Syntonicles

I understand the argument for it, but I can't make heads or tails of the implementation article discussing constraints. How do constraints help us at all? For context, I wrote a graph-based CSP-solver and I'm still completely lost.

I hit page-down 40 times and wasn't even halfway through. I feel like billing $1000 to skim the proposal.

Maybe. I've used ChatGPT for "therapy" a few times and I partly agree with you. A couple of times I had a terrible day and found myself even more frustrated after trying to vent to the AI because all it did was offer ideas and lists and elementary explanations of things I already knew.

Other times, it helped me to explore relationships in my life. In that way it worked a little bit like free-writing, but an interactive / guided exercise. It turns out that a little objectivity and reflection was all I needed.

Is it a substitute for a human? No. Then again, are you volunteering to listen to me complain? I don't want to abuse my limited friendships and I'm not going to pay someone.

My frustration was with the limitations of the AI, not the fact that it was a bot. If it remembered my past conversations, built a profile of my personality and preferences, and wasn't such a stick in the mud regarding policy then I suspect the companionship would be socially rewarding, at least to me.

Are you saying the ChatGPT model is only 4GB?

What a crazy coincidence for me. Only today I received a pack of resistors and capacitors in order to experiment on this very thing. I was trying to help my nephew with a basic electronics kit and we found the pot we added didn't have the linear characteristics we were hoping for. Rather than swap it out I was determined to understand where I went wrong.

If you had a choice between two seemingly all-knowing chatbots, and one of them kept trying to sell you things in the middle of your conversation, which one would you choose?

I know which I'd prefer to talk to.

When this happens to me I just delete it from my watch history and my suggestions are immediately amended.

From their accusation: there is clearly a long history of this happening in the context of this person driving. You've left out all of the history and context. You even left out your relationship to this person. This could be a friend, coworker, spouse or your child.

Your relationship to this person matters especially because their words might not be literal. "You're always criticizing my driving" might mean "You always criticize me" in general. Or it might mean "You don't trust my judgement". Or it might mean "You have financial control over my life and I'm just now at my breaking point."

Most importantly, I don't want to know the details and HN isn't the place for these threads. But if I were you I'd evaluate my entire relationship to this person rather than this one summer downtown drive.

I use projectile and perspective. Everything is integrated into my Ivy/Counsel and I have simple self documenting shortcuts for everything using General keybindings.

Until I set this up correctly the leftover buffers bothered me. Now it's part of my workflow.

I often have code from two projects side-by-side in split windows. Projectile restricts all of my actions to the appropriate project Autocomplete, code navigation, file search, fuzzy greps, everything uses the buffer's project as context.

With just two key presses I can close all buffers for any open project.

I'm on Windows but use WSL exclusively. It opens the frame seamlessly. I'm about to build 29 from source because my Ubuntu ppa doesn't have a prepackaged 29 build.

I personally believe it's a good thing for a developer to have an intimate relationship with the construction of their primary tooling. It feels right to me, even if it hurts adoption.

It was probably a typo, but just in case English is your second language: We tend to use "don't care for" or "didn't care for" in this context.

If you say "I didn't care for the way women were treated..", it expresses disapproval.

We use "don't/didn't care about" to mean exactly the opposite. "I didn't care about" means that it doesn't matter to you at all.

Agreed. This thread is filled with people who are confusing "consuming productivity content" with "actively being productive". It is one thing to discount reading blogs about time-tracking, efficiency and scheduling instead of implementing it in your daily life. It is quite another to discount the habits of productive people. To write those off en masse is to ignore the very real and obvious gradation of effectiveness we see in those around us.

There are two counter-points that are often dismissed. The first is that if you haven't encountered the concepts, you aren't likely to stumble upon them without searching. Learning to plan and organize your behavior is no different from learning the fundamentals of any other skill.

The second is precisely your point. Our thoughts and behaviors are driven by context. Given a person reading a blog about time-tracking and a person who-knows-where on an infinite social media scroll, who is more likely to close their browser and do whatever they feel is most important? I know who I would bet on.

I'm someone who really believes in what motivated the article - namely that humans naturally seek out safe and comfortable behaviors and minimize risk, that people are often stuck in local maxima due to either ignorance of what's available to them or fear of the necessary action. I think it is human nature.

The article is a bad over-extension of this, and misses the mark. It places a ridiculous value judgement where none is warranted.

My approach is a little different here. It's to seek out instances where you are avoiding discomfort within the lifestyle that you've chosen. Your examples are perfect. A lot of people will not fix their tractor, because they don't trust themselves with anything mechanical. For many people, having the courage to disassemble their PTO is a major stumbling block, and they never gain the self-confidence to tackle these sorts of things unless they take that first uncomfortable step. Farmers aren't born with know-how.

When taking care of your declining parent, you might start reflecting on years of lost quality time because of something left unaddressed between the two of you. Do you maintain a superficial relationship with your father until he dies, hoping that going through the motions is communication enough? Suppose you're not on speaking terms at all, and you hear he's unwell. Do you pick up the phone and call him after 10 years of silence? Are you willing to have one uncomfortable conversation, or will you maintain the status quo?

This is what the comfort zone is really about. It's growth in any context.

Will you please go into more detail about the people you worked with, and how they presented? What sorts of deficits and behaviors did you see in the "mild" cases?

Sounds like a good time to donate to sci-hub to cover attorney fees. They are able to accept several popular cryptocurrencies.

This person is using social media as a tool for self-development and improving their mental health. The way to work on anxiety is to learn to focus on, recognize and ultimately let go of idle thoughts.

