Often times in areas I'm experienced in I will feel strongly that a certain decision is the way to go based on intuition or gut feel. I do think these intuitions are usually correct, but would be hard pressed to describe why. I even sometimes end up BSing something if I'm asked because I'm convinced there is a good reason, I just don't know exactly how to explain it right in the moment. I think the discussion here about the context does a lot to explain that phenomenon for me. The context is smarter than me, and the context collaborates with me without putting all the information in my head.
Of course, I could still benefit from practicing explaining the intuition...
"...arrested an amateur photographer for selling manually photoshopped pictures..."
Am I the only one who finds the phrase "manually photoshopped" in an article about the late 1800s to early 1900s amusingly anochronistic? How about "manually doctored" or even "altered"?
I'm currently working on a PhD dissertation part time, and this concept has been very helpful since I'm not working full days and therefore have more context switching. I end up drawing a lot of graphs and figures to think things through, so a big notebook of graph paper ends up working the best for me. Every couple of days or so I write out a list of the next few tasks as I currently see them, then think on paper to figure out how to implement the code for each task.
Funny thing is, writing it down helps it stick in my brain, so I need the write up less than I would if I didn't write it. That's got to be some kind of contrapositive of Murphy's law or something.
Sure, and even ideas that have been written about can be more precise and complete, perhaps by writing more about them, for example, so no one has fully formed ideas by this logic.
Doesn't SCP just give you the same number of characters, since there is no select nothing action? The paste replaces whatever is currently selected. That's what it looks like the C++ code in the article is doing to me. That's also how a quick real world test works for me. That's why you don't see any SCP in their solution not followed by another P.
Pie just fits in every category, hm? Pumpkin pie and key lime pie seem like they should go in the same category, at least. This whole page really annoyed my wife and led to a lively discussion, which was fun. :) The first six categories are solid.
I tested several open source keyboards last year looking for a way to get rid of the distracting gif search in gboard, and was also very disappointed and went back to gboard. After trying this one for just a couple minutes, this looks much more usable than those I tried last time. I don't use voice texting, and mostly just need decent swiping and prediction. I'm hoping this will meet those needs!
Thankfully my PhD advisor is fine with just using Git for collaboration on papers. The collaboration features of git (change tracking, commit messages, etc.) are super convenient since I'm already using them for code. (Doesn't apply so much with overleaf git integration since the commits are not human generated.) And no need to have internet access whenever you work on it.
I showed this to my two kids, and we all three enjoyed it. The zero knowledge proof portion didnt really click for me, but we liked the four color map theorem stuff. This led me to download some maps for my kids to attempt coloring on paper, and also got me wondering about how this holds or doesn't on non-euclidian spaces. Turns out the maximum is four colors on a sphere, but 7 colors on a torus! More details here: https://mathworld.wolfram.com/TorusColoring.html
Thanks for leading us down this mathematical rabbit hole today.
I bought it on recommendation from an earlier HN thread, and my 7-year-old, 8-year-old and I play it together. We're only about three hours into the game, but it has been very enjoyable. As a sibling comment says, the puzzles are often very funny to all three of us, and even the youngest of us is able to suggest and find solutions. There have been levels where the 7-year-old thought of the solution before I did.
Yeah, I guess the reason we're talking past each other here is I'm thinking of the tool; if I gave you a coin that would purchase half of any pie then the pie size is irrelevant. Put this tire on a different road and the absolute sound levels will change, but the sound difference with and without the treatment will not.
I mean, we’re talking half as loud. I would have thought to a layman it would be a lot more impressive to remove half of a loud sound than half of a quiet one. But I’m wrong on that one judging by your comment, which is fine. To a noise control engineer whether the sound is loud or quiet makes no difference to how impressive it is because these are linear systems (unless we are talking extremely loud e.g. >140dB). Good point on the obvious measurement location.
Since sound levels differ with distance and environment, absolute levels are not all that meaningful without a detailed explanation of their measurement setup. A 10dB reduction roughly corresponds to something sounding about half as loud to human perception.
