blackbrokkoli

Thank you for the feedback! Exercises including the actual script as answer or prompt should show up after a while - it's a balancing act between people who prefer actual Arabic and people being overwhelmed by it (:

That's good feedback, thank you!

Sorry about the dialect, personal circumstance haha

Actually, I may introduce a toggle for MSA/different dialects. Can't promise, but check back in a day ;)

Uh-oh, unintended political statement. Will look into it, thank you!

Thank you for the detailed feedback. I will look into this!

A fullscreen interface is an interesting idea, thank you!

I bit my teeth on how to make this fun on mobile and small screens especially (and then gave up)...copying something like gMaps more closely may just be the move.

Glad you like it! Implementing a sort of in-session Spaced Repetition was actually one of the main foci of the project :)

Not sure if some random guy on HN using it for side projects counts as keeping it alive, but I'm giving my best.

Hard agree, I wish they would move the islands a bit further apart!

No, you are absolutely right of course...I'm still figuring out how to get that working nicely...if you have any specific ideas for the UX of clicking the small islands feel free to share.

Thanks for both your comments, very valuable! I'll put it on the TODO.

Neumorphism is funny - people either love it or hate it. No in-between.

Thank you both for the input, definitely agree on the mobile UX.

Thank you for your feedback!

You should be able to pan the map as well, so you may get to Estonia after all ;)

Definitely forgot that not everyone has large laptop screens though, absolutely fair.

Certainly a way to look at it!

Zooming out a bit, you could also say he died because he churned the philosophy of using the aids and crutches of civilization to maximize his hedonistic well-being at all cost - which is maybe a more interesting and ambiguous point to discuss than whether maps are useful ;)

You know, I wanted to type out some sassy reply, but I keep failing to put my finger on what's romantic about it (even though I guess I "relate" to that position).

I don't think it's the suicide aspect, and - maybe besides the point - personally I don't think the guy was trying to die (not anymore or less than a freeclimber).

Maybe the Webster 1913 definition for "romantic" can help shed a light:

> Characterized by strangeness or variety; suggestive of adventure; suited to romance; wild; picturesque; -- applied to scenery; as, a romantic landscape.

Thank you!

Even though you said you don't have a good answer, you gave me lots of food for thought and stuff to check out.

Out of interest, if you would start a side project tomorrow, what tech would you use?

Thanks! Hadn't heard of Unpoly. Maybe Django is the way...

Well he most likely died due to poisoning himself with a misidentified plant that was only ever documented as dangerous in an ancient encyclopedia over 100 years old. Nothing romantic about it, but nothing screaming "no relevant skills", either.

Don't think this is the part people romanticize, I think it's the whole "I think careers are a 20th century invention and I don't think I want one" and the "Instead, I will walk into the wild" that does it for people.

Thank you, I feel like I am going insane here.

About 90% of stuff I ever worked does email things here or there, and I never had the desire for some hyper complex abstraction with 10 pages of documentation just to store email. I also never experienced a bug that would have been fixed by this.

I mean if the user is putting in some bullshit there, the basic validation of type="email" or pendant if I am not working in HTML is gonna tell him that and after that he does or does not get his verification email. Boom, problem solved along with other one's.

Need just the domain? Well I'll use a damn 1 liner function with split() or something for this hyper specific use case, don't encumber me with the probably faulty abstraction of email some library designer cooked up 8 years ago just for this?!

I do use types when they are actually convenient, but these types-are-the-best-everywhere-all-the-time articles keep failing to convince me...

What do you describe is true everywhere. Books were never a get-rich-quick-scheme. There are like seven bands in all of history that get significant revenue from anything other than live shows.

But what do you mean, no incentive to create?

The Tao Te Ching was reluctantly written after the author was begged by his pupils. Most Greek philosopher's teachings were only written down after their death because other people thought that's an important job. On The Origin Of Species is a book because that was just the normal way to communicate scientific findings in Darwin's time. Da Vinci saw some fat commissions in his life, but Mona Lisa certainly never brought him any money. In fact, out of my twenty favorite artists maybe two saw anything approaching fame in their lifetime.

Please, go to some random DeviantArt page or Spotify profile or GitHub repo with 3 views and tell me why it exists when the only reason for human creation is dollars and red carpets...what a sad perspective, really

Fair theoretical point.

Please do name one industry, niche or platform where copyright does actually prevent this from happening in any meaningful way today.

Well since you asked, I am about as far away from libertarian as you can be without making a point out of it.

That doesn't mean I must be in favor of every repressive innovation-stifling law that was ever cooked up.

