davisoneee

Rote memorisation is essential. Not _all_ there is to achievement, but as you say the other parts are difficult to test.

Without memorisation ("Just google", as many comments seem to suggest), you are severely limited in what you can come up with, and how you can contribute.

If you don't have foundational knowledge (memory): 1) you don't know what to google; 2) within a discussion concepts will go over your head so you can't contribute; 3) you don't have the components to play around with and mix and match in your head to generate new ideas.

If your work is dreadfully formulaic, sure, you can probably get by with limited foundational knowledge and just searching. If your work in any way is knowledge work, then you need _knowledge_, not just access to a vast reference.

How do the candidates know _what_ to search? That's memorisation.

How do you get creativity, how are candidates better able to combine idea together? By forming each idea into a memory 'chunk' that can be handled as a single concept, and then working to combine these chunks.

If you hire people who can search google, then you get people who can search what is easily searchable, and who can create what has been previously posted online. If they somehow have 'internal' knowledge and capability, that's memory.

> Most cyclists think they can ride a bike and it's the cars.

The consequences of riding a bike badly are much lower. 10kg bike vs 1500kg car? ~14mph cyclist vs ~30mph+ car?

> I've never been in an accident that was my fault in my career as a driver, than now spans 3 decades.

That doesn't say _anything_ about whether your driving caused an adverse reaction from other road users. Merely that there was nothing severe enough to legally mark you as 'at fault'.

> people are people, people make mistakes, people who think cars are dangerous for bikes usually aren't aware how shitty as cyclists they are, I'm sure they are bad drivers too.

Cars _are_ dangerous. Cars cut across cyclists path (hence why the UK highway code received clarification/updates this year). Cars pass without enough space and clip cyclists (which you just seem to completely ignore and think it's "safe enough" and "the bloody safe-space demanding cyclists' fault").

> Riding is dangerous, do it at your own risk, but nobody is really trying to kill you, because you are not that important.

Riding, in general, isn't dangerous. For the average cyclist who is using it for commuting, and _maybe_ getting up to ~20kmh? Other than slick road surfaces from spilled oil or deep rain puddles or ice, there's not much that would cause random danger.

> have you noticed that in motor sports at 300km/h nobody dies while every year in professional bike competitions someone dies or injure himself badly? Because bikes are dangerous.

Road racing, where the racers are travelling in bunches of 40 cyclists at average speeds of 30mph, deliberately taking risks to try to win, is _nothing at all_ like typical road use for a commuting cyclist. You seem determined to strawman cyclists, and think that cyclists should just accept dangerous roads. You seem utterly unwilling to accept that car drivers can be a significant danger.

I accept that there can be bad cyclists. I shake my head if I see one jump a traffic light. How much of your perception of cyclists is just because you _expect_ car drivers to be bad, and whatever way they behave is just 'typical' so doesnt stand out to you...but when you see a cyclist it's obviously different, so much more memorable? In the UK there were more than 150,000 road traffic accidents in 2019. In Italy, around 190,000. That suggests to me there is a lot of bad driving.

My general position is that most road users (not just cars) are incredibly entitled and so we should figure out ways (such as the Netherlands' road design) that make everyone's life better, rather than just accepting things are shit and saying "suck it up and find a safe space".

edit: and to follow on from your significant edits/addendums

>> if a driver is driving so close that they couldn't react to a cyclist falling, they are a bad

> welcome to the reality.

So you are admitting that they are bad drivers, and thats just reality? Ok. I'm saying we should face reality and give ourselves space to fuck up with less consequence.

Again, you seem very confident in your _own_ abilities. I don't know them. I just know that very few drivers ever consider _themselves_ to be at fault. Overconfidence.

I am comfortable weaving in and out of busy traffic. I can hold 20mph+ comfortably. I ride both for commuting and recreation, and have done 40mph+ on my bike. That doesn't stop me being able to see that other drivers are bad, and even if I know what I'm doing, can hope for society to be better.

I ride daily through my country's largest city. I'm not scared. I don't need a 'safe space' (or your desire to start a culture war, as your provocative wording imples). I don't jump red lights. I pull over if the road is busy and fast and wave drivers to overtake if possible. I'm simply asking that, given we share the road, people should drive with some damn courtesy rather than entitlement?

