From my understanding, they are trying to make Math education available to the entire population of the world. And now provide one on one personalized tutoring that currently only a fraction of the wealthiest people in their respective countries can afford.
It’s fortunate that it is cheaper than paying people.
I play drums for fun. The vocalists usually wear earplugs too. Because they’ll get hearing damage if they don’t. Instruments can be loud. Look up “Earasers” if interested, they’re the ones I use. They work in a way that music sounds reasonable, but still protects your ears.
I use Linux. You absolutely need to drop down to the command line at times. Upgrading my Kennel, or Graphics driver breaks something like 20% of the time for me.
I've been on Linux some 28 years now, and it used to be like that¹. But today? I haven't had a kernel or graphics driver update failing on me for years. Maybe 10+ years? Granted, my Linux is the most boring, hardly-configged Unbuntu LTS. Boring hardware. Boring drivers. Everything optimized to "Just Work" - My machine pays my bills and if I'm down for a day because I fiddled around with some fancy custom trackpad module, or special Bluetooth whatevers, it's costing me actual money.
I'm certainly in my terminal 80% of the time (developing in nvim etc), so can't say much about how much it is needed by someone who doesn't know or use that terminal.
¹ My personal worst was at a conference doing a presentation for a 200+ audience having to recompile X, while entertaining the audience, because the beamer wasn't found and X crashed on it.
What hardware? Your experience with Linux can be very different depending on that. For example, my laptop's WiFi refuses to work properly on Linux, so I'm forced to use Windows.
Edit: oh, and not to mention graphics (Nvidia), multiple monitors and HiDPI, especially with fractional scaling and different multiples per display. HiDPI on Linux doesn't work
nearly as well as Windows and macOS.
It's funny, I can say the exact same thing in reverse. My two latest laptops are boring: integrated graphics, intel wifi, run-of-the-mill hp "enterprise" fare. One running a zen3, the other an 11th gen intel.
On the AMD, I couldn't use the webcam for a good six months under Windows. It wouldn't detect some part of the USB tree.
On the Intel, for a good year, I couldn't get 4k@60Hz over DP via the HP dock. Then at some point, installing Intel drivers fixed the issue, but Windows would insist on "updating" to the older, borken version every so often. Now Windows also has the correct drivers. A different dock still doesn't work. Then there's the fact that the Windows installation (11 22h2) doesn't support the touchpad, nor the wifi card. Bonus points for the default install insisting on connecting to the internet for the online account thing.
Linux had 0 issues on both since the day I got them.
As for HiDPI, yeah, the Linux story, at least with X11, is non-existent if you want multiple HiDPI settings. But Windows is a crap shoot, too. It's easy to get a blurry mess: just connect and disconnect an external screen, and even the freaking windows 11 start menu is borked. It looks fine when you open it, but start typing something and enjoy the blurriness. Apps will be stuck with either enormous or tiny text. The context menus of the systray icons will appear all over the place.
Some apps manage to combine everything: tiny text, yet blurry, and displayed in the middle of the screen. To name and shame: Fortinet VPN client.
My current machine is a "clevo". Some whitelabel thing that I bought from a company that delivers Laptops with linux preïnstalled. Intel i7, intel iRIS, etc. It all "just works".
I'm not trying to argue that "Linux Just Works" or that "you won't run into hardware issues on Linux". I'm arguing that by choosing "boring" hardware, and "a boring LTS from a large distro" you won't.
If you know you're going to use Linux before buying a machine, you can generally save yourself all the trouble by simply avoiding broadcom and nvidia. Those two have been the source of the most trouble for years.
Intel for graphics and wifi is generally the safest choice. I pick laptops with those and have great success.
A decade ago I stopped having problems with both BCM and NVidia devices in Linux. Last year I purchased a very recent wifi dongle and had to manually install broadcom drivers, but other than that it's been smooth sailing with no issues.
I bet you use stable graphics drivers on older graphics cards and the person your responding to uses newer graphics cards and quickly updates to the latest drivers.
I had a kernel update break a memory management API that JavaScript engines use about a year ago, and then before that my last kernel induced update breakage was in like 2012 with fglrx.
That broken kernel update also would not have made it into more conservative distros, as the change was rolled back 5 days later.
Meanwhile I have previously experienced the windows issue in this topic in like 2019. The windows 7 installer created even smaller reserved partitions than the windows 10 one (100 Vs 500 mb iirc), so users with systems upgraded from 7 to 10 would have seen this sooner.
And for completeness sake I've also experienced OS X fail at updating to High Sierra as that updater didn't like something about the way my employers provisioning software had set up the partition layout some years earlier.
nVidia on Linux is particularly nasty in that aspect.
I've administrated a fleet of ~100 Ubuntu devices that used nVidia for some AI stuff - unattended-upgrades disabled and all that - and yet graphics drivers broke in regular intervals, every couple of months. Apparently, nVidia drivers have some system in place that can update drivers on its own. The only solution was to uninstall all nVidia drivers, upgrade all packages, then re-install nVidia drivers.
I don't have anything break on the graphical stack on my computers since 2007.