You bring up the arts in another comment; ever considered why like half the people regarded as genuinely world-changing or geniuses (da Vinci, Galileo, Columbus, Machiavelli, Michelangelo) were born in the same two hundred years in the same region? Because the Italian renaissance was all about intense, free information-sharing! People freely visited each others work places and ruthlessly stole form each other, and it was accepted. Boom, you get a period of unparalleled human productivity.

And now you want to tell me that a set of weird laws who only ever benefited Disney and Elsevier are the only thing preventing humanity from ceasing to create awesome shit? Nah man, the masses will always continue creating, exactly as proven by the fact that they did in the last decades while getting continuously butt-fucked by the very laws you pretend are made to protect them...

Did they make a statement that they did not want to do that?

Because if not I would offer the very mundane explanation that the Copilot team probably just couldn't be bothered hitting up the other software teams and jumping through 3,046 internal red tape compliance steps to make their product 0.001% better (I am pretty sure the code base of all of GH dwarfs MS code base quite a lot)

I can't believe I am actually defending fucking Microsoft, but just want to say there isn't a conspiracy everwhere...

Well, we humans do it occasionally. You probably remember a few specific code snippets in your lang of choice because they kept annoying you/you love them/you wrote them a lot. So if I would put you in the exactly right situation, you would indeed reproduce code verbatim.

So does Copilot.

I am not trying to insinuate that Copilot works like a human, but it is literally the same situation.

Yes but this time it is about the is-even() function I have written in 2012 so they are right! /s

Snark aside, I do agree with you. For me the most surprising thing is really the amount of people siding with them on HN...

This is literally the "you wouldn't steal a car" meme.

To spell it out: No, this analogy does not hold. "Stealing" data does not deprive the owner of anything, so it should not be treated remotely the same as physical stealing (usually not even of potential revenue, as piracy studies show).

I follow you explanation but not your end statement.

What I think GP is getting at in my understanding is that all this OSS/licensing stuff was a cautious attempt to assert a radical idea into an atmosphere of extrem secrecy: That information wants to be free.

Now we have a fat cooperation making a public statement of putting the value of advancing humanity over the value of honoring weird old Victorian ideas of "intellectual property" - which is what we are always tried to do, no?

Not that there is nothing to criticize, but I think that's a good thing on the whole.

I am sorry for not bringing any kind of legal perspective here, but:

*Jesus Christ*, I hope I live long enough to see copyright die. Here we are at the cusp of a new paradigm of commanding computers to do stuff for us, right at the beginning of the first AI development which actually impresses me.

And we are fucking bickering about how we were cheated out of $0.00034 because our repo from 2015 might have been used for training.

I am also deeply disappointed in HackerNews; where is that deep hatred of patent trolls and smug satisfaction whenever something gets cracked or pirated now?

It is about the origin of the term/field.

You are right that the field of genetics is of course applicable to humans, with a lot more muddiness when it comes to the ethics - not the point.

The term "eugenics" describes a certain philosophy/set of ethics which directly grew out of racist narratives at worst and some very loose interpretations of the scientific methods two hundred years ago at best. Furthermore it can argued that the "field" of eugenics never really attempted to shed this, even as of today. Thus, calling eugenics pseudo-scientific is considered fair game. At least that's my understanding.

Could you provide a citation? I am asking because this conflicts (not overstating) with every single study I read on this general topic. To name a few:

* The only relevant factor for predicting chess skill at any level seems to be hours spent on deliberate practice, see for example: https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1106

* There is the decently famous Terman research (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Terman), who was convinced that he could predict future Nobel price winners, executives and wealthy people by IQ-testing them as a child. His approach basically did not work at all - to just name on aspect; he actually excluded two future Nobel-price winners from his group of future winners because their IQ was too low

* Students who are picked to fulfill minority quotas are just as likely to have successful law careers after graduating than their picked-by-intelligence colleagues (https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.2000.tb00967.x)

I could name many more, but it is not my intention to win an argument by wall-of-text here, I am genuinely interested in sources pointing into a different direction. Thank you for your time!

To answer your edit:

I think you are understating the difference this "more efficient time" makes. SRS outclasses every other approach we have for long-term memorization by several zeroes.

Bringing your car to the shop when the "check engine" light is on and bringing it into the shop after every single drive is superficially the same, but only one of them makes actual sense...

Not saying that your advice in any way wrong, but it's a bit sad that the only thing holding people back from such a productivity multiplier, innovation or even completely new way of coding is the inane interview process of this industry...