388 karma · joined October 23, 2010
If I boot from kernel version 6.5, suspend works fine. Hold shift while your machine is booting and the grub menu will allow you to select a different kernel version.
The main downside for me (in general, not just for game programming) is the clunkiness in using data structures - maps especially. But the tradeoff seems worth it.
The submission charts section of the site was particularly useful to me. You find that some fighters are skilled at one specific submission and that sometimes their opponents are highly vulnerable to that particular submission.
A big issue I found when trying to market the site was that, the majority of bettors have no interest in looking at data, reviewing fights, or putting any time towards making informed bets. Most people prefer to place bets naively primarily for the sake of entertainment.
A website to help make informed bets on the UFC. It presents a lot of relevant data if you're serious about MMA sports betting.
I made this during the pandemic and tried to promote it through Reddit and Twitter, but it mostly fell flat and ran out of steam. I only scratched the surface of what I intended here. The data on the site is a bit outdated since neither I nor anyone has used it in a while.
A bit bummed that it never caught on within the MMA capping community, but I've felt I could always come back to it if the potential expressed itself.
1. Whenever you zoom out of the code-level, you lose granularity and thus flexibility and power.
2. In order to gain expressiveness, you can constrain the domain, but again you lose flexibility to implement what you want and how you want.
3. It's difficult to avoid losing the ability to express things in general ways whenever you switch to visual or physical representation of code.
4. A lot of the ideas you might have end up being more simply represented by code, and more easily manipulated by way of text and keyboard.
5. A lot of things end up just being superficial wrappers over code. Superficial in the sense that they only hide surface-level complexity (e.g., reducing the visual volume of large code blocks).
6. Catering interfaces to novices often hampers experts.
There seem to be a lot of trade-offs. I don't know if these are laws per se, but they seem difficult to break.
What interests me particularly are new ways to create general purpose programs using methods that more efficient and more intuitive, but it seems like a really difficult task bound by near-inescapable trade-offs.
It's not new, interesting, difficult, or complex. I don't have much opinion on whether it's actually good or not (I happily use modular CSS), but the subject keeps popping up over and over.
> We recommend using Static Generation (with and without data) whenever possible because your page can be built once and served by CDN, which makes it much faster than having a server render the page on every request.
If you need dynamic content, they recommend server-side rendering, and lastly client-side rendering only if the page is unaffected by SEO and requires a lot of in-page updates.
You can release a theme on themeforest without all the hubub, but you're competing with a lot of developers, and there's tons of mediocre stuff so you'll have to stand out in some way.
But one of my big pet peeves is when you clone a project and the installation says all you need to do is run make install or npm i, but in reality requires 20 google searches and an hour of banging your head to get the project running and even then you end up with 50 cryptic warning messages in your terminal so you don't even know if you did it correctly.
With a very simple webpack config you might lose out on optimizations but at least you can get just about anyone running a project locally and if things go awry you can generally pinpoint the problem to a specific line of configuration.
To give an example. The student is the customer, paying 30k a semester, yet if they go into the bursar to get some record corrected they are treated as if they are the hindrance in the system by way of long lines and apathetic clerks.
Another example: a student comes into class 10 minutes late each day because the class overlaps with his job. The professor or TA reprimands the student for essentially putting their needs first, despite the fact that the student is almost directly paying the professor's salary.
Another example: student falls asleep in class. Professor stops the class to embarrass the student.
In all these cases it's as if the professor is paying the student to be apart of the school and the obligation of performance is on the student.
In reality, the institutional responsibility of providing value should be on the professor and university. The individual responsibility of performance should be on the student. And yet the roles are the same as if a college were a public school, as if the professor and the school does not have a strong and direct responsibility to their customers/patrons. That it were the student's responsibility to validate the school and teacher.
Schools really are a "unique" form of business. The virus has uncovered what a lot of us knew all along; mainly that they don't provide the value even remotely close to what their price tag suggests. They perpetuate because their customers are essentially still children, people being routed in society by society, and have not had the experience of having any real, consequential responsibility in the world. People who don't need to perform any cost-benefit analysis because the decision is already made for them and the cost is usually hoisted onto someone else. Otherwise, few sane and independent people would willingly enter into a contract where you pay so much to be treated like an agent-less underling.
Like a lot of large organizations, universities exist so that they continue to exist. It's foolish to think that they have the interests of individuals in mind.
Or so at least that has been my regretful experience excitedly waiting to be spit out of high school to learn the depths of programming in a place that sincerely respects learning, and instead spending 4 years in yet another purgatory to the real world.
At least I never have to hear the words again is this going to be on the final?
There are ideas you can safely express if they fall on one side of the political spectrum and there are other ideas you have to be hush about even if they are completely reasonable.
If we construct society and organizations as if merit is not a highly important parameter in achievement, wealth, and success - and instead rely on cosmetics, as if this were inconsequential, then we'll see erosion in all factors which deem a nation or organization successful.
https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly93YWtpbmd1cC5saW...