But somehow Debian keeps uninstalling the display manager. One would think this is the easiest problem in the world to avoid, but they avoid every hard problem, and this one passes by.
I play competitive games in tournaments. I would disagree with your characterization.
Yes, people have a skill ceiling. However, it’s not something you’re ever going to get to by just playing most games.
People naturally improve at games when they start playing. Some factors being more familiarity with the game, and making less mistakes. However, people will stall out at different ratings at that point.
However, if you do deliberate practice in the game you will absolutely continue to get better. If you’re practicing specific scenarios, have focused areas of improvement, coaching, analyze your own replays, record your practice, and watch it: You will improve.
Yes, abstractly a “skill ceiling” out there exists for you, but you’re extremely unlikely to ever reach it in a game of skill unless you’re trying to go pro in it.
If putting time in were all that were required to reach your skill ceiling, we would have way more League of Legends Grandmasters. Unless you assume the people that go pro are all just more talented, and that their practice doesn’t make a difference.
I'm not sure about Leagues rating system but I would definitely believe that the top echelon in most serious sports/games is reserved for people who are both more talented and also hardcore practice.
I play chess and the GM level is above the skill cap of some talented people who have put in dedicated practice since a child and are a full time professional dedicated player as an adult. The median talent at full time dedication for their whole life wouldn't reach that level, and no one who only started the game at age 20 has ever reached that level regardless of natural talent. Some of the most famous players never attain that level, including some full time professional players that are known figures today (like Eric Rosen) and historical chess theory leaders (like Jeremy Silman).
And in practice "just" GM level isn't even good enough to be a top tier player: the top 100 players can trounce the lowest GMs.
I would assume the same applies to any other game/sport that has the cache for people to train at it from childhood like Tennis, Basketball, etc.
> However, if you do deliberate practice in the game you will absolutely continue to get better
I strongly disagree. I think that, for a given amount of effort (hours and study intensity) you’re willing to spend, everybody has a ceiling that they can reach. If what you say is true, why hasn’t Magnus Carlsen reached ELO 2900? Lack of deliberate practice? ELO deflation requiring players to get better to keep the same rating?
Ignoring that, the discussion isn’t whether you’ll continue getting better, but whether you’ll keep improving at the same rate.
> Unless you assume the people that go pro are all just more talented, and that their practice doesn’t make a difference.
I don’t see how that follows. I think the top is both extremely talented, extremely motivated, and physically strong enough to do the hours of concentrated practice.
I think it’s easier to see in physical sports. If you’re 2m tall and have enough motor skills to run and catch a ball, you’ll likely be ‘good’ at basketball in high school, even if you don’t practice much or well. To make it in the NBA, you have to be 2m tall _and_ have above average motor skills _and_ be above average robust, so that you can play x games a year without getting injured, _and_ be more willing to exercise than mossy to get stronger and more agile _and_ be above average good at reading the game.
>I think that, for a given amount of effort (hours and study intensity) you’re willing to spend, everybody has a ceiling that they can reach.
I disagree with your disagreement, because simply controlling for total studying time and intensity is too reductionist. Different players have different sticking points when it comes to chess, e.g. weak strategic planning, weak tactics, poor positional understanding, bad endgames, etc. Your implicit assumption is that most players at some playing strength, are at that playing strength in all aspects of their game. In practice, that's simply not the case for many.
To give a concrete example, my classical rating on lichess hovers around 1800, but if you look at my tactics puzzle rating it's well above 2000, suggesting it's the positional and strategic aspects of the game that I'm weak at, which anecdotally feels true based on how I both win and lose most of my games. If I were to get a coach or deliberately work on those weaker aspects of my game myself (something I have not done), so that they're no longer the bottleneck of my performance, I could very well break this rating plateau I've been stuck in for the past half decade or so, and shoot up another 100 or even 200 points. I also have a friend of similar strength level, who has the opposite profile as me: strong positional and strategic understanding, weak tactics. And despite more or less an even record, whenever we play against each other, his wins are almost always grinds, while my wins are usually some tactical shot he missed or blundered into.
The bottom line is, at my strength level, and I'd hypothesize even up to the low to mid-2000s rating levels, these unbalanced types of players are probably more common than balanced players with similar ratings in all aspects of their game to their overall rating. The latter kind, you might be able to argue, have reached their natural ceiling; but even here I'd be surprised if they cannot improve more by deliberately strengthening aspects of their game. Conversely, based on my experience of 10+ years playing chess regularly, the vast majority of players simply don't have a good understanding of their own weaknesses. Many unbalanced players like myself, with the correct type of training and practice, even if total time isn't too much, can absolutely make significant improvements to their overall performance.
>If what you say is true, why hasn’t Magnus Carlsen reached ELO 2900? Lack of deliberate practice? ELO deflation requiring players to get better to keep the same rating?
In the case of top-level IMs, GMs, and certainly super GMs, who don't have glaring weaknesses in any aspects of their game, it's likely the case that they indeed did reach their ceiling. But these are the only people I'd be at all confident in making such claims.
