I'd definitely call that a success.
779 karma · joined July 16, 2009
I'd definitely call that a success.
However, I've been using it for just a month or so, and it's too early for me to form any conclusions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_energy
Here's a Wikipedia page on cost of energy per source (in LCOE) that has a table of sources for Germany. According to it, solar is 37-115 €/MWh, while CCGT (gas) is 78-100 €/MWh:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cost_of_electrici...
I fully support this policy, and I hope it gets implemented in more parks around the world.
For example, if you want to see if DogHeaven.com is available, search for "ogheave".
I respectfully disagree. This approach absolutely works for me. I usually start a big difficult task by removing trivial inconveniences (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/reitXJgJXFzKpdKyd/beware-tri...)
For example, when I'm about to write a spec, I first do the easy trivial stuff, such as creating and naming the document. Or, when I write a difficult email, I write a rough version of it in a blunt caveman language.
I'd keep this section intact.
Here are some quotes from that book. Please excuse my rough translation:
When the creator is larger than the task, he is OK -- he has no need to exercise his willpower or to spur himself.
When the creator is equal to the task (e.g. the shape of the chair he is designing causes him discomfort but he cannot figure out why exactly), the willpower wakes up and stands behind his back, expecting an assignment. If the creator has enough energy, the willpower just states, “here’s the task, no need to rush -- we’ll solve it, no need to worry”. But if the creator has low energy, the willpower rolls up the sleeves in order to gather up missing energy.
When the creator is smaller than the task, he’d better step aside, or the task will crush him.
If the creator’s energy is depleted, peace of mind is a godsend to him.
The ability to solve problems (the structure of the creator's soul) is not affected by any external conditions, nor by time. That’s why no matter how hard life tries to crush the creator, he cannot be crushed. To uplift him, there’s no need to pump him up with energy externally. All he needs to do is to muster up just a bit of strength to lift his eyelids -- and notice the task. Seeing the task is his salvation. Squash the smallest task -- swat! and it’s gone. No problem that the task was small: a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. The subsequent task will be easier for him -- because he’s already moving, he has some momentum. And so his energy level begins to rise.
But if he wastes his energy potential, he loses himself. No protection: he is vulnerable all around, and even if nobody is intending to hurt him, he sees malicious intentions in every word, gesture or action, however well-intentioned.
Our energy capacity increases in only two cases: 1. When our energy is expended during creative labor. 2. When our energy is expended during physical exercise, resulting in pleasant tiredness.
Means of increasing our energy potential: 1. Positive emotions. 2. Motion / movement. 3. Solving problems.
As for the rest, deal with issues in a sequential manner. Don't deal with multiple things at once. Be stubborn: pick one thing, kill it dead, move to another.
And consider adopting a GTD-like system. If you deal with information, you will benefit from having a clear distinction between actionable information (tasks) and non-actionable information (reference). See a task? Put in on a task list. Not a task? File it into notes and forget about it.
What's this number? Tests conducted per day? The number of DNA patterns known to the analyzer?
Some museums have amazing architecture and feel (The Foundation of Joan Miro in Barcelona is a great example) and having that feel represented by a proper walkable 3D environment would greatly enhance the experience.
I'm a bit concerned though that simulated museum visitors may break the immersion -- we haven't crossed the Uncanny Valley yet.
And even if they are, they aren't aware of log scale.
And I think I found a typo: thery is_open(int*) -> bool; -- should be "theory".
"All I can say is that I have never been so insulted (even by the likes of my moronic sister (who seems to delight in making me uncomfortable (and she is so good at it, knowing just how to push my buttons (which I think is a skill that all siblings possess to some extent (which I believe proves some sort of genetic link (despite the fact that I really enjoyed genetics in school (relating on so many levels to Gregor Mendel and his peas (but of course peas make me gag, since my throat swells when I eat them)))))))) as I was by someone suggesting that I have ADD."
I keep my journals in Workflowy, organized as follows: root folders for projects, subfolders for years, sub-subfolders for months, and the records at the bottom level.
It's not necessary to write daily. Write only if you have a message to your "future you" that could help him / her pick up the project after an interruption. Describe open problems, dilemmas you're facing, dead-ends you've encountered, decisions you've made, and next actions.
It's not necessary to write proper prose. Writing in caveman language is perfectly fine, as long as the future you can understand that.
All you need is very basic Haskell. You don't need functors, applicatives or monads. You only need simple functions, pattern matching, and maybe some parametric polymorphism to simplify the examples and make them more general:
fliplist :: [a] -> [a]
fliplist [] = []
fliplist (x:xs) = fliplist xs ++ [x]
l = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7]
f = fliplist l
main = print fThis reminds me of Meditations on Moloch, a great essay by Scott Alexander (https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/):
> Just as the course of a river is latent in a terrain even before the first rain falls on it – so the existence of Caesar’s Palace was latent in neurobiology, economics, and regulatory regimes even before it existed. The entrepreneur who built it was just filling in the ghostly lines with real concrete.
The ability to navigate the road freely -- trolley buses often have trouble circumnavigating badly parked cars in their way, sometimes causing the driver to get out to reattach the "prongs" to the wires.
Also, trams are somewhat prone to "tram jams" caused by one faulty streetcar blocking the railway. And they simply cannot get around a badly parked car.
Back in the eighties when I grew up, the world was much, much less stimulating than it is now. Bullies bullied weaker people, hit on girls and tortured animals just to get their dopamine fixes and to alleviate boredom.
Now all the potential bullies have smartphones full of apps. And the homescreen apps they have on their phones are the result of a decade of competitive evolution -- they are apex attention predators. As a result, their smartphones provide them with more than enough stimulation to keep them occupied all day: porn, dating, gossip, news, games, gambling.
As a result, I haven't been mugged in a decade (knock wood). There were a couple of tries, but I just disregarded them.
I say this is good.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5MW3DWbvcrztvKnMS/in-praise-...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/science-choice/20150...
Personally, in your example with the phone, I think that maximizing is a good strategy. My phone is a critical part of my work envronment, so I'm prepared to invest time and money when chosing and buying one -- that is, I'm a maximizer when it comes to buying phones.
On the other hand, when the cost of error is small and the timespan of possible negative consequences is short (e.g. mintes or hours), I'd satisfice. Examples: buying a bottle of water or a quick snack.
As for deciding when to stop, there is the Secretary Problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem), but using this strategy can be painful for maximizers.
I've been an Android user since forever but I had to switch to iPhone X to dogfood my app. I "switched without switching" -- my photos are still saved to Google Photos, my contacts are synched with Google Contacts, etc.
I'm perfectly fine after the switch. All my mobile workflows are intact. When it's time to switch back to Android, I'm sure I'll be able to switch without any major problems (except for one thing -- I'll likely miss the build quality of iPhone X).
Nowadays, most of the user-facing desktop programs have GUIs, so the 'pipe' operator that composes programs is the user himself. Users compose programs by saving files from one program and opening them in another. The data being 'piped' through such program composition is sort-of typed, with the file types (PNG, TXT, etc) being the types and the loading modules of the programs being 'runtime typecheckers' that reject files with invalid format.
On the first sight, GUIs prevent program composition by requiring the user to serve as the 'pipe'. However, if GUIs were reflections / manifestations of some rich typed data (expressible in some really powerful type system, such as that of Idris), one could imagine the possibility of directly composing the programs together, bypassing the GUI or file-saving stages.