I totally agree with you (well except for your last paragraph.)! I used to work with C/C++, and switched to working mostly with R (interpreted). Working with an interpreted language makes you lazy. You write an algorithm, and try to make it work by trial and error, because you think that it's almost there. (Just like in the binary search example he showed). But that's the wrong approach. You don't want your program to work, you want to work correctly. You can never make sure it works correctly by trial and error. You have to take a minute or an hour, think about what the code does, and why this unexpected behavior happens. When compiling takes 10 minutes, you sit and think before trying. When it is instantaneous I get lured by the trial and error approach.
Another problem is that to invent a new algorithm you have to think. You have to understand what an algorithm does, how it can be improved.

But a lot of his ideas are cool, too. In some cases (a debugger for example) immediate feedback is great.

It is because every vaccination has a small chance to fail. If there are enough un-vaccinated individuals, an epidemic will spread, and "check" the vaccination status of each and every child.

You read this part, right?

The Henan provincial government declared that 100,000 vocational and university students would be sent on three-month internships at Foxconn’s Shenzhen plants.

At one vocational school in Zhengzhou, wrote Hu Yinan, students were informed of the government’s requirement after the summer semester had begun, and that “all those who refuse would have to drop out.”

The point is that the river downstream from where you pump the water to the plant has less water.
When a city pumps the water from a river, the water also ends up eventually in the clouds, but that doesn't fill the river downstream from the pump.
Maybe it is because most rain falls in the ocean... but even if all rain ended up back in the same river, downstream of the pump you'd have less water than without any pump.

Actually it is quite easy to prove that there is a god.

Maybe god doesn't exist in our universe, but you have to agree that among all possible universes there is one in which there is a god.
Therefore, there is a god.

It depends on what your definition of is is.

Because one of your secrets is how many secrets you have.

Who said "I don't like any of your secrets, but I will fight to the death for your right to have them" ?

Once I have the only copy of some work, then even if I don't own the copyright, I can control the right to copy. For example, not letting anyone copy it.

For old books, the library of congress should have a copy, and as long as they don't try to make money of their monopoly, all should be ok.

No, I don't think I'm wrong. At least not in this point. "public domain" is a term that defines what happens to work when it isn't under copyright
"Works are in the public domain if they are not covered by intellectual property rights at all, if the intellectual property rights have expired, or if the intellectual property rights are forfeited" (thus sayeth the all-knowing wikipedia). So, before government granted anyone the right to own the copyright, everything was in the public domain. So, the exchange isn't "I give you copyright, you put it in the public domain", because it is already in the public domain before these laws were invented. Instead it is "I give you copyright for a limited time, you create the work and distribute it"

Here I agree (well, to some of what you said). "The people/elected government" made a contract with Walt Disney that he'd make cute movies about a mouse and make money distributing it for 56 years (28+28). But then, when the 56 years were over, the property of the people wasn't returned to them. Instead a new contract was made between the Disney company and politicians, that they will allow the company to keep holding what isn't hers, and in exchange the company will donate funds to the politicians pockets.

Bah! None of the commenters got what I wanted to say, which means I wasn't clear.

When you don't give someone a right to own a copyright, but they still want to control that right, they put the original work under lock and key so that no one has access to it, and thus they do control the right to copy. "If you wana copy, you pay a zillion somethings, and if you allow anyone else to copy from you, you know what will happen to you..."

So you are right that the government gives the copyright to the creator so that for a limited time she can gain some money from the work. But it isn't just in order for the artist to make money. Why would the government care so much for someone to make money? The idea is to allow the artist to make money so that she'll distribute her work for others to enjoy it, instead of just showing it to her friends. And, of course to give an incentive to create more works.

So, when (and if) the work goes into public domain, you have to make sure that there are available copies for everybody to copy from, otherwise the owner will restrict access to their exclusive physical copies.

I bet that wasn't clear either.

Then why are classical scores under copyright? Why do we need musopen.org?

The benefit of giving someone the copyright is so that they can distribute copies to everybody (for a cost, of course, if they so desire), without fear that it might be copied. Whereas if someone has the only copy, but can not get a copyright, then they will prevent anyone from obtaining the document. So, even if something is in the public domain, you don't automatically get a right to have access to the work in order to copy it.

Protection from access can by via lock (royal society), or can be attempted by trying to give you access only if you sign some agreement (JSTOR).
I think also under some conditions, the original work is under public domain, but a derivative (say retranslation, or new photo, or some such) gets a new copyright.

So, it isn't just important that the a work is in the public domain, but that many people actually have copies of it.

I don't get the math....

Is it a score (20) of 8k by 8k projectors, or a score of projectors, totaling 8k by 8k.
And how exactly do you divide 8k x 8k by 20?
8k / 4 = 2k, 8k / 5 = 1.6k, so they have projectors that have a resolution of 2000 x 1600. Impressive if right - vs 1920x1080 projectors.