Most people think they are good drivers and its "the others" that are bad, regularly driving and behaving in a way that leaves little to no contingency. You can't control the environment. You can't control other road users. So if you are 'squeezing' then you are reducing your contingency, making it more dangerous for you and everyone else, and leaving yourself much more susceptible to negative events. So yes, a bad driver.

if a driver has to 'squeeze past', they are a bad driver.

if a driver is driving so close that they couldn't react to a cyclist falling, they are a bad driver.

You should drive within safe limits. If you cannot brake in the distance between you and the car in front, you are _too close_. If you squeeze to overtake, you are too close. Potholes exist. Wind exists. In the UK, the (edit) guidance is that you should pass a cyclist with as much a gap as you would pass a car (1m). The suggestion is 1.5m at 30mph (~50kmh). In other words, you should basically be in the other lane, as you would be if overtaking a car.

YES, driving slowly can cause accidents as drivers are impatient, but in most roads, waiting 10s for a clear passing spot isnt going to drastically change your journey time

...and if more people cycle, that means less people are in vehicles, so you have _more_ space on the road and less congestion. cars are very space-inefficient

(edit: formatting)

Whether bankruptcy is necessary to capitalism is irrelevant to your point

> You must have a way of paying the debt back, or you wouldn't have been able to obtain the resource you did on a promise.

I am stating that some people _don't_ have a way of paying the debt back, and yet they have been loaned to, incurring debt, and thus ruined (as the parent you were originally replying to suggests)

The financial crash would like to have a word with you.

Many people gave 'resources' to people who couldn't afford the debt, because with many layers of obfuscation, and perverse incentives for mortgage providers, they made it look like many more people could afford it than actually could.

Further...payday loans...loan sharks...people get money for things they can't afford, and can't realistically pay back, all the time.

That's my entire point. if beginners think they need to do huge sessions, that can be intimidating for some.

This research is confirming "just put _some_ effort in consistently", which is basically what you said.

That itself is a _good_ thing. The people who most need exercise are the people who don't currently exercise.

If showing a small amount of regular effort is effective, compared to a single big effort, then that helps people get healthier.

Just to clarify, for those without access to the full document:

    Participants: 24 males, 12 females. 'Healthy'. No regular resistance training of the arms in the previous 6 months.

    1 day, 1 set, 6 reps   (8male, 4female)
    1 day, 5 sets, 6 reps   (9m, 3f)
    5 days, 1 set, 6 reps   (7m, 5f)

    duration: 4 weeks, then 3-7 day 'rest', then test

edit: formatting

You can follow the link to the actual journal article to get details, and then criticise based on information.

The protocol was 1 session of 5x6 reps (1d5s6r), versus 5 sessions of 1x6 (5d1s6r), with control 1d1s6r.

This is my autohotkey function, so that Windows gets the same functionality as OSX for cycling through instances of the same app (e.g. multiple firefox instances). Pass 0 or 1 to cycle all apps, or apps on the same desktop.

    !`::CycleCurrentApplication(0)
    !+`::CycleCurrentApplication(1)


    WhichMonitorAppIsOn(winId) {
        WinGetPos, cX, cY, cW, cH, ahk_id %winId%
        xMid := cX + (cW / 2)
        yMid := cY + (cH / 2)
        SysGet, nMons, MonitorCount
        Loop, % nMons
        {
            ; MsgBox %A_Index%
            SysGet, tmp, Monitor, %A_Index%
            withinWidth := (xMid > tmpLeft) && (xMid < tmpRight)
            ; MsgBox % tmpLeft . " -> " . tmpRight . "`t" . xMid
            if (withinWidth == 1)
                return %A_Index%
        }
    }


    CycleCurrentApplication(same_desktop_only) {
        WinGet, curID, ID, A
        curMon := WhichMonitorAppIsOn(curID)

        WinGetClass, ActiveClass, A
        WinGet, WinClassCount, Count, ahk_class %ActiveClass%
        IF WinClassCount = 1
            Return
        Else
            WinGet, List, List, % "ahk_class " ActiveClass
        Loop, % List
        {
            index := List - A_Index + 1
            WinGet, State, MinMax, % "ahk_id " List%index%
            WinGet, nextID, ID, % "ahk_id " List%index%
            nextMon := WhichMonitorAppIsOn(nextID)

            if (same_desktop_only > 0 && (curMon != nextMon))
                continue

            if (State != -1)  ; if window not minimised
            {
                WinID := List%index%
                break
            }
        }
        WinActivate, % "ahk_id " WinID
    }

I'm generally on the side that the side that this kind of stuff is generally nonsense, but I also think that you're being a bit narrow minded in your interpretation of "offensive tweets".

