VSCode can also be used more or less effectively though. There are quite a few shortcuts & tricks that can make you 10x more productive, even if maybe it's not as much as vim.
Multi-cursor on ten lines, sure. You get 10x for some seconds or maybe minutes. I'd expect practically zero people have gotten 3x more productive over a two week period for having advanced knowledge of tips and tricks in their editor. Saying 10x seems a wild exaggeration
I sometimes have the following thought (disclaimer: cringe is not the most adequate word for the concept in my mind, but since you've already used it, I guess it's okay): If I look back at my 10-year-younger-self and cringe (at the things I did/said/created/liked/hated/etc. and I obviously do cringe), does that mean that I am being cringe right now? Or at least, how can I have some level of confidence that I'm not being cringe right now and that in 10 years I'm not going to reject everything and anything I'm saying today? And if I was cringe 10 years ago, and if I'm cringe right now, will I be also be cringe in 10 years too? What about 20? 30? Will it ever stop? Will I ever reach a point in which I will not cringe?
Another one is like this: There are people who I respect/admire for the things they did, and now they are doing something obviously completely stupid. Were those things they did just random results I got to see, compared to a bunch of other stuff they probably did I did not get to see, thus creating this sort of false image of their intellect (or character, or something like that), or are they actually right in believing in this new thing, and I'm just being oblivious? How come some really smart people do some really dumb stuff (while believing they are doing the right thing)? I believe I'm somewhat smart, but what does that even mean if it doesn't prevent me from doing some really, really dumb stuff.
At some point, my friend told me something like (or at least this is how I understood it) - it is good that you realize that good/smart people do bad/stupid things, and vice versa; the fact that you start from this belief that you might be wrong gives you a greater chance of being less wrong, at least in the long run.
Reminds me of a prof at uni, who's slides always appeard to have been written 5 mins before the lecture started, resulting in students pointing out mistakes in every other slide. He defended himself saying that you learn more if you aren't sure weather things are correct - which was right. Esp. during a lecture, it's sometimes not that easy to figure out if you truly understood something or fooled yourself, knowing that what you're looking at is provably right. If you know everything can be wrong, you trick your mind to verify it at a deeper level, and thus gain more understanding. It also results in a culture where you're allowed to question the prof. It resulted in many healthy arguments with the prof why something is the way it is, often resulting with him agreeing that his slides are wrong. He never corrected the underlying PPP.
I thought about doing that when I was doing adjunct last year, but what made me stop was the fact that these were introductory classes, so I was afraid I might pollute the minds of students who really haven't learned enough to question stuff yet.
What stands out as odd to me is that CF seems to be pushing away a $10k/month customer. No business can reasonably be expected to accept sudden price changes like that, even if they'd paid, they would've moved away within a year.
Given that the article is an online casino that seems to be using potentially ToS violating domain rotation, and that they pay so little per month for apparently millions of users, I for one will not form an opinion on CF based on this article before CF has a chance to defend itself.
Depends on the mathematical framework you're working with.... there's a genre in theoretical compsci that deals with parallel algorithms, and as a toy example, I remember an O(1) sorting algo (given O(n^2) processors). This example is more fun than anything, but ofc in general you're free what constraints you subject your statements to.
61 pins are used by 1/3rd of all people. So statistically, if I steal 61 debit cards, assuming I have 3 tries, and assuming people choose their own pin, I should be able to get cash off one in expectation.
I assume it's short for in re, which is sort of Latin for "on/in the matter [...]".
Actual Latin uses de to mark the topic of a disquisition (compare de corona, the Latin translation of Demosthenes' speech "on the crown"); I'm not sure why we say in re. It appears to be an early modern legal usage.
You're correct about the Latin origin and legal usage, "in the matter .." is strictly correct.
That said, English as a language absorbs and morphs borrow words and phrases like few others and re has moved out of legal only and into common office and other usage where many are no longer tied to a strict law reading.
Latin in means in or on, and res means thing, but that doesn't make in re valid Latin for the English phrase "in the matter [of ...]", any more than quomodo pendet would be valid Latin for the English phrase "how's it hanging?".
For the meaning expressed by "re" in office usage, I'd be more likely to use "wrt", which has the benefits of being English and making sense when read aloud.
Bearing in mind that I'm recalling back 40 years and not looking anything up, it's my recollection that the legal usage in English law is "in the matter of" with the Latin "re" being a contraction of a longer phrase ...
When I said strictly correct I meant that was what was taught in pre law as the correct reading of "re:" when seen .. it's barbaric contractions all the way back to proper Roman law ~ 400 CE I suspect and I'm no learned Latin scholar - I faked my way through it on the STEM side of campus and only ventured into Arts to watch theatre and listen to music.
> it's my recollection that the legal usage in English law is "in the matter of"
This is a tangent, but in Latin that "of" is not included in the re; it would have to be marked on whatever noun is governed by the "of" in English. Including the "of" makes the English translation better, but slightly less literal - in the most technical possible sense, the "of" is implied rather than explicit.
In English it's easy to indicate that some word or phrase requires an argument marked with "of" by just including the "of" when you cite the word/phrase. In Latin this can't be done. A dictionary (aimed at modern students) would say something like "res +gen" to note that an expression requires an argument in the genitive case. I don't know how Latin speakers would have described this, but the need must surely have come up.
Tying back to my earlier observation, it might interest you to know that the word "of" is derived from "off". The reason is kind of funny: off is a (correct!) translation of the Latin preposition de. de doesn't mean "of", but it does mean "off". Latin has no preposition for "of".
However, in Romance, the case system of Latin was lost, and de was repurposed into a genitive marker. That's why it means "of" today in Spanish, French, etc. I assume this had already happened by the time English translated it as "off", and that's why the genitive particle "of" developed, but I don't know for sure.
Textbooks are generally way more carefully made in terms of their presentation, the order of information, their examples. At least in uni, classes that follow a textbook where much nicer to get into for me personally. Why listen to an unmotivated professor reading his notes that he made in 3h for a one time audience of 300 when I could read a textbook that was made in the span of multiple years for an audience of hundreds of thousands?
> Using Bloomberg’s numbers, ChatGPT does NOT appear to have a racial bias when it comes to judging software engineers’ resumes.2 The results appear to be more noise than signal.
Which in most contexts means the same as "does appear to not have a racial bias", but not in statistics. One of the reasons why communicating results in research accurately is incredably hard.
They also said "that there was, in fact, no racial bias", which is a bit stronger than "no evidence of racial bias". In a context where words like "significant" are overloaded, it makes sense to me to be extra careful with phrasing.
