/freedu/ - Free Education

>>664

What are you primarily struggling with? Is it hardware or software related? Are you having difficulty using your operating system, a specific software, programming or just computing in general?

Try looking up computer-related articles on the Simple English Wikipedia for starters. There are countless manuals and tutorials on Youtube to help you understand how to use Windows or whatever operating system you prefer. From there you should read the documentation and learn key combination shortcuts for the basic programs you use. Programming is a step up though, I would recommend you begin with some basic scripting in Python, or even writing some web pages in HTML (W3schools is an excellent resource for stuff like HTML and Javascript).

If there is any specific terminology you are having trouble with feel free to list them.

I just passed my 901 for the A+ and I'm about to take the 902.

Any pdfs or videos in relation to certifications?

Excluding Professor Messer's free content.

>>32

Hey OP, can I get a sauce on that first image?

>>668

Here is the watered down version of computers. If you need any further details, feel free to search wikipedia, using any relevant terms that you need clarified.

Computers are machines that run on electricity. Just like a blender runs on electricity, so too do computers. The amount of electricity used is measured in Watts. A Watt is a measurement of work done (yes, physical work!)

Electricity is often understood in plumbing terms, because it is much easier for us to imagine water flowing through pipes, than it is to imagine spinning electrons and their magnetic fields. If you would like to get a good idea of the physics of electricity and some basic components, here are some useful animations:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLkyBCj4JhHt8DFH9QysGWm4h_DOxT93fb

Running on electricity (which you have a better understanding of now), these machines are special. What makes computers so special? Many machines can do 1 thing, like an automated saw that can cut 2cm x 2cm x 2cm cubes in half. Here, the machine has an input of a 2cm cube and an output of two rectangular boxes 1cm x 2cm x 2cm. Great, push a button and it cuts the cube. Sync it up with a conveyor belt, and you can add in another machine which does something else with the two boxes. Maybe the next machine can line them up so that the long ends are facing each other? The possibilities are endless. Think of all the different machines you see in How its Made. Wedges, wheels, screws. These are simple machines. Computers are on the other end of the machine spectrum. Computers are an example of abstract machines. Abstract machines can do simple math https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJQTFhkhwPA

The thing is, when you line enough of them up, they can do some pretty complex math and functions.

This is where you have modern, programmable computers. All using simple functions to read and write informPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>1911

Thats Squid Girl, nice post number by the way. John Browning was a cool dude

>>52

Anarchy in general belongs in the laughing stock tier.

>commies can't even keep their hands out of free education

Also ancom is even worse than ancap. Atleast ancap isn't an oxymoron.

>>1901

Ancap is an oxymoron, you moron. You can't have anarchy and capitalism. Ownership of capital is inherently hierarchical, those who own more capital than others are above those who own less.

thanks mate, into it aswell

Watch MIT 3.091 All 35 hours, as many times as you can.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPQ9a_xIqRg&list=PL9DC20069275AF97B

5 min example of how badass the Prof. Don Sadoway is. One of the best teachers of all time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFIifvd-ajk

Some stuff I like:

Big list with 1300 free online courses:

http://www.openculture.com/freeonlinecourses

Robert Paul Wolff's courses on Kant, Freud and Marx (professor goes on wonderful tangents):

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCS7aoxEiTRtuYjZQTsaAVqg/videos

Gregory Sandler's philosophy courses (fairly decent and thorough):

https://www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler/playlists

N.J. Wildberger's mathematics courses (idiosyncratic mathematics teacher that doesn't trust real numbers):

https://www.youtube.com/user/njwildberger/playlists

Tadashi Tokieda's introduction to Topology and Geometry (incredibly entertaining, you can watch it for fun):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXHHvoaSctc&list=PLTBqohhFNBE_09L0i-lf3fYXF5woAbrzJ

Robert Sapolsky's (Stanford University) course on Behavioral Biology (if you wanna know all about human nature):

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL848F2368C90DDC3D

Bartosz Milweski's courses on category theory for programmers (accessible introduction to some really abstract mathematics):

I: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8LbkfSSR58&list=PLbgaMIhjbmEnaH_LTkxLI7FMa2HsnawM_Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

http://www.noexcuselist.com/ - basic list of a few websites with free courses

https://janux.ou.edu/index.html - a uni website which has a few MOOCs

https://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm - MIT youtube has already been posted but here's this too

https://entrepreneurs.maqtoob.com/the-37-best-websites-to-learn-something-new-895e2cb0cad4 - old article but it has a few free websites in it (highbrow, etc)

https://imagine.microsoft.com/en-us/Account - can only use if you're a student at a uni somewhere

https://fsi-languages.yojik.eu/languages/oldfsi/index.html - languages

https://learndigital.withgoogle.com/digitalgarage-au - will probs steal all your data

https://teamtreehouse.com/library - coding

there's also fuckloads of videos on youtube on any range of topic…

Are we limited to pre-made courses available over the internet?

I'm currently studying a course centered on Nicholas Bourbaki - Elements of Mathematics. There are some topics it does not cover, and some, I believe, it covers only inadequately, so it is necessary to supplement that course with topics it does not adequately have. This includes Probability Theory, for which I have chosen Michel Loeve - Probability Theory, Category Theory, for which I have chosen Jaap van Oosten - Basic Category Theory and after that nLab, Logics, for which I am scouring the web for as many logics and Logical ideas as possible, and Computer Science for which I have chosen Donald Knuth - The Art Of Computer Programming, and perhaps as a prelude: Donald Knuth - Concrete Mathematics. Also, Nicholas Bourbaki - Elements of Mathematics does not have sufficient philosophical considerations, for which i have chosen Bertrand Russell - Principles of Mathematics, nor concrete examples, for which i have chosen to think through the given content, applying my own ideas, experiences, towards them for myself.

