davisoneee

I think the parent's point is the exact opposite of what you have argued against. The author is saying they are afraid 'robots' will come for the fun stuff, rather than only being a tool for the menial labour.

Think of the recent generative AI artwork...rather than drawing, and creating, (some/most?) artists fear just being prompt-carvers. The fun of the art has been replaced with menial labour of crafting prompts.

I presume parent is implying that war doesn't really provide any benefit to the occupants of either nation, so by expanding NATO--or otherwise encouraging 'don't start a fucking war'--we get to keep the populace out of war.

War might benefit _some_ russians, or _some_ americans, or _some_ <whatever_nation>, but I doubt that on balance 'peace' is a worse situation for most people. So, if NATO can encourage peace (even through threat of force), that's overall a benefit

Right now, the ability for people to put out shit content is limited by human timescales.

AI algorithms can generate 'noise' at a much faster rate than people can, so it will be even harder to find the hidden gems.

That is a 2-3 year old link. It's not valid.

Speed adjustment is available for video podcasts on spotify desktop. I just tried it directly on a rogan podcast, and can use it on both linux and windows desktop.

A more generous interpretation would be that if you have a communal library, rather than everyone having their own individual libraries, it's easier to vet it for correctness. Rust takes the communal approach. The parent was suggesting that every company has an insular library approach. NIH.

Many people that go off the beaten track often fall into the same ditch.

I've not been using it overly long, but it seems to only accept plaintext, and basically generates lessons based on line-separated paragraphs (though don't quote me on that).

Yes, in the 'sources' tab, you can select 'in order' and it will work through sources in the order that you add them. You can also select 'difficult' or 'easy', and it will suggest lessons based on analysis of your previous performance (i.e. it will score the chunks compared to similar lessons you've completed in the past).

Incase it's of use, here's the layout I've ended up with after around a month's worth of tweaking (still tweaking it, but this is mostly stable in terms of the functionality I use). Some factors may not work for you depending on how small your hands are, but I can reach left-pinky 'caps lock' (escape, with arrow-y layer on hold) down to the furthest thumb key.

https://configure.zsa.io/moonlander/layouts/DN9zM/latest/5

I plan to put effort into maintaining qwerty. I can comfortably type qwerty with upwards of 100wpm and 99% accuracy (even right after doing a session on colemak). Right now, colemak is still in the 30-40 wpm stage, but only in last 2 or 3 days have been drilling it and got 10wpm jump.

I am a heavy user of vim, but recently purchased a ZSA moonlander keyboard so I have easy access to a layer with arrows. I usually search to nav or do line jump them w or f, so not having hjkl isn't an issue.

I have recently started trying to learn colemak[^3], and came across the great cross-platform tool Amphetype[^1].

You can load in whatever document you want as a source, and it'll randomly select chunks of whatever size you want (i.e. about 200 words-worth). It then gives you analysis of your performance, as well as breaking down what trigrams and words cause you the most trouble.

Combine this with ngram training to get the muscle memory of the most common chunks of english and you can really quickly improve your fluency [^2].

1: https://gitlab.com/franksh/amphetype

2: https://ranelpadon.github.io/ngram-type/

3: https://gnusenpai.github.io/colemakclub/

You need to memorise enough of the topic to know what to look up in a book.

You need to memorise enough of the topic that you can draw relationships between disparate elements.

Having content in your memory means you have the ability to potentially pull it up quicker, or to pull it up in a situation (such as a team meeting) where you don't have access to the book.

If you rely only on what's previously written, foregoing memorisation, you are limited to the relationships that other people have written down.

I think the problem is that a lot of PKM articles are about _the PKM_, rather than the knowledge captured. Endless articles about 'hammers and chisels' in abstract, and not about 'woodworking', or how to use a chisel to accomplish a certain task during woodworking.

However, it's rare that I actually see articles talking about WHAT they capture. They never put the PKM into context. So again a lot of these articles feel like 'just take notes, DUH!'...and yes that's mainly what it comes down to. But with blog post after blog post, there seems to be so much added 'ceremony' to note taking. If there wasn't so much ceremony, one blog post would likely do. Adding all this ceremony just feels like you (the amorphous 'you') are trying to complicate the process so that you can monetise the solution.

If some of these articles explained their thought process about capture and organisation in a real world context, rather than just the abstract notion of 'tags are good', 'organisation is good', 'notes let you follow up on stuff later!', they wouldn't seem so vacuous.

I generally am also quite interested in PKM, and have maintained a git repo of markdown for the best part of a decade, augmented with pinboard and goodnotes for bookmarks and handwriting respectively. I've tried various tools such as evernote, obsidian, physical notebooks, zettelkasten, personally hosted wikis, tiddlywiki, trello, onenote, zenodo, mendeley etc over the years, and even wrote my own bookmarking solutions and CLI tools.

Effective altruism is about the _effective_ part. Don't just donate to the charity or cause that _sounds_ good; look for where your money would provide the biggest impact.

If you want to save lives in general, look for the most _effective_ charity like that, which may be something like mosquito nets rather than a cancer research foundation. Don't just donate money to whatever is the most obvious charity advertised on television.

If you had a family member with cancer, look at which of N cancer foundations spend the money most effectively and donate there.

Often, altruism comes down to people giving money to the 'obvious' causes, which don't necessarily use the money effectively.

I remember watching the show when I was very young and loved the pure anarchy of it.

