I’ve built two RE 303s and 1 Dinsync Gilbert and not really have a clue how they worked. It’s just been paint by numbers. Hoping to actually understand what’s going on in the next few months.
This guy Moritz Klein has a YouTube channel explaining the wizardry behind analog synths:
I’ve watched the VCO one and it helped in my understanding but I still need to breadboard it to fully grasp it.
He has a collaboration with Erica synths that not only results in a cool euro rack synth but also provides a explanatory manual. This coupled with the YouTube videos I think will help in my understanding of circuitry.
> “So even though there are breakthrough infections with vaccinated people, almost always the people are asymptomatic and the level of virus is so low it makes it extremely unlikely — not impossible but very, very low likelihood — that they’re going to transmit it,” Fauci said.
That’s amazing. I’m only a Software engineer for a year now but I don’t think I would have managed to learn programming without college forcing me. I love programming but it took a while, and I know how lazy I am.
Not the same. A single tweet may need to be distributed to 50 million followers. I’m not a distributed database guy, but that to to me looks like a very different problem than what WhatsApp faces.
Let’s not compare all employees to devs. Twitter has (had) absolutely business critical other teams, they are a very human-facing company. Does whatsapp have to make decisions whether to ban/unban a former US president? Also, I think Twitter gets a much more uneven usage - their daily usage is lower, but peaks can be similar (~1 billion user).
Also, graph algorithm’s likely don’t scale linearly, 10 times more edges may have much much more resource usage.
So you're saying WhatsApp had no critical other teams, but Facebook bought them anyway for a record breaking sum of money at the time, because they looked nice on picture?
I don’t know, but I’m fairly sure that the user base is the most valuable part of a social network/messenger platform, not the tech stack, or the staff.
If Twitter's Grand Pubah sends one tweet, it goes to 118M people. I can't see how many times he tweets per day, but it's way over 10, and just that would generate 1.2B messages.
When Elon tweets, I'm guessing Twitter doesn't go do 118M write transactions to all his followers. But what it would have to do is flag all 118M accounts as "something as changed". Then the next time one of his followers is on Twitter, which could be a month from now, that flag means "uh oh, better go see what changed", and to do that, all of the follower's "following" accounts have to be accessed to find the change, if there is only 1 change flag per Twitter account.
If Twitter keeps a change flag per "Following" user, that makes finding changes easier, but also means lots more flags to keep updated.
Or, you could go "stateless" and not use flags, but then it seems like you'd be doing a lot of work for users who may not see it for days or months.
I’ve heard AI researchers describe this phenomenon before. As soon as something is discovered or invented it immediately becomes trivial and boring. The goalposts shift, and now they have to find the next amazing thing that will suffer the same fate.
I think the same. When they do AR I believe they’ll do it much better than anyone else. They’ll be some really cool feature that will make people flock to it, like apps on the iPhone.
I was hoping that will happen with the apple watch, but so far it just brings the notification spam to your wrist and does fitness/health monitoring if you care about that.
What will the AR glasses do, bring the notifications that I have turned off anyway in my face?
My personal hypothesis is they're going to lean in to perceptual enhancement. Passthrough AR will allow them to basically apply arbitrary correction and filtering to your vision, so in conjunction with their expertise on photo processing and general AR tech I think the idea will be that wearing these will make everything around you just look and feel better.
Hey I have an idea. Get everyone to wear AR glasses that filter your vision. Then have thieves pay hackers to make them invisible to eye witnesses.
The holdouts who refuse to wear the glasses slowly meet with ... unfortunate accidents. One by one. Until there's no one left who sees the world as it is.
Think of the loss as a form of payment. What it buys you is experience. So whenever you lose, ask yourself what experience that just bought you? What improvement does it allow you to bring into your future games?
If your mindset is to become a better player, rather than winning, then a loss is still a way to gain something. And long term, you'll win more games if you think this way
Because of how ELO works, your win-loss ratio will pretty quickly normalize to 50-50, regardless of how good you are.
Over time your increased rating will reflect increased skill, but even if your skill was doubled tomorrow, you would still hit a 50-50 W/L because you would be playing people at the same skill level.
However…if you want to feel better, play for a couple weeks and then challenge an occasional player. Once you obliterate them, you’ll feel better about the losses it took to get there. :)
I had a very strong coach work with me on this exact problem. He required me to reframe my definition of what it means to win. Basically it came down the the quality of effort I put into the game. If I put everything I have into a game and lose, it now feels like a win, because I know it will make me stronger. Conversely, if I don't give a good effort, but happen to win the game, I count that as a loss. This only applies to longer time control games. I still play blitz now and then for light fun.
I think it's a great approach and I try something along those lines. However it requires some form of self-persuasion which is hard to get when you are just binge-playing quick games.
I feel doing what you advise + playing slower games (for me usually 10min + increment) + doing puzzles is a great combination. It forces me to calculate more variations than just the most likely candidate move, and to think about positions more. I still tilt in blitz a lot but I tilt much less when I follow my own advise.
For me the biggest blocker was over-focusing on the numbers going up and down. On lichess you can make all ratings invisible (bottom of the preferences page, "Show player ratings"). This means you can't see your own rating or your opponent's. Your opponent can obviously still see both if he or she doesn't have this option enabled.
Make a list of the reasons you get angry, and re-write and filter down to the top two. Write those somewhere and look at it regularly. You'd be amazed at how useful subconscious insights will filter up into consciousness this way.
I'm a Lichess puzzle player. I find it more entertaining than a full game, and can fit a puzzle or two anytime rather than a match (even a bullet game is too draining for a quick time-filler)
I find a lot of beginners have this mentality and skip over analyzing games they win to their detriment.
In general, the way to get better at chess, or anything really, is all about intentionality.
I'd recommend reviewing every game, win or loss, and looking for things you missed, what your opponent missed, thinking about what your opponent was thinking, why did they play the moves they did, etc.
