| html { | |
| background-color: | |
| var(--LIGHT, #eee) | |
| var(--DARK, #111); | |
| color: | |
| var(--LIGHT, #000) | |
| var(--DARK, #ccc); | |
| } | |
| html { |
Someone made the product worse, but not so much that it has become a priority for me to do something about it.
The corollary is that if you make something a little worse, people won't necessarily be moved to expend their time and social capital to tell you about it. You largely have to critique your own work and notice your own little regressions.
If you see someone teaching something online properly, save the irrational gift from the gods while you can, before they realize their time is better spent doing anything but being an educator in public. These kinds of surpluses come and go.
Is this something you can save and look up later when your work context makes it more salient? You'll get a lot more out of it then.
Does random sampling of the text or its conclusions suggest that this is worth your time? Generally, things are either fractally good or fractally bad.
Can you get 50% of the value in 1% of the time? Sometimes you can, if what you needed was just a reference to something you didn't know about.
Is this information more general and useful, or are you in some backwater of meaning? Gossip, ephemera, personalities and memoirs, half-baked ideas.
Did you arrive at this information through your own attentional mechanisms? Consuming the feed can be fun but costly in time. How much more interesting is it, really, than the information that is relevant to your goals? Are you prioritizing momentary pleasure over information hygiene and attentional control?
OLD and SNS apps claim to provide value that is generally not delivered unless you are elite, or above some kind of threshold for attracting enough people to make it worthwhile; within a month or so you should be able to determine where you stand, and if you are below the threshold the only rational thing to do is cease use and do anything else with your time; popularity will not come from improved skill in using them; it's not like programming where years of practice will make it better, so said apps can easily deceive people with prior skill acquisition experiences, more hope, or long-term thinking.
If we exclude the rare and random rewards of friendship or good information (better than you'd get through other uses of time), a rational person would:
Ordinarily, when we encounter a URL, we take just the URL by itself and do something with it; perhaps we try to load it in our browser or store it somewhere.
We can consider this to be the more naïve interpretation of a URL: we assume we're always fine with the latest version of the document, or the document is unchanging, or the changes don't really matter; we try to load the URL in our browser and if the website is gone or not the version we expect, well, tough luck for us.
But we can make our perception of URLs a little less naïve, as there is another piece of data we can take when we see a URL: the time that the URL was posted. Fortunately, we typically encounter URLs in documents or messages with some sort of timestamp.
So instead of taking URL, we take (URL, referring_document_time), which enables us to know which version of the document that author was referring to. We can then, for example, look up that website around that point in time in Wayback Machine. In other cases, when a website parti
The tokio::io::AsyncRead documentation confusingly states:
Poll::Ready(Ok(())) means that data was immediately read and placed into the output buffer. The amount of data read can be determined by the increase in the length of the slice returned by ReadBuf::filled. If the difference is 0, EOF has been reached.
https://docs.rs/tokio/latest/tokio/io/trait.AsyncRead.html
The footgun is that when poll_read is called, buf may already be partially filled. In some cases, this happens just a small fraction of the time in production, causing e.g. the last chunk of a file to be poll_read twice.
Setup code:
Cults are patronage networks. They distribute benefits. The benefits could be intangible, they don't have to be money. Belonging is a benefit, acceptance is a benefit, access to [partners] is a benefit, money is a benefit of course, but also power is a benefit; an internal hierarchy. It's a fantasy, it's what we call in psychology is a paracosm. A paracosm is an alternative cosmos; it's detached, it's a bubble. And so within this bubble you can create an entire universe with its own laws of physics of you wish, and then if you play by these rules, you're mightily rewarded, emotionally, materially, in other ways. And if you don't, of course, you're sanctioned, similarly. So it's what we call a reinforcement system. It's a reward-punishment system. Positive and negative. And it's fairly intermittently by the way, it's fairly intermittent in the sense that very often, the leader kind of punished you to remind you that you're still at his mercy. He demotes you, he criticizes you publicly, he does something to
For programming beginners who want to learn Python, these are some of the better resources I know about:
Harvard's CS50P. The lecturer goes into a lot of detail about how basic things work, and how programmers think about how they should write something: https://cs50.harvard.edu/python/2022/
Learn Python 3 the Hard Way, a book by Zed Shaw that follows the older way of learning programming, where learners would type in existing programs and think about them: https://annas-archive.org/md5/b06f844f416aaee94a19dca4730d66bb or actually buy it at https://learncodethehardway.org/python/