This documentary is a really great coverage of the young ones, including interviews with all the main cast. Not sure quite how much of it is in overlap with the article, but fun bit of background watching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4reFlDsnGM0

If it's an instance level ban, then you can vote with your feet by migrating to a new instance. You are not electing who goes on the list, but you are electing to follow certain lists implicitly by which instance you join.

With mastodon/fediverse, you have a choice of numerous different 'twitters', rather than being stuck with the global twitter decision.

Presumably with cyclists insurance, you get penalised (with higher premiums in the future) for someone else hitting you, rather than (hopefully) the other drivers' insurance taking the brunt of it. Moreso as cyclists aren't a large proportion of most cities (and I say this as a cyclist who commutes every day including city traffic, except when the road is fully icy).

Except that they don't really say rust was painful....just that there was one specific moment / aspect that they found tricky.

You are a wheelchair user, yes, but you don't really address the parent. The parent is saying that we should make society more accomodating, which you acknowledge with mention of restraint systems on public transport. I take it that's what they're asking, so you don't "need" a car, but have viable options everywhere.

...the adhesive has everything to do with this. If the adhesive was stronger, the curling would not have enough force to lift it off the wall. Post-its only exist because of their weak adhesive...and it's because their adhesive is weak that curling is an issue for them.

edit: by which I mean...if the adhesive was stronger, the post-its could curl and still stick to the wall. Post-its' soft adhesive lets them easily peel from each other, but also lets the minor force of a curled post-it unstick it from the wall.

I don't think it requires any translation, as if you just tilt the guitar neck back towards you, this view is the view you'd have of the keyboard. If you had the mirrored translation, you'd always need to mentally flip the chord unless you're playing in front of a mirror.

The only way I can think of to present it as you'd play it would be to implement the notes facing 'away' from you, and have a transparency effect like you're looking through the back of the neck (to make it clear we're talking guitar orientation). Otherwise, the articles' orientation is how you'd see the fretboard if you just tilted the neck towards yourself.

Further, editing your message to completely remove all trace of the original is highly disingenuous.

Even if there is strong concern for CIA and Mossad in this situation, do you think your snark does anything to improve the situation? Do you think it brings people towards, or pushes people away from your position? Or perhaps people just read your snark and think "im not going to even fucking pay attention to this guy"? Or is it just for your own shits and giggles?

There's been a gradual relaxing of adherance to the hijab in Iran for decades, and this year a woman was murdered because of her 'lax' hijab. You are entertaining the idea that this _could_ be an israeli plot, which you don't have evidence for, alongside the idea it's just "angry women". So yes, even _with_ the context, it sounds a lot like you're spouting conspiracy theories behind a veil of "but I'm just asking _'what if'_?"

Or, you know, provide and expect evidence, rather than conspiracy?

Try to improve the situation by providing some real data as to why _this_, or some other event, IS being driven by Mossad/CIA/whoever, rather than just throwing snark into an online chat.

The world doesn't benefit from people just throwing shit at each other. If you have evidence, educate the world. If you don't, useful actions would be to _look_ for evidence, not just promote antagonism.

Miriam Webster

Definition of conspiracy theory

: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators

You have no evidence that this is likely to be Israel. Just speculation. This is conspiracy theory by definition.

I think it's perfectly fine for different games to have different cultures...for people of game A to want more calculation, and game B more towards psychology. Suggesting it doesn't reflect well on chess' culture suggests that wanting psychology is _more_ right. It's not. It's just _different_.

Now whether chess really IS more about calculation these days is a difficult question to answer. It might just be that it values a different kind of calculation or skill than the past. Given the deep preparation necessary for someone to be a chess professional, I'm biased towards (micro-edit: believing that...) more calculation _is_ necessary for high level performance, and psychology is more gimmicky.

The difference is that poker isn't a game of complete information, chess is. This means that, technically, there is a _right_ answer in chess. With the ambiguity of poker, and other games, that leaves room for psychology to be more natural.

You get to new middlegame positions by playing the sub-optimal/weird moves in the opening that Magnus is suggesting. Otherwise, you get to a familiar middlegame and just grind out a draw.

The game _is_ more optimal now, with chess grandmasters now having deep opening preparation and understanding of positions. However, that results in a lot of draws. To win tournaments, world championships, and break ELO records (which are Magnus', and other GM's, goals), you need to win.

If 'perfect' play--that we're approaching with engine analysis--results in a draw, you need to do something non-optimal and unexpected in order to get your opponent out of their engine prep and into thinking mode.

Whether it's better or worse is a different argument. Some find it a bit 'dry' in that there are often less blunders, dazzling tactics, and sacrifices because both sides now know the optimal approach. It's much more of a war of attrition in high-level, long time-control games. As an aside, that's potentially why bullet and other such chess is so popular...there isn't time to deeply analyse, so it's intuition, challenging positions, blunders, and less 'standard' play.

Magnus Carlsen has himself commented a sentiment similar to the article , on the Lex Fridman podcast (although not the exact same terms, I think if you _try_ to give the article a favourable interpretation, you can understand what they're trying to say).

You need 'subterfuge and misdirection' in the sense that (as the world no-1 puts it), it's a semi-bluff...a weird/not-really-analysed position, but that will still end up in a draw if the opponent responds appropriately.

Lex: "Is there a sense in which it's ok to make sub-optimal moves?"

Magnus: "You HAVE to, because the best moves have been analysed to death, mostly."

https://youtu.be/0ZO28NtkwwQ?t=1450

I assume the parent is implying that commissioned work is 'socially influenced', and thus by your argument, 'not art'...you are creating a piece because someone else is paying you to, not because that particular piece is just something you want to create.