If anyone can recommend drills for each technique in the above, I'd be very grateful.

Also, I consider it insufficient to merely study the matter and practice the techniques. I think it necessary to also experience relevant works of art: films, music, poetry, paintings, theatre, you name it! Anything to reinforce the studied in fun and interesting ways. Sadly, the only way I see to find relevant artworks without bothering other people is to do a systematic orderly review of all art that has ever existed, but I'm fairly confident that that's impossible in my lifetime, so I'm always on the lookout for recommendations for edificational artworks.

For (almost) all your video downloading needs: youtube-dl https://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/ is a public-domain open-source video-downloasion command-line-interfaçate soft-ware. It works with many video-viewing sites.

>>1904

I'm also studying mathematics, thanks for the recommendations. Anyone else have suggestions for studying mathematics? I heard Category theory and especially Higher Category theory is very useful in organizing mathematics, but I haven't seen any course that is suitable for introductory students that doesn't have an excess of fluff. Oosten seems more like an outline than a course: very terse and not really expanding on any of the topics, though perhaps he intends us to work them out on our own.

Perhaps a Mathematics thread would be in order, seeing as everyone ought to know some Mathematics, because Mathematics tends to give a much deeper and much more thorough understanding of all applicable things than other subjects (except maybe philosophy).

Learning trumpet without a teacher is pretty hard cause you ain't gonna be able to tell if your embouchure is alright. It's possible to do, but it's a bitch especially when you reach higher register and need a solid embouchure.

>>1872

better off learning guitar by yourself. Wind instruments take too much esoteric knowledge to do entirely by yourself unless you're particularly gifted. It's possible to do it but it'll take a hell of a lot more dedication to get average at saxophone than pretty good at guitar

>>1882

if some part of the course is such that a student cannot successfully do that part of the course without supplement, then it is not a good course. if there aren't courses where embouchure is sufficiently described, then there is an opportunity for improvement of the courses. from my understanding of embouchure, it consists wholly of moving muscles in certain ways, therefore a small digression into anatomy, especially those systems that may effect the result of playing the instrument (e.g. muscular systems of the face, throat, stomach,,), at the beginning of the coursebook, where the basics would be, would be not out of place, especially if the book is on instruments where embouchure is important. with a knowledge of the various parts of the body that might have an effect on the result of playing, the student can then practice moving those parts of the body in various ways in various combinations, perhaps consulting patterns of motion described by other musicians for inspiration, to find what motions make what sounds, so that when you want to make some sound, you will know what motion can produce that sound.

there is a pernicious habit in the field of music, especially theory, though practice is also guilty of this, of not making thing explicit, and not descending into the principles of the theory. it's reminiscent of mathematics a couple of centuries ago, luckily the pushes to explicitude, indubitability, and foundationalism, have gotten mathematics to the level of simplicity and rigour it has thought itself to have had for millennia. this (intentional?) obfuscation leads people to believe that music theory is hard, but it's really not, it's just that it's not taught well. all you have to do is start with the (true) basics (not necessarily what they say are the basics.)

>>1905

Sure thing bro. Start with the basics that are described nowhere but your imagination. That would surely be better than starting with what already exists.

>>11

To learn Slovakian, you can learn it from here: https://slovake.eu/

Slovakian is like the multitool-language of slavic languages - and due to historic reasons very similar to Czech and Polish.

The website is completely free (sponsored by EU) and has courses ranging from A1 to B2 levels.

If anyone's still online/watching this over here,

Any resources for Finnish? I have a pdf of From Start to Finnish, but are there any good other resources?

>>1868

There's also http://deutsch.info from the same project-maker to learn German.

Also, they've created a page about European languages at http://lingvo.info

404 fix bump

Köszi Haruhi. Jó lenne egy magyar balos képtábla.

>>1891

/voros/

Sajnos OP linkje már nem működik. Sebaj, a Vatera meg az antikváriumok tele vannak ML könyvekkel, és bagóért vannak.

faggot

>>1850

That's like saying I need to learn the biology behind evolution, and study the book of Genesis, if I am to truly understand how life develops.

Not all ideas are equally good.

>>1851

Dude if you take that tone then you'll be as dumb as /pol/tards, even Chomsky understand Ayn Rand in full among other things like Friedmans theories. To simply disregard them is disingenuous and seems like a sinister thing authoritarian liberals do.

>>1851

A great deal of Marxism is based on classical economics. A lot of it is also a refutation of that. Marx writes a great deal about what classical economics gets wrong, and (understandably so), does not about write what it gets right (he spends enough time writing about what it gets wrong), - but what it gets right is important. If you won't read Friedman or Hayek, which honestly I can understand, you should still read Smith, the father of economics.

>>1859

I would argue that reading Smith and Ricardo are almost necessary reading if you want to seriously consider studying Capital at some point.

CORE is a solid free intro econ textbook. Used by UCL's econ BSc iirc.

http://core-econ.org

http://www.antiquepatternlibrary.org/

look for J. P. Thornton pattern making for mens clothes

Keen on for tailoring too, suggest something moar!

Search in the pirate Bay or the proxies.