Doesn't this just come back to a flavor of superstition? Mine were imaginary enemies. I didn't have any imaginary friends, rather, monsters in closets and under the bed or in dark rooms but I clearly remember talking to one when I was 3 or 4 trying to be polite to it so it wouldn't drink my blood. It would also make more sense people have more imaginary enemies than friendly too right? We know that fear really hampers our intellectual faculties and I had learned through evolution we have confirmation bias in that regard as well.
Music is the only thing that frees my creativity and focus as when I'm lost in it I find I've solved the problem in no time at all because I don't realize the passage of time.
People willing to spend gobs of money on a workout place tend to put gobs of effort looking better. The rational behind their fitness may not be health driven in the first place, rather social as well as their choice of foods but afforded by their circumstance. Our true motivations are not always aligned with the ideal but are conveniently substituted to present a more superior version of ourselves and in this article, seems to be unconsciously so.
Oh, it sounds like this complaint stemmed from a person creating a one-time account use just for some rando site then got angry when google noticed it wasn't be used at all. The fallout of the arguments that follow may have merit but you should follow why the fuse was lit for context.
I will use this as its pretty and useful but just wondering is there a limit on the size of text... if the trend continues, it will be one character per 100vh.
At least Star Trek tries to answer this in some way even though bs but still cool for the effort, mainstream space is definitely dumbed down compared to that.
Interesting caveat about traveling close to the speed of light...if you run into hydrogen atoms, which is near 100% likely, your ship violently explodes because at very high speeds, there is a huge reaction on tiny matter collisions. I just learned this and it was like learning that sound doesn't travel in space when I was young and ruined many a starwars movie effects. I keep learning how ignorant and dumb I am the more I follow SpaceX and become curious about space.
The last part made the most sense about "the ship has sailed" in terms of "buy low sell high" but there's so many sectors to dominate that Tesla is still going for and has a distinct approach/advantage for domination. Where's "high"? idk
"The First" series on Hulu reminded me of this in terms of the glasses technology they use quite frequently but coupled nicely with voice and gestures. I was watching this yesterday then saw this thinking this could be just around the corner. Maybe Apple is doing something similar?
The good bit I get out of this is to provide value but in a way that isn't making you into a commodity. A way I do that is have some area of the business that I know very well that someone cannot just know with skills alone and then have some set of ownership of code that I created around this. Then repeat that in other areas to increase that value etc. You can also think of it as entrenchment...meaning if you don't know the point of what you are doing and don't have ideas on the roadmap and improvements etc., you probably are less important and can be replaced without much issue.
I know how to do most all of it but...there's a lot to do and keep up with that other people are always actively doing/researching in a huge community in a monumental way and have docs for it lying around that are quite comprehensive that allows a team to start working on well-tested code and methodologies together swimming in the same direction without huge debates or wacko decision making from a lone-wolf developer. To have some random first-guy on a team decide his/her own framework from scratch is the usual death knell or redo of the project and creates a bad environment of "my code is truth" type thing without docs or with some terrible ReadMe that's out of date. A mark of a project that is easier to work on (productive) has tons of StackOverflow related search results on the tech / stack / framework it's being used on and typically will have one of the giant tech companies actively investing in it.
I would contrast Jerri Ellsworth of Tilt 5 as the exact opposite of Rony Abovitz. She is low-key, tech smart and made a product quickly with a relatively low budget while having that magic feel to it in the AR world although in a limited, clever and practical way for table top gaming.
I thought of one more but it's less wordy and children can understand it. If you take a lego, with enough of them in a particular arrangement...you can create a wheel of sorts so it rolls. Legos don't roll unto themselves but are necessary parts to create the wheel-like behavior. Legos are boxy so they can't roll by themselves obviously and yet they can roll when put together in a certain way. This concept relates to nature in that atoms are building blocks to create properties of things in a particular arrangement. It's easier to understand because we have no magic bias surrounding legos or sense of purpose or importance in coming to that conclusion.
Intuitively we would think if an animal can move, meaning it has locomotion, it is NOT because it is intrinsic to all matter (i.e rocks), rather it is because there is some bio-mechanical reason for it. Scientist could figure out how things moved and the underlying cellular processes to obtain energy in order to do it. A proponent of this article then might say that all matter is in constant motion. Then we are not talking about the same things. We are talking about directed motion to obtain food or some goal for survival. Atoms are not alive so they don't need to survive and do not have goal-oriented motion. But then those same proponents would list off how electrons move according to laws that behave similar to living creatures etc. so its some intrinsic thing. You can't win with those people. They will always have a response framed in some narrow definition that does not have any basis for what we are thinking of what locomotion means. That's a long metaphor.
IMO it does show that restaurants have to downsize their footprint to not really be restaurants anymore as the costs are just too high for the slim margins. An idea would be to convert to smaller purposeful rented kitchens or even food trucks that are in zoned parking lot delivery pickup areas for app services to quickly go to and deliver to clients. I lean toward the food truck model as you have the best of both worlds where you have a gathering of food choices in-person when nearby and a way for delivery areas to be centralized and more efficient. In the end, the margins are too high from apps though but it does show a need to start changing how things are done.
I don't think it is directly. I was referring to the 1/3 comment but possibly it is related in how we are representing decimal numbers as irrational numbers. I had made another comment directly on that somewhere in this tree but it was more an intuitive one rather than a proof.
Is this problem simpler than we want it to be? Meaning 1/3 is a concept stating there is 1 part of 3 total. If you have 3 total parts, added then it is a whole. Trying to shoe-horn it into the decimal system, similarly to try to represent pie as a clean number into the decimal system etc. Isn't the issue representing the number in one for and another, not the actual logic of the issue? idk
The thing that helps me "understand" it is that the universe has finite sizes of things like the Planck length for example being a theoretical thing at the smallest distance I would imagine. Now imagine it going smaller than the Planck length (finite) in terms of the difference of .9 repeating and 1 since infinitely small differences can do that. Essentially there is no way to tell the difference between .9 repeating and 1 then from a practical or theoretical perspective of measurement. So not imagining infinity lets us at least imagine smaller than the smallest measurable thing.
My take away from hooks is that it is pushing toward making your components simpler. One of the gotchas of hooks is that it kind of "lies" in the way it looks. Take useRef or useState for example. These things are only defined one time even though the are declared in such a way to look like they are defined over and over again each render. They are actually key lookups under the hood. This was a main point of confusion for me initially and I'm sure I'll find out more that I assumed incorrectly as I go. Auto-magic sometimes is confusing to me.
relating to this...it makes me very curious about Neuralink or similar tech impact on humanity once that becomes more advanced. If it is true we have these specialized processing areas while our awareness is another specialized area, it would follow that all sorts of capabilities the new tech brings would simply be incorporated and assumed just as we assume our ability to remember a name or add numbers in our head. It will be a crazy future that I hope to see.
This feels right in terms how I experience things when I've had bad migraines and notice parts of my capability going away temporarily such as understanding speech or being able to read words or missing visual areas entirely. Things get jumbled or confused, all the while, I am aware of these things happening yet unable to control them. It feels like there are separate parts of me like modules that go offline but the one that is constant is the sense of "me" or the consciousness part. These episodes are few and far between but I am still thankful to have a different perspective of our bio-mechanical nature. It also makes me feel closer to my pets in the sense that awareness or consciousness doesn't correlate with cognitive ability or intellect but that is just my guess.