Can you honestly not think of any "offensive" tweets that you think would constitute harrassment and benefit from someone telling you to get your shit together? (edit: by which I mean police attention).

e.g. "I hope your {{family member}} gets {{offensive act}}'d"

Replace with favourite family member, and most offensive act you can think of.

"Opposite" being opposite groups, not opposite action...being left/'woke'/social tweeting about something like the catholic church, and getting arrested for it.

edit: Assuming the parent means that they think 'left' offensive tweets would equally dealt with by the Police.

I'm from the UK (Scotland) and I cant remember a 'pro left' offensive tweeter getting arrested, but then again the number of arrests for social media posts is pretty damn small in the first place, so not exactly something I think ANYONE can reliably draw inferences from.

Firefox plugin to remove distracting crap[2] such as 'related results' on search pages.

[2]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/youtube-recom...

For firefox users:

Extension [1] gives a little 'X' beside the channel name in home and search, that can be used to completely remove that channel from all future searches.

Similarly, remove a bunch of random distracting crap[2] such as 'related results'.

[1]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/youtube-clean...

[2]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/youtube-recom...

Your body doesn't want to waste away, so it tries to concerve energy. Whether this be aspects such as slightly reducing your metabolism, or by stopping various 'fidgety' behaviours that, while small, add up to burn calories during the day (think actions like bouncing your legs or moving your ankles). After exercise, you are more likely to just sit still. It can also divert resources away from your immune system in the short-ish term (e.g. colds spread easily through the Tour De France peloton, which partly is due to close proximity for ours at a time, but is also just people being worn down and more vulnerable when working out heavily for a prolonged period).

Exercise CAN lead to weight loss (I used to weigh ~115kg/250lb/18st, now weigh 74kg/160lb/11.5st ...mostly lost over 2 years), but as the old saying goes "You can't out-run a bad diet". It's much easier to eat 500 (k)calories than it is to burn 500 cal.

As for exercise-induced hunger, yes some people don't feel hungry 'after' exercise...but e.g. if you exercise mid-day, do you add more to the following meals (e.g. evening, or more snacking?), adding more calories overall?

Note: I found weight loss 'simple', as I find it very easy to follow a repetitive diet, so while calorie counting has flaws with the inaccuracy of estimates, calorie counting works IF YOU USE IT RIGHT. I at least knew if I eat roughly the same breakfasts and lunches, it's much easier to identify dietary habit changes or volume reductions if I wasn't achieving weight loss.

From reading this and similar articles to this, I think it's a psychological 'trick' to basically convince your brain that "this is being dealt with".

It's basically very similar to mindfulness, but this is giving a specific structure of telling you to note your emotions with "just...".

I interpreted it more that, in domains where correctness is vital (rather than "good enough"), you want more than one implementation no matter what languages you use.

Maybe that's not what parent was going for, but I think it's like the reproducible/replicable difference in research... can you use the author's code and data, getting the same result... can you use the author's algorithm/pseudocode and data, and get the same result... can you use the author's algorithm/code and different data, and get an _equivalent_ result?

No, they mean that they control for 'career length' ... e.g. an academic with 5 years of history is likely to have a better score than one with 2 years of history.

So they effectively compare women-with-1-year vs men-with-1-year, etc. etc, rather than 'women with h-index 5' vs 'men with h-index 5'

edit: should be "Women with h-index of X after Y years" rather than just "Women with h-index of X" (e.g. they control for Y years' publishing between men and women, assuming that time-in-academia is correlated with h-index. Quick glance at the paper suggests that time-in-academia has R2 of 0.62 with h-index)

I was not suggesting it's only linemen. I think my point still stands about NFL being all about 'set plays'. NFL is all "set up, set up, set up, RUN, TACKLE, STOP", whereas rugby is more "run run tackle run tackle run tackle stop".