Resonators like this are effectively changing the resonating properties of the tire so that the vibration of the tire isn't as effectively changed into sound. Tires have certain frequencies or tones that they amplify, and the resonators can remove some of that amplication by redirecting the energy into the resonators themselves. It's equivalent roughly to adding a second pendulum to the bottom of a swinging pendulum. The first pendulum doesnt swing as far because energy is transferred into the second pendulum. The first pendulum being the one that effectively radiates noise (the tire), the final effect is less radiated sound. Since this treatment controls noise at its source, it will reduce noise for all parties.
Source: I worked on a resonator-based noise control solution as part of my Masters degree.
Having been involved in peer reviewed publishing before, I wonder if this was an afterthought prompted by a peer reviewer's comments on the paper. Perhaps they quickly added this point just to get it to pass review. Sloppy, if so, but I've seen similar (though not as blatant) things happen.
I’ve not heard it described that way before; I would love to hear more of what you mean by this. The way I learned it in my upper level acoustics courses in college was image sources: hard surfaces are effectively mirrors for sound, so just like you see a copy of an object in an actual mirror, you hear a copy of the speaker coming as if from inside the wall. With three surfaces meeting in the corner, you effectively get 8 sound sources instead of just one. For low frequencies these virtual sources constructively interfere and make louder sound. Of course, this is just a more intuitive way of thinking of the effects of boundary conditions to a partial differential equation.
I picked up a preppy a couple of weeks ago. I got a fine nib, and after seeing how it writes I should have gotten extra fine, but the biggest issue I'm having is that it seems to want the pen held at a shallower angle than what works for me. If I fold my pinky and ring finger under in an uncomfortable position then I can get my grip close enough to the page that it consistently inks, but otherwise it isn't consistent, which felt frustrating rather than special. I ended up switching over to the $2 Zebra ball point pen that I bought at the same time, and have had a much better experience, including pen on paper dragging that feels just as smooth as the fountain pen.
I would like to have a good experience with the Preppy, but I don't know if this is just how it will be because I have large hands, or if I'm doing something wrong, or just got a defective pen. What is the pleasure that I should be looking for? Is there still hope I can experience it, perhaps with a different pen?
It has apparently been longer since I was a TA for an electronics class in college than I realized. I appear to have lost most of that knowledge. I would love a one-sentence explanation of what each of these circuits you put together are meant to demonstrate, if you're up for it.
I've got rubiks skills, but once I moved up past 3x3 the crossword clues were super opaque to me. Very fun, though, and I'm not above googling the clue to find hints. Finished one 5x5 so far, but those 15x15s are super intimidating!
My first playthrough I quickly got it to where the amplitude was minimal, so then I just dropped low frequency low amplitude sinusoids for a while until I got bored. The following tries didn't go so well, but I guess even if I don't get the amplitude low I could still use the low frequency sines trick. I think this could be nice as a potential teaching tool for how sinusoids and waves combine. Sort of along the lines of this small game I made when I was a TA for an intro to acoustics class in college: https://goatesheard.com/ncg
Fairly certain I played Dominos 2 back when it was in the yoyogames competition. Nice to see a little blast from the past! Makes me want to go dig my Game Maker games out of the pile of hard drives in my parents' basement.
Shortcat uses accessibility to provide this feature. Unfortunately the current state of Linux accessibility support is insufficient for this type of thing, from what I understand.
100% this. I have Reddit blocked on my laptop, and the browser blocked on my phone at certain times of day. Again, I can absolutely get around this, but it has disrupted the habit for me.
I'm in a job where I was taught modern C++ from the beginning, and I don't have the C89 familiarity that the author assumes here. Anyone aware of a good resource to learn C coming from a modern C++ background? I'm interested in learning it for hobby embedded systems projects.
Linear algebra in general for me was kind of one of these concepts. Aced my university linear algebra class with no idea what the heck I had learned. It didn't start to click for me until I started using it for tangible problems.
It's a generalization of B-splines, called U-splines (splines over Unstructured meshes). If anyone is interested in the math behind it on the level of a journal article, the last two links here go into the technology in detail: https://docs.coreform.com/latest/html/coreform-public/index....
(Disclaimer: I work for Coreform, developing U-splines)