Generally, yes. Journals expect that the research is new. With most research labs (at least in CS) making their work freely available on the internet, the major value of publication is peer review. In my area, double-blind review is the norm, meaning the reviewers and authors don't know who the other is. Thus it's not clear to the reviewers if the prior research is even yours.
The expectation is you cite the previous work to clearly indicate it is not new, and that your submission for review is mostly about new research. In some situations overlap is okay, e.g. there's a conference version and then a journal version with additional results. In that case you disclose in writing what the delta is to the editor (who knows your identity while the reviewers do not). This also means in the paper you have to treat the prior work as if it is by a different group to maintain double-blind review.
The point is to make it clear what is new research. Trying to get credit for the same research multiple times, and boost citation count, is dishonest to the expectations of the community. It's also a waste of time for reviewers (who volunteer) to review same research over and over again after deciding it's acceptable. Think of it like a OSS maintainer getting pull requests for trivial changes to the code just to boost the green squares on someone's GitHub profile. It's a drain on everyone else and doesn't benefit the project.
Not only that, they use the gravitational potential of the falls to store massive amounts of energy when there's a surplus. Way cheaper to hold or even pump the water back up to the reservoir at the top than build lithium batteries. So yeah, as a local, can confirm they turn Niagara Falls (partially) off at night. Thanks to the Falls and several nuclear plants on Lake Ontario, Upstate NY and Southern Ontario have some of the lowest carbon electricity in the countries. Quebec is even better with basically all of their power coming from hydro.
This book in particular is primarily about error correcting codes.
Take a message we want to communicate and add some additional data that allows recovering the message even if part of it is corrupted. The hard part is choosing what additional data to include to recover from enough corruption with small overhead and in a reasonable runtime.
These are used everywhere from WiFi to hard drives to QR codes to RAM chips -- the ECC in ECC RAM being "error correcting code" and now partially mandatory with DDR5.
It's the essence of coding theory, not necessarily what's essential for all CS students to know.
One of the authors is at my university and teaches from this book. It's a math heavy upper-undergrad elective course. A couple percent of our students take it, usually in their final year of a 4 year computer science program.
The couple students I know who've taken it did enjoy it. They were also people who liked proof based mathematics in general.
The expectation is you cite the previous work to clearly indicate it is not new, and that your submission for review is mostly about new research. In some situations overlap is okay, e.g. there's a conference version and then a journal version with additional results. In that case you disclose in writing what the delta is to the editor (who knows your identity while the reviewers do not). This also means in the paper you have to treat the prior work as if it is by a different group to maintain double-blind review.
The point is to make it clear what is new research. Trying to get credit for the same research multiple times, and boost citation count, is dishonest to the expectations of the community. It's also a waste of time for reviewers (who volunteer) to review same research over and over again after deciding it's acceptable. Think of it like a OSS maintainer getting pull requests for trivial changes to the code just to boost the green squares on someone's GitHub profile. It's a drain on everyone else and doesn't benefit the project.