In general, one's own words are the cheapest, and thus least reliable, form of signaling. If you call yourself "Honest Ed", it's pretty suspicious; if others unironically give you a moniker "Honest Ed", it's high praise.
Understatement is something only the renowned can afford; those who suck (or swindle) have to resort to overstatement and seek gullible audience.
Some measures like that still sort of work. Try loading a scanned picture of a dollar bill into Photoshop. Try printing it on a color printer. Try printing anything on a coor printer without the yellow tracking pixels.
A lock needs not be infinitely strong to be useful, it just needs to take more resources to crack it than the locked thing is worth.
What you need is to scale down the tolerances. To remove the wiggle room.
One of the solutions that does not add a bias that I remember is two identical flat gears on the same axis with a spring that tries to rotate them one relative to another. This removes the wiggle room between this composite gear and the next, regular gear. The motor may have wiggle room, but the gears (which carry angle sensors, don't they?) move without wiggling, and react immediately as you reverse the direction. The load is limited though: the beating surface is twice as small, and the friction is higher.
I sometimes wonder if it makes more sense to just use those yellow gearboxes, everyone seem to start with SG90s only to reimplement most of the servo part.
One could put those in series too and get even less range of motion in exchange for less wiggling.
One could also duplicate the contraption on both sides. Then could replace the arm with cables (under tension) and control motion further down the arm.
Furthermore it seems you could remove the motors from the moving parts?
have to share the noob thought because it is funny: You could attach an unbalanced wheel to a motor and induce a vibration to maximize wiggling and frequency across the available w-room.
I find this all moot. Not useless (because it's another layer of defence in depth), but still recoverable.
A real end-to-end encryption is such that the transport intermediary only passes opaque blobs, and won't be able to decrypt them to save the CEO's life. Everything else is sparkling obfuscation.
But even with that level of unbreakable content encryption, the metadata, which has to be accessible to the intermediary in cleartext, could blow enough covers.
It looks to me similar to the situation with that newly fashionable WWW thing in, say, 1998. Everybody tried to use it, in search of some magic advantage.
Take a look at the WWW heavyweights today: say, Amazon, Google, Facebook, TikTok, WeChat. Are the web technologies essential for their success? Very much so. But TCP/IP + HTML + CSS + JS are mere tools that enable their real technical and business advantages: logistics and cloud computing, ad targeting, the social graph, content curation for virality, strong vertical integration with financial and social systems, and other such non-trivial things.
So let's wait until a killer idea emerges for which LLMs are a key enabler, but not the centerpiece. Making an LLM the centerpiece is the same thinking that was trying to make catchy domain names the centerpiece, leading to the dot com crash.
A design system is a set of Lego bricks. Instead of clay that can become any shape but requires effort, you have a (carefully limited) set of components, alignments, grids, color palettes, etc, which you can easily combine to produce a visually consistent and usable UI. Instead of sweating over margins, color gradients, perfectly balanced columns, etc you put components together, and they work well together without further bespoke tweaking. They have consistently named properties, CSS classes, etc.
Now connecting them becomes a mechanical task, which an AI does well. Detecting them in the sketch also becomes a mechanical task, you don't need pixel perfection, because the components will be pixel-perfect once in place, and you can think and operate in terms of logical structure and the general, well, topology of the layout. The machine can pick it up and map to your design system.
If you're a mechanical engineer, imagine being used to need to produce bespoke connectors for everything you build, and then switching to a set of few standard bolts and nuts, or, again, Lego blocks. Suddenly you can assemble significant things in days, not weeks. (Then you add a robot that can read sketches, and days become hours.)
While at it, what do you think about Kopia [1]? It seems to use architectural decisions similar to Restic and Borg, but appears to be much faster in certain cases by exploiting parallel access. It's v0.20 though.
After this time I must have tried Kopia (via KopiaUI) at least a dozen time and every single time I have never been able to figure out in one glance how it works. A brief idea I have is that you pick a folder and pick where to backup/snapshot it to. There is no (or at least an easy and intuitive) way to have a local backup setup of a set of folder, exclusions, inclusions, a config where you can decide the frequency, retention etc. I did try hard to find that out but nothing. I think it's their deliberate design choice and that's fine - but at least from usability perspective it's anything that is even in the direction of backup tools like restic/backrest, borg/vorta etc.
Having dug into Kopia config today, I realized that much of this is controlled by a policy, or several policies. The fun part is that the policies live in the repository, there's no obvious way to have it as local files. It makes sense, I suppose, if you have a bunch of similar machines (e.g. workstations) that must follow the same policy, and put their backups to the same repository.
All traditional practices of use of psychedelic substances emphasize the importance of preparation, having the right state of mind, right stimuli / environment, and sitters in un-altered state of mind nearby.
LSD is not known to permanently alter brain; for that you need psilocybin.
If you understand that LSD doesn’t permanently alter the brain, why do you think PY “permanently” alters the brain? It does alter the brain (like LSD; see the plethora of research on PY altering neurogenesis and functional connectivity [0]), I’m unsure of what you mean by “permanent”.
It permanently changed my buddy's brain when we were in college doing it. He thought he was talkng to God and blew his brains out. Not worth it for me now.
If you've known a few people who suffer psychotic symptoms and get to know the pattern of how they developed, drugs can appear commonly but it's much less cut and dry whether the drugs are responsible.
For example college age, like your buddy was at, is very typically the onset time for schizophrenia even without drugs. And schizophrenia itself may make people gravitate towards drugs.
I know that there absolutely are people who shouldn’t take it based on their mindset and underplaying predispositions.
There is certainly a point to be made about psychoactive (and other) drugs inducing episodes of psychosis. This is something on the uptick with marijuana legalization in the US [0].
And I think am plainly wrong about my understanding of these effects not being “permanent”. I suppose I was thinking about this too much from a “neurotypical” angle, and not from the angle of how substances can alter the neurological trajectory of people with predisposed sensitivity.
AFAICT there exists no conclusive biomedical evidence of permanent physiological effects of LSD. This may mean we're just not looking hard enough, but there's no certainty.
I'd say that procrastination is bad when it drives you into some unproductive but addictive behavior, like watching silly tiktok videos, etc. It can be actually good if you do "structured procrastination": can't force myself to do task X, but find solace in solving problem Y really neatly. Another approach is to take a walk, do push-ups, etc, anything that changes your focus away from mental tasks, and preferably brings more oxygen to your brain.
Yet another approach is analytical: "I can't stomach doing that thing! But what thoughts or feelings make me loathe it so much? Where do they come from?" Interesting insights can follow.
> It can be actually good if you do "structured procrastination"
This is actually what John Perry, an emeritus professor of philosophy at Stanford calls it. There is even an essay (and a whole website) called "Structured Procrastination" [1]:
> Structured procrastination means shaping the structure of the tasks one has to do in a way that exploits this fact. The list of tasks one has in mind will be ordered by importance. Tasks that seem most urgent and important are on top. But there are also worthwhile tasks to perform lower down on the list. Doing these tasks becomes a way of not doing the things higher up on the list. With this sort of appropriate task structure, the procrastinator becomes a useful citizen. Indeed, the procrastinator can even acquire, as I have, a reputation for getting a lot done.
Understatement is something only the renowned can afford; those who suck (or swindle) have to resort to overstatement and seek gullible audience.
reply