compsci. Rather, graph theory or abstract algebra might be more worthwhile to learn - basically any subject that touches theoretical computer science significantly.

This is a good point. Probably most people are not aware of the country of origin of most of the tech products (resp forna given product, how many important, modular subparts come from Chinese companies).

It would be highly interesting if there would be a website where you could type in the name of a product (e.g. sime Cisco) router and it would give you a detailed decomposition of where and by whom is parts where made. Something like (highly simplified) : - CPU design: Company X - CPU manufacturing: Company - RAM design and manufacturing: Company Z - Overall remaining logic: Cisco

The problem I have with this post, is that it's assuming erroneously the "eternal development" mindset. Once a software has reached maturity, beaides (very rare) security fixes there is not much that needs to be done to it. Is anyone seeing LaTeX receiving feature updates all the time? Or grep or vim in need of continuous updates? No! And MSO, which was mentioned here multiple times, also has reached maturity decades ago. So the "dev needs to be payed" argument is wrong. Correct is: "while the software is not yet mature enough, dev needs to be payed". The problem with predatory subscription is that they usually kick in for mature software, when there is justification any more for paying fictitious work (perhaps that's why MS change the UI every few years, because hey, new UI lurea gullible customera while also making us look as if we actually do some programming here).