Combine that with the fact when a Rugby player makes an extended run, they aren't often tackled directly head or side-on, it's more perhaps an "anchor" tackle from the back to pull them down. In american football, the safeties and deep players have more opportunity to get head-on with a receiver while the ball is in flight, while a rugby full-back having to watch and run horizontally while the player is running means they are less likely to be directly head-on.

Further combine that with the fact that Rugby governing bodies have penalised 'high tackles', and the rate of CTE drops significalty.

I don't think that example is quite so obvious.

American Football is all about set plays. You line up and then charge at each other, meaning you have two lines effectively charging at each other and can focus all your effort on this one effort.

Rugby is much more fluid, so the amount of direct head-on-head collisions is much lower, and the distance someone typically runs before tackling someone is much lower as the 'engagements' are more frequent.

American Football is like going from 0-60mph every 10 minutes, whereas rugby is about sitting at 30mph constantly.

I'll start by saying that I greatly prefer 0-based, and have used but 0- and 1-based indexing, but the choice is largely arbitrary.

0 makes sense as the '0-th offset' when thinking from a pointer perspective, but I often find when teaching, that 1-based comes more naturally for many students (the 'first' item).

You mention mathematical or scientific work...but I often/mainly see enumerations (such as weights x_1, x_2, ... x_n or SUM 1 to N) start with 1, so for these 1-based can be a more natural/direct translation of mathematical notation to code.

It's theory, not law, and is in large part cultural and contextual. Basically, the motifs that we are familiar with have a certain notion of consonance and dissonance...consonance being notes that sound 'nice' together (due in part to overlapping harmonics reinforcing the sound), and dissonance being notes that sound a little 'off' or 'tense' (harmonics that don't overlap, so you get a 'beating' effect as the harmonics go in and out of phase).

Note 'resolution' is basically going from dissonance to consonance, providing a pleasing sense of stability.

What is considered consonant and dissonant can change with time and culture, so it's not a completely solid relationship, but overall a general pattern (like the notion of 'Major' being happy and 'minor' being sad is not a universal association).

if you type check, then it ensures that only a 'second' can be passed to the function. This requires you to either create a second, or explicitly cast to one, making it clear what unit a function requires.

As per the article, if you dont have proper names and just an 'int', that int can represent any scale of time...seconds, days, whatever.

In python youd need something like mypy, but in rust you could have the compiler ensure you are passing the right types.

The point isn't that you _can_ take on larger things, it's that it can be beneficial to celebrate your learning no matter what size it is (from your own perspective).

You may find it conventional wisdom, but I often find it rare for people to celebrate small achievements. They just wait for the final payoff and don't feel like any intermediate step is 'enough'.

I wouldn't be so harsh on the author, as to accuse them of humblebragging. What counts as 'tiny' depends entirely on where you are in a learning journey. What is 'tiny' for someone with 5 years experience is 'huge' for someone new.

As shown by fairly regular posts on imposter syndrome, we can all identify our own failings, so regularly think we don't know enough. We're mostly all seeking progress, so this is a tiny step, for her, based on where she was previously.

Vim has the concept of <cword> and <cWord> (you can :h <cword> these for more info), which are basically the things that vim will jump across when you press 'w' or 'W'.

You can combine this with grep and the location list to find symbol usage across multiple files.

    nnoremap <leader>g :grep <cword><CR>

You can then use :cnext and :cprev (or focusing the window and selecting an entry) to navigate between them.

As others have stated, you can also use ctags (plugins like https://github.com/ludovicchabant/vim-gutentags are useful for refreshing tags in a project), but for some languages you may need to add a tag definition (e.g. for something like rust or zig). For older languages like C you should be fine.

The same way some people on cars don't give a shit about rules. Because people are selfish.

The question is, how much are these people outliers? How much of it is you remembering and inflating the few bad situations, and forgetting the uneventful interactions? Compare this to how often people do shit in (much more dangerous) cars, that we just take for granted as regular road behaviour.