Everyone agrees police brutality is a problem. Not all of us think attacking speech, undermining important institutions, and destroying people over opinions is the way forward.
No one here is against protest in general, the right to march, or the right to complain. A lot of us are against this particular protest which is ostensibly combating police brutality and racism, but manifests in undermining universities, attacking, controlling, and suppressing speech, and establishing doctrine based on anecdote and emotional reflex.
People like this come across by chance doctrine which appeal to a special part of themself, be it religious, political, or social doctrine. They hardily embrace the newfound doctrine and denounce others as having fundamentally the wrong framework of thinking. They come across like-minded people and make blanket statements against their detractors and constantly reformulate the perception of their ideology to be in the right.
In one sense, they believe themselves to be highly individualistic because they go against what they perceive to be the overall grain of society. This lends them conviction.
But in reality, their beliefs are not actually contrarian or minority beliefs, and these people would never had nurtured these beliefs or had the courage to actually publicly express them without the implicit support of some large chunk of society.
I believe this to be the reality today. So many people are deluded in thinking they are the small, under-represented, minority, oppressed group when they actually function as the oppressors to people who are sincerely independently-minded.
And when one who is independently-minded sees another who is deluded they are independently-minded, but in reality is aggressively-conventional, we cannot help but notice the hypocrisy.
YC is a business entity not a non-profit organization dedicated to wealth distribution. You're asking it to do a job outside its core responsibility (profit, survival). If you want to make the argument that YC should up it's funding, that argument has to establish itself as being strongly in the interest of YC, otherwise it doesn't make much sense.
There's nothing wrong with choosing to have a family and raising kids, but that is a choice. No matter what conditions are set, the person who makes the necessary tradeoffs is going to be in a better position to succeed and YC as a business entity can do nothing to level the field for people who are willing to go all-in versus people who prioritize a comfortable home life.
Again, startups are privilege that form out of the security of societal infrastructure and excess of wealth. Nowhere in society is it prescribed that everyone should be able to forego having a job and drain their savings to gamble at a chance at massive wealth. How is it reasonable that we've come to expect this as some sort of entitlement?
The top comment makes a dismissive remark about "rich white men," and YC being against inclusivity and diversity. The natural response to this is that YC is not racially exclusive, but that they exclude based on those who can assume risk. Yes, but white people are rich so they can consume risk and black people are poor, therefore YC is in reality discriminative against blacks. The simplification of this kind of argument and its decontextualization from reality should be self-evident. Unfortunately, it's emblematic of the kind of emotionally reflexive and broadly appealing arguments we see thrown around instead of practicing any form of intellectual sophistication or nuance. It's far easier to make a glib side-remark suggestive of racial privilege. It's even easier when this is politically and socially trendy, even expected, and the individual making the remarks is protected from backlash by the insulation of a particular ideology.
How are ideologies like systemic racism which inform its followers to view all encounters in the lens of racism, and that we should all act in accordance to the idea that racism is inherent in all of us, going to bring about net good change in society?
These ideas are absolutely backwards and will drive us backwards from the hard-fought progress of the past.
Racism is an issue, but it's improved drastically from the past. Entrenching the idea of racism into all encounters can only deepen the issue of racism. It erodes the idea of the individual, the American, and places racial identity foremost as to the quality of your personhood. If you only read some of what's been written as the foundational teachings of this movement - the origins of systemic racism, writings like White Fragility, the bare insanity is there to see - it has zero contact with reality. And these ideas are coming to life by humanities students and activists.
The value of the Evergreen story is that the pattern has emerged across the country and spread like a virus into higher education and soon into private corporations. Evergreen is a dying college now. No parent wants to send their child to an institution which places merit far below sexual or racial identity. Yet the administrators cling on, doubling-down on decisions representing an inverted ideology. The same thing, if the ideas of this movement are taken to their logical conclusion, will happen all across America in its knowledge centers.
Now a little older I realize what is actually meant by "knowledge is power." Knowledge is a lever. When you're young there's absolutely nothing you can do of any consequence because you live inside someone else's bounds. In a modern economy it's not enough to produce a bushel of corn a day to feed one person. To operate in the economy as anything more than a consumer requires levers in the form of skills, experience, education, and knowledge. Otherwise, you live off the fat of our capitalistic system as some unimportant facilitator, or entirely as a consumer.
Knowledge in the sciences and engineering effectively makes the individual more than what he's worth in just labor. You can effectively leverage our modern day infrastructure of virtually infinite water, electricity, materials, connectivity, and information to do more than what a person in the past could only accomplish with their hands and feet.
What is worthwhile in the humanities preferable to understanding the power of technology and being able to create objective value in society?
If you weave a sophisticated enough tale with enough novelty to draw attention, you can convince people of anything. If enough people buy into it, you can create a framework from it, no matter how far off course it is from basic intuition about human behavior.