Lecture 1B | MIT 6.001 Structure and Interpretation, 1986

I don't think it's possible to do any better than this: ▶ this video Admittedly, when I found my way to Sussman's course, I had already been programming for awhile, so the "magic" was less of Wow, I can write a computer program that does neat stuff! and more Wow, this makes everything I've been doing so much more clear and simple!

Gerald Sussman covers the Tower of Hanoi problem in the SICP lectures [1]. The thing I find fascinating about this solution is that it doesn't even require the rule that you can't place larger discs on smaller discs - it simply is never optimal to do so anyway. And the solution is so simple, I wonder if you could invent a game by first coming up with a solution and then seeing what it actually solves. [1] ▶ this video

"“To know a thing is to name it,” you advise. True names have power. The K language was invented by Ursula K. Le Guin, and is among the oldest and tersest forms of magic." Beautiful. I think the first time I learned the value of knowing the true names of things was here: ▶ this video before I studied it in depth reading Rothfuss.

"As any sorcerer will tell you, if you know the name of a spirit, you have power over it" -- Gerry Sussman, SICP * ▶ this video Many/most of the general population seem to think "propaganda" only happens to other people, somewhere else, under a dictatorship, in Russia or North Korea for example. In contrast, many/most think the TV/media outlets they watch/consume (and most closely identify with) are the real news -- the true/fair/balanced/accurate news -- while the "other news" channels are "extreme" (MSNBC vs FOX NEWS) or "fake" (now ascribed to CNN). It's supposed to be illegal for the USG to use propaganda against its own citizens. Curiously the "Lobbying Restriction" in the US tax code for IRS 501(c)(3) describes lobbying as "carrying on propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence legislation": link . Call it propaganda, lies, manipulation, population control, fake news, the matrix, whatever -- I think the significance here is the general population now has a name for it. It resonates. It's gone viral. And now that it's entered the general lexicon and has become a real, legitimate topic of conversation, people will begin to see what's been hiding in plain sight. As the idea propagates through the system and gains strength, the veil will lose power as the curtain fades away. The question to ask is: What happens next?

I don't know about "possible to express", but having learned Haskell, I see monoids everywhere. In the SICP lectures, when Sussman teaches the class the word "predicate", he mentions that knowing the names of these things is important because "As any sorcerer will tell you, if you know the name of a spirit, you have power over it".[1] If you only know C, you're unlikely to think in terms of map/filter/reduce. If you don't know Haskell, you're unlikely to think in terms of functors and monads. You may be vaguely aware of repeated patterns, but knowing you're looking at a monad gives you a lot more power to reason about it. [1] ▶ this video