There is a whole bunch of evidence for Neuroplasticity (your brain rewiring itself due to input, behaviour changes and illness), so it is possible.
Have you actually not bothered to read about the feature or are you just trolling? The whole point is to avoid explicitly having to write closures or callback functions.
No, the features are actually completely different. The C# await doesn't block, it creates a continuation that will be called as a callback when the asynchronous task is complete (and the asynchronous task maybe a processing task, or it maybe I/O, or it maybe an event happening later on the same thread). This means that the current thread can continue processing (not block).
Not only that, current interest rates for US government debt over 5 years are at rates lower than inflation, so with 5 year refinancing they would actually be paying back less than they borrowed.
The word "battery" never appears in the headline, so maybe you didn't read that either.
Whatever you do, don't read comments on YouTube.
Drilling is one thing, but actual coal mining on campus? How would that even work?
I never said it was, a lot of the basics of set theory can be (and are) taught in elementary school.
Part of the reason I don't think an apprenticeship model works for teaching programming is that by its nature it is a scholarly profession. I don't mean that in the ivory tower way, I mean that programming is largely research based and requires an active mind. You need meta-skills of the kind that allow you to assess, filter and process a lot of information, but be able to focus in on and find the particular bits that are relevant to you. Doing an university degree often teaches this skill indirectly and some people develop it themselves though natural dedication (autodidacts). I don't think an apprenticeship style of learning gives people the time or inclination to do this. More practical experience and mentoring is definitely valuable, but it shouldn't be the sum total of a programming education.
I also think that there is also a defensive thinking mindset required to properly produce robust software that requires a certain level of formal knowledge as well as practical experience. Degrees at the moment don't necessarily teach this, but you do see a lot of software written without this knowledge and quite often it becomes obvious that it's only going to work *some* of the time and quite a lot of this software comes from people with a weak formal education (but not all of it).
Programmers might not know set theory in a formal sense, but as a programmer you pretty much have to use set theory in some way (even a boolean expression on integers expresses a set).
No, my argument would be that those students made a creative contribution to the piece. It's not some sort of zero sum game, it doesn't make Michelangelo's contribution any less creative. Just because other parts of developing software take creativity, it doesn't mean that programming does not.
Saying that about programming is like saying that painting is turning a concept into a picture, through obvious and necessary applications of the brush. The *goal* of programming is to turn requirements into code. Programming itself is the creative process of building that code; it's obviously creative, as my code to achieve a goal will be different to your code to achieve a goal (even if we start with the same design and architecture), because we think differently. Design and architecture are also creative, but they're done at a conceptual level. This isn't just my opinion, programming is legally recognized as a creative work, which is why source code has copyright.
They'll add the following to their marketing:
* Now shown in studies to control rodents and other pests!