The closest is, I believe, his "A Tour of C++", which is basically a "This is what the new [up to C++17] features are there for" book, although you wouldn't really know that from the title. Not exactly the same emphasis as the earlier book... but it's by Stroustrup and therefore worth reading regardless.

Ditto for computer owners. It's hard to use youtube-dl without a computer.

Reading this summary, I couldn't help but think of one of the best SF stories I've ever read: "Light of Other Days, by Bob Shaw: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... Thoroughly recommended. (I found a copy here: https://www8.physics.utoronto....). This is NOT the Arthur C. Clarke novel, "The Light of Other Days".

His book "Cycles of Time", ISBN 978-0307278463, covers this theory in more detail and in an accessible manner.

One could write several pages on what's wrong with that introductory sentence.

I shall restrict myself to one point: it is not a tenet of quantum theory (by which I think is meant "quantum mechanics") that "a particle [sic] can be in two places at once"; that is, rather, a tenet of one epistemological interpretation of quantum mechanics, albeit the one that is most commonly taught (and therefore learned).

There is at least one other interpretation, in fact in some ways a more powerful one in that it is ontological, that is based on quite a different model of what goes on "under the hood" of QM. I direct the interested reader to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., or the book "The Undivided Universe" by Bohm and Hiley. In Bohmian Mechanics, there is no collapse of the wave function, and particles have well-defined positions; in particular, they are not in a superposition of states. All the standard experimental results are reproduced by Bohmian Mechanics, just as in the interpretation that is most-commonly taught.

I regard it as a travesty of modern pedagogy of physics that students often are never exposed to the fact that while the experimental results are solid, the underlying model of what is going on to cause those results is merely (at best) an hypothesis. QM, in its current state, provides a wonderful set of rules for making the most accurate predictions ever; but it provides no explanation of why those rules are the correct ones or how the way that the universe operates can be the way it appears to be. At this point I resist the temptation to blather on about non-locality, or any of the other things wrong about the summary's introductory sentence.

Note that I am not commenting on the physics of the paper on which the summary is based: that appears to be paywalled.

We could have REAL ZOMBIES! YEAH!

:-)

I hear you. Going to be an interesting future, if we live.

Someone who broke their neck and was suffering from paralysis. You can control a chair or exoskeleton. People who can not hear today have cochlear implants, this is not all that different and might (eventually) work better. Or speak, or see. Other people who are disabled in various ways.

Web pages use SVG to render vector graphics. It uses the exact same imaging model as PDF and is implemented in all modern browsers. The web in general has taken a lot of lessons from Adobe because Warnock and Geshke, in the PostScript Red Book, got so much right about how to build an image model that many GUI developers are still learning today. If you start with a PDF, it should be possible to machine-translate it to SVG and present it as a web page.

PDF exists because it is trivial to generate it from the document renderer meant for printing. Although I have once in a while run into an improperly scaled PDF meant to be printed 8-up, I'm just not