I started with just Nix-Shell in WSL with Home Manager. Then I have kept adapting that file for my Linux, OS X, and other needs. I didn't touch NixOS at all until years later. I'm really, really glad I started with Home Manager. It delivered value immediately, and I was instantly sold on the value proposition of a declarative file to manage dependencies with other associated benefits from the Nix world.
That's an interesting take I haven't heard ever before. I'd love to ask some questions if you happen to know the answer:
- Since people are constantly retiring, and selling the stocks they are holding at that point: Wouldn't that balance out the limitless demand problem? Boomers/Gen X/Millenials/Gen Z all have around the same segment of the population according to (https://www.statista.com/statistics/296974/us-population-sha...) wouldn't things earlier generations sell get distributed among the next generation, preferentially going to Gen X who will be at their peak earning potential at that point. (Which in turn will sell to Millennials and so on)
- How would you actively force money into an economy?
1. They don't sell that much, and more importantly they sell at a far higher price because the market went up. So they comparatively sell more. Studies we have on older people is that they do not actually liquidate theory holdings. What they do is get more loans to invest in rent, backed by their holdings. Or they reduce their money need, by stopping investing in their holdings.
2. Most Boomers are only starting to retire. And they have enormous needs. Plus university endowments, charities funds, etc also are institutional investors. The problem is do they sell. These days usually they only sell to shares buybacks, which actually reinforce the problem.
3. Move pensions to a government tax funded redistributive system, so the income of today pay the pensions of today. Tax land and housing ownership heavily, except for primary house (with a limit based on family size probably for primary house). Heavily (massively. Like 90% at least) tax inheritance. We have good economics support for these, even in heavily capitalistic and neoliberal economic circles. The problem is political. The Boomers will not vote for it, it would take away from them.
I’ve only worked for 15 years but I already know if the inheritance I’ll be leaving to my nieces and nephews will be taxed at 90% I will just retire sooner. And I’m center-left.
That is not a problem. As long as you spend that money.
Our problem right now is that the money is not spent. The earlier you retire to spend it the better we are as an economy. So yes. Go for it. That is the point :)
> The earlier you retire to spend it the better we are as an economy. So yes. Go for it.
A problem in the US is that the system essentially forces people to hoard more and more and more because there is no useful social safety net. So you are forced to constantly think what if. What if I live longer than average? What if there are unexpected expenses? So the only responsible answer is keep working and hoarding for those what ifs. It's not a healthy system since it encourages the hoarding but also because it prevents people from enjoying a longer retirement.
It’s weird that not spending every dime you make is being characterized as hoarding. My wife and I spend to our level of wants and needs and invest the rest. We’re not hoarding, we’re planning.
> It’s weird that not spending every dime you make is being characterized as hoarding.
That's not at all what I meant. Maybe hoarding is the wrong word, couldn't think of another one. Saving is great, but what is the amount one needs to save?
What is your target amount in investments to be able to retire?
What I mean is that in the US there is a neverending pressure to save more and more because you never know what might happen and there is no social safety net so it's all on you. So you must keep working and saving to cover every conceivable future edge case, so it feels like no amount will ever be enough.
How do you prevent massive inflation as everyone dumps their money into buying goods and services instead of saving? Kind of like we have going now after the covid money and economic boom
Or you start giving earlier (depending how presents are taxed), and your nieces and nephews receive the support when they are young and strapped for cash. I think this would help stimulating the economy much more than if your heirs are in their 50s+, when they (on average) don't need any money and just keep hording it.
I’m not hoarding anything. They’re getting checks regularly. They’d be getting a lot more if I weren’t taxed at obscene rates relative to billionaires.
I'm not a boomer, and there is no way I would vote to tax what little I am able to leave my children at 90%. I got nothing from my parents and worked hard since i was 15 to scratch out an existence and provide more for my kids than I got. Not a chance I think that the government can do a better job for my kids with what I was able to save by throwing it into a pot than I could
Note that the goal is not for the government to get it.
The goal is for you to spend it. Because hoarding it like this to pass it to your children actually make it harder for them to have a good life and for the economy to grow.
How do you think intergenerational wealth is created? Most people don’t work hard to make the economy perform better, most people work hard to provide for themselves, their family and (through charity) their communities.
Your argument is that if I give my kid 100k they will be worse off for it? Does this scale? So if someone gives their kid a million will their kid be 10x worse than mine? How about a billion? Sorry friend, this argument does not really land.
Your argument also fails to account for inflation. More money spent instead of saved means more competition for the same amount of goods and then we get what we have now, increasing rates and cost of goods.
The second. The cost of the aging of such a large cohort will have massive effect on the economy. For western europe, current estimates is that a quarter to a third of the workforce will be in direct support and aid of old people. Caregiving. These jobs are badly paid, highly dangerous (yes).
On top of this, their healthcare will also heavily tax the healthcare system.
Both combined will generate a heavy toll on the economy. Faaaar worse than what Japan have been dealing for.
And yes. They also expect far higher standards of living than in the past.
I found the comment valuable. I might be unmotivated to contribute to an OS project purely for the sake of doing so. But throwing some money in, I might go like "Alright I'll tackle this".
Certainly I'm at least glad a tool like that exists.
As others have said, their primary issue is with quality control around stick drift.
reply