Activist investors who want changes in business model or cost are extremely common. Just about every publicly traded company has to deal with one at some point.
I am building libraries for predicting which pronunciation of a homograph to use for in a text-to-speech application. E.g., when we go to synthesize "bass", should we use the pronunciation that rhymes with "mace" or "pass"?
He'd led a violent (albeit somewhat pathetic, and suppressed) attempt at a coup---that's why he was in jail. Rough comparison points in recent US history would be the domestic terrorists like McVeigh and Kaczynski, I suppose.
Those are domestic terrorists rather than that they would be attempting a coup. Exploding bombs, writing manifestos and killing random passers by are usually not good ingredients if you want to take over a government.
If anything Hitler was - like some present day politicians - an absolute master at identifying frustration in various strata of society and harnessing that frustration to propel himself to power.
While I agree the domestic terrorists are a poor example, Hitler's coup was envisioned to be a bloody one, particularly the Beer Hall Putsch. Hitler's actual ascent to the highest position of the Weimar Republic was mostly a matter of it's instability. They had come out of WWI disgraced, Schleicher had been too busy grabbing power from Papen, Hindenberg was dying... there were a volley of power shifts until the ball was finally passed to Hitler, whereby he promptly deflated it and had Hindenberg sign the Reichstag Fire Decree before the man gave up the ghost.
The race and class politics was strictly a proxy for the only thing Hitler ever really spoke about: power by all means.
Is there any evidence of Hitler's true, innermost intentions? Did he admit or was he even aware of his lust for power for power's own sake?
I know it's often a mix of both with demagogues, but I wonder how much he saw the fight against supposed enemies (Jews, Communists, Slavs) as a virtuous and net-positive goal vs. a means to an end.
I don't think you can follow any one thread or theme in Hitler's decision making like you can for his lust for power.
For example, he found himself in the National Socialist party for nearly no other reason than they welcomed him for his charisma and he saw a weak leadership he could exploit.
The exposed nationalist & socialist ideologies, economic principles & race discrimination were things he quickly pushed aside time and time again when he felt they didn't align with power gain.
Some things like socialist and economic principles were ignored more often than nationalism and race discrimination which centralised his power.
I don't think anyone could ever accuse Hitler of being an ideologue or zealot for any cause other than his personal interest.
Then again, listening to half of an audiobook on the matter isn't really the same thing as living or properly studying it, so kindly tell me what's what if you're in a better position to speculate.
> he found himself in the National Socialist party for nearly no other reason than they welcomed him for his charisma and he saw a weak leadership he could exploit.
It's incredible with what precision some of these sentences can be transplanted nearly a hundred years and be just as applicable. You wouldn't know if this was about the past or the present when taking that sentence out of context.
The stronger a country's political institutions the easier it then becomes to gain power by those means rather than through violent means. Violence works best in countries that have very little structure.
Unless you know something I don't, the SOTA in ASR is a hybrid system that still has all the complexity of the traditional generative model plus NNs on top.
As a professional linguist, I think that Farmer et al. are probably right and it's almost surely not a "writing system" at all. (This is a term of art with a very specific sense.)
It's about productivity. If it's purely pictographic or idiographic, it can only encode precisely what the symbols mean. When cuneiform, for instance, went from its early pictographic/ideographic stage to a rhyme, rebus and initial stage, it went from being just a "tagging" system to an actual writing system, where anything that could be said could be encoded.
I would not recommend NLTK (or its book) or Jurafsky & Martin, or Manning & Schuetze. All are insanely dated. Watch some Coursera lectures, check out a newer, non-academic, application-oriented text, or just build something.
This is not a question that really would be of much interest to most working linguists, who aren't really willing to make value judgments about language any more than chemists are to talk about their favorite molecules.
Constructed languages are also generally considered "mostly harmless" but not really an object of scientific inquiry.
If you're interested in languages, you may want what people who study languages for a living are interested in. Or you dive into conlanging...there's probably a subreddit for that.