Your solution may be healthy for someone who is experiencing burnout or whose anxiety stems from internet overload. Certainly taking time away from these things and living a simple and focused life helped me for several years. Given OP's level of anxiety in the face of the mundane, I suspect this advice taken in isolation would be insufficient at best and damaging at worst. A habit of avoiding idle thoughts leaves one unpracticed and unskilled at handling them.

Edit for OP:

I find that a habit of exercise helps to redirect that restless energy. After a 3-mile run, I feel strong and healthy and ready to focus on the tasks at hand. If you distrust this but don't have that habit in your life, then prove it to yourself with a 30 day habit of cardio. It's worth knowing.

Beyond that learning a meditation practice helped me immensely. I don't keep up with that as I should, but it's in my toolbox now and I use it as needed.

It's been years since I looked into this stuff. I remember a story about someone with locked-in syndrome using eye-blinks to communicate letter-by-letter, or with yes/no answers. I remember they purportedly wrote a book.

Was that also discredited? Is there any standing evidence of communication by the locked-in?

I've heard this "one year of experience 10 times" phrase before. It seems to mean different things in different contexts to different people. Can you explain what it means to you and the implications?

This is the workflow I set up for my team. It's also what I use in my own projects. Why the past tense? Did the industry move on from this? Did you?

I've been meaning to set up Roam since my org folder is getting unmanageable.

Before Emacs I abused a Tomboy "wiki" style journal - even there I could set up several Notebooks as entry points. Every time I typed a word that happened to be a title it would link.

Initially this was useful for discovering links between subjects but without a naming convention it became overwhelming.

Is that what you mean by leaking? Can you briefly explain these issue and how Obsidian solves it?

A 9 person exit is not at all unusual. We used to do a 10-way angle track at sunset every day. Larger formations are both possible and routine. As long as the pilot is aware of and can anticipate the weight shifting there's generally no issue at all.

You are right that there is a clear limit to the number of people allowed on the outside step set by the DZ. In the original video you can count the heads on climb-out and these jumpers are exceeding every guideline that I've been subject to. My formations adhere to five outside and one crouched, max - but do note that several bodies may follow the exit with as little delay as possible. We try to exit as a unit. I'm only a coach with ~500 jumps, by no means an authority.

This model plane in particular is less forgiving and the airspeed is high on jump run. As skydivers we are cautioned about the exits and take extra care to maintain a forward CoG. I have experience with aerodynamic modelling and private pilot training but won't speculate other than to say that structural integrity is not an issue. It's more like capsizing a boat than overloading a trailer hitch.

I was working on a similar project for nearly a year. I ran into trouble finding the correct fingerings and considered a very similar approach to the one you're taking - that is a simplified hand model with a cost-based heuristic.

My personal interest was more along the lines of acquiring statistical data from expert play. I'm supremely interested in this problem from a mathematical standpoint, but the data-set did not exist and I shelved the project as I'm a novice player.

I don't think the data-set would be very hard or very expensive to construct, given several experts and a program to generate note sequences. One could also sample from a large population of players, but then you have the bootstrap problem of attracting them before you offer enough value.

There are some very promising pathways for this developing if you're interested in the statistical approach. In any case I'd love to keep up with your project if you continue on.

About 15 years ago I got a job in IT with lots of ssh hops and server work. I approached it the same way I approached the Linux terminal. I made a rule that everything I typed from thereon out would be in Vi.

Recently I did the same with Emacs. I'm a big fan of learning through complete immersion.

My opinion is that my method is horrendously inefficient and arduous. There's a lot of room for deliberate practice.

Here's one: https://www.shortcutfoo.com/app/dojos/vim/learn

If you can improve on that method please do.

Well now they don't have to, because it really is nothing.

I encountered this for the first time just this week and it felt so awkward and out of place.

This is interesting work and I hope to see more. I'm not qualified to comment on the mathematical analysis but the setup seems legitimate and repeatable.

The discussion of the results leaves much to be desired. The nature of the task is highly synchronized, so it's not surprising to see "brain wave" synchronization that correlates with higher performance. The task also involves auditory signals and timing, which may influence the identified brain regions and activity.

I would like to see this independently verified, and validated across tasks that are primarily visual or proprioceptive. It would also be especially instructive to contrast this to the sense of flow state achieved in high-level competitive play, such as technical fighting games.

The inclusion of line numbers in the paper and the separation of relevant text from graphics is an effective way to disrupt flow of reading the paper. It's a shame I wasn't hooked up to an EEG.

I came to the comments looking for a project like this! I almost asked the XMonad maintainer above to consider it. I've been waiting so long...

Don't hold me to it since my math education is basically me fumbling through the internet for the past several years trying to piece things together, but I think this is the unmotivated approach you're talking about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US4Zr1WKD-8&list=PLCTMeyjMKR...

As others have stated trying to learn this abstractly first, before developing a concrete mathematical foundation, simply didn't work. I understood what the subject purported to do. I understood why I wanted to have a birds-eye view of subjects to come. The trouble is that the concepts didn't have enough to latch onto in my brain. I found myself frantically looking for examples in various subjects. In the end I realized my time was better spent in the weeds.

That sounds like a case of using the wrong tool for a job. That's like saying that Computer Aided Design is inelegant because it's hard to get the shading right on your life-drawings.

I wrote programs that tool arbitrarily long path lists and connected them with Bezier curves - not because they lend themselves to creating art but because I had constraints on the smoothness, curvature and number of inflection points of the compound path.

Can you explain what that means? I'm familiar with OpenAI Gym, I've been away from Github for a long time.

I long for the day when Manning runs out of those terrible, unrelated genetic portraits for their cover art. There is nothing I associate less with new technology and software than pictures of people from antiquity.