Same. I love the power and flexibility. But, then again, I sometimes found myself spending a nontrivial amount of time planning my git maneuvers. That was a bit taxing. Either it took away from the focus on the objective, or it was enough of a chore that it I felt a little worn, especially during intense working sessions. I don't get that as much with jj.
I use jj and zed. More appropriately, I happen to use jj and I also happen use zed, and I never really think about them together. All repo-level work I do with the cli. The only thing I really care about in-editor is recency on a line level, and since jj uses git, zed has no problem showing line-level metadata. There is a slight difference because of jj's stage consolidation, but I don't find that to be a problem, since there's not much of a difference between a line in a staged file vs a line in the working tree.
Definitely agree that a good database solves far more problems than it introduces.
I think the web technology and the kits that sit on it are rather obtuse because they really are swimming against the tide. I commented about VB a few weeks ago and how much better the paradigm was some 30 years ago. But that was a purpose-built tool for programming a purpose-built GUI API. React et al. are still contending with turning typesetting into general purpose software. Despite that, react does a pretty good job.
It's also about know-how. I can go get a programmer literally anywhere that can built something with react, so even problems that can be solved without are going to be solved with it.
No complaints from me, really. Everything is a little excessive. I just came across an app to order ice. I can't imagine that's really making anyone's life easier, except for maybe its developer.
Not just visibility in the rain, but diminished or fully obstructed visibility due to ponding and full flooding. Then there are the physical navigational problems associated with that. They probably shouldn't be driving though a foot of sea water.
It doesn't serve anyone to proceed with training if there's a disqualifying condition. We bear the same costs only to then decline to admit the candidate, and for that individual, it is a tremendous waste of time, energy, and opportunity.
Is eight weeks of basic training really that much higher in cost compared to a comprehensive medical work-up? The effort is mostly borne by the candidate. I'd wager the latter is significantly more expensive to the military.
Sure, but I'm not going to help them by volunteering additional visual data. It's also political. I'm not participating.
And then letter is correct. I had a guy retaliate for declining. He said I was making his job harder and that he'd make my life harder in return. I'm still waiting. Surely, as a TSA employee, he's got lots of connections in government. A lot of these people are unstable.
I've declined several times now, and have gotten harassed about it about 3/4 times. Whoever designed the program really did a good job getting buy-in from the lower-level employees.
SI has SSHL left side from infection. Dealt with it for 20 years, then an impact basal fracture degraded the right side.
Started with Apple Airpods Pro as aids. Now using Oticon CROS and Own. CROS works OK, Own works OK, but both are compromises, and have the overhead of using aids. Both have a different sound experience.
CI seems like another compromise. I am guessing stem cell is the golden ring - growing back the nerves.
I don't have personal experience with CI, but have researched it extensively as a potential fix for my hearing loss. From what I understand, the number of electrodes or links to neural tissue is the limiting factor. With something like NeuraLink with 1024 electrodes, the resolution of the sound signal can be much higher. For something like early cochlear implants, with 8 or 12 channels, the signal is going to be very digitized and artificial sounding; you have to heavily optimize for a particular type or modality of sound, and that's usually speech. That means all sorts of nuance things like music and voices get lost in compression, or filtered out entirely.
Cochlear implants are essentially BCI implants, taking the place of the cochlea in signaling via neural tissue.
To completely replicate natural sound, you'd likely need somewhere between 15,000 to 30,000 electrodes. It's not linear, however, and 8-12 electrodes might get you to sound that is about 25% of normal, and 1024 will get you to 85-90% normal. Full fidelity of sound, or even better, will be possible once we get implants working with many tens of thousands of electrodes. People will have senses that far exceed biological human limitations.
One neat thing with all of this is that due to plasticity, any connections on the neocortex can be trained to behave as if they're wired to any sensory organ; there aren't any hard limits on where an implant has to be connected. If you had an implant with 50k electrodes, half of them could be dedicated to sound, and the other half to sci-fi level possibilities like BCI mouse and keyboard control, simple virtual displays through modified sight, secondary audio channels, North sense, radar, electromagnetic signals, or immersion tweaks that modulate proprioceptive signaling.
1-500k would allow for convincing replication of normal sight, with the obvious advantage that with everything being digital, you'd be able to process your vision in software (Please watch this ad before waking! Skip in 10...).
With a million electrodes, you could get into convincing totally immersive full sensory simulation. There would be some resolution issues, initially, but we're some materials science, software design, and engineering problems away from full Matrix style simulations. 1 sq cm of neocortex is all you'd need for access to 1 million neurons - things are pretty densely packed, and all the neurons we need to access live on the outer surface of the brain.
Things are gonna start improving and the rate will accelerate, so hopefully we start seeing radical doublings of cochlear implant and other BCI capabilities in the near future.
TLDR; as much of normal hearing as possible is compressed down to around 100hz over 8-12 electrodes in a cochlear implant. This results in significant quality degradation compared to normal hearing, but it can be a huge boon to someone who is totally or profoundly deaf. Implant technology is experiencing a boom, and we're going to see a period of Moore's law like scaling of electrodes until implants reach parity with the rest of our computing technology.
Yeah, what I've heard is that a lot of people do it, don't like it because it's really not the same as before, so they wind up going through the whole process only to abandon it.
They really got it right the first(ish) time. The notion that you can examine a visual component and jump directly to the code is perfect. No files. Just the logical things that you're actually dealing with. Keeping a mental map of a filesystem and code is such an annoying mental burden.
reply