[-] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 4 points 21 hours ago

My brother has a Framework 13 and mainly uses a combination of NixOS and Windows. Most of the time he uses NixOS, but sometimes the software he needs is broken on Nix. When that happens, he reverts to a previous version of Nix or he boots onto Windows. He has Windows installed in one of the external-drive socket thingies that he keeps plugged in at all times in case he needs Windows.

Apart from the occasional broken Nix package, he has had issues with the hyper-sensitive two-finger scrolling in Gnome (which I would say is not directly a Framework or Nix problem). Also, a while back, when I bought the computer with him, we bought Oloy RAM because it was fast and cheap, but that lead to weird crashes. Framework support helped us test the sticks and eventually we sold those sticks and got the Framework-tested Crucial sticks, which solved the problem. Finally, I remember he had to be careful about not just closing the laptop but actually clicking "sleep" and then closing it, because otherwise it would get super hot and lose a lot of battery.

Despite these struggles, he recently told my Mac-loving girlfriend that he will not get a "disposable" computer. I take this to mean he will keep using his Framework laptop.

[-] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago

lol I hope your standups are not actually like this! The purpose is to, as a team, plan how to achieve a goal

[-] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Professionals have large networks of neurons. They are sturdy and efficient from repeated use. Memory palaces help to start the construction of these large networks of neurons. Afterwards, as another commenter noted, the knowledge is deeply processed. Mnemonics are replaced by networks of meaning. It is no longer “This algorithm rhymes with tomato”, but “This algorithm is faster if the data is stored in faster hardware, but our equipment is old so we better use this other algorithm for now”.

Broadly, the progression of learning is: superficial learning, deep learning, and transfer. Check out Visible Learning: The Sequel by John Hattie for more on this.

Edit: To directly answer your question, experts have so many sturdy neural hooks on which to hang new knowledge that mnemonics become less and less necessary. Mnemonics may be particularly helpful when first learning something challenging, but are less necessary as people learn.

You could also check out a paradox called the expert paradox. We used to think memory is boxes that get filled. This idea was directly challenged by Craik and Lockhart’s Levels of Processing. Levels of processing supports the idea that “the more you know, the faster you learn”. Note that this is domain-specific. In other words, an expert in dog training won’t learn quantum mechanics faster than anyone else.

[-] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 15 points 4 days ago

This reminds me of this video that shows how Italian food is a recent invention https://youtu.be/iZZfwyKa0Lc

111
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by snek_boi@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
100
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by snek_boi@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.world
[-] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 81 points 2 months ago

I MISSED THE EQUIVALENT OF PLACE IN LEMMY? Does anyone have context?

[-] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 42 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)
[-] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 43 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Your comparison is interesting, but let's consider some historical facts. The Apollo program, which successfully put humans on the moon, actually employed many principles we now associate with Agile methodologies.

Contrary to popular belief, it wasn't a straightforward Waterfall process. NASA used frequent feedback (akin to daily Scrums), self-organizing teams, stable interfaces so that teams are an independent path to production, and iterative development cycles - core Agile practices. In fact, Mariana Mazzucato's book Mission Economy provides fascinating insights into how the moon landing project incorporated elements remarkably similar to modern Agile approaches. Furthermore, here's a NASA article detailing how Agile practices are used to send a rover to the moon: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20160006387/downloads/20160006387.pdf?attachment=true

While it's true that building rockets isn't identical to software development, the underlying principles of flexibility, collaboration, and rapid iteration proved crucial to the missions' success. Programs like the Apollo program adapted constantly to new challenges, much like Agile teams do today.

Regarding Kanban and Scrum, you're right that they fall under the Agile umbrella. However, each offers unique tools that can be valuable in different contexts, even outside of software.

Perhaps instead of dismissing Agile outright for hardware projects, we could explore how its principles might be adapted to improve complex engineering endeavors. After all, if it helped us reach the moon and, decades later, send rovers to it, it might have more applications than we initially assume.

8

It seems that Microsoft is (perhaps inadvertently) employing dirty tactics to entice users like myself. Without having a Microsoft account, I am regularly receiving verification codes to log in. I'd usually dismiss these messages, but they come from official Microsoft.com domains. What's more, I'm receiving hundreds of them. These messages may lead me to believe that someone else has created an account using my email address or that there's a potential security risk associated with my email address.

By creating this sense of urgency and fear, Microsoft could be encouraging users like myself to create accounts out of concern for our own safety and the integrity of our personal data. This tactic plays on our natural desire for self-preservation and can lead us to take actions that may not have been initially intended.

However, it's essential to note that this entire post is based on two facts:

  1. I've received hundreds of messages from official Microsoft domains claiming to have my verification codes.
  2. I don't have a Microsoft account with that email address.

Is this a tactic that a middle manager can use to claim they brought in more users? Is this just another example of the awful tactics that Microsoft uses? Or is this post in the wrong community and it's more of a bug that they should fix?

[-] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 91 points 3 months ago
  1. Of course, people should donate to make Lemmy sustainable.
  2. I recognize that this is true of any website that is not enshitified or, more broadly, is designed to maximize profits. Websites made with libre software are the public libraries of the internet!
693
[-] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 108 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Masturbation is totally normal and healthy, and you're spot on that it shouldn't be demonized or shamed. In men, it might even reduce the risk of prostate cancer.

At the same time, it's important to have a balanced and psychologically flexible relationship with masturbation and sexuality. As psychologist Steven Hayes, a leading expert on psychological flexibility, explains: getting too fixated on any one activity or coping mechanism, even a healthy one, can lead to psychological inflexibility if it is used to avoid experiencing your life fully (For a thorough explanation of how this works, feel free to check out A Liberated Mind by Steven Hayes). Psychological inflexibility here means getting stuck in rigid behavior patterns to the point that it messes with living a full and meaningful life.

So while I'm totally with you that masturbation is healthy and that bullshit social taboos against it should be rejected, it's also good to be mindful about your motivation behind doing it. Are you doing it because you're escaping pain? Or are you doing it because it aligns with your values and makes your life meaningful? If you rely on masturbation too much and don't have ways of accepting your emotions and connecting with the world, it could potentially tip into unhelpful psychological rigidity and a frustrating life. The key is to be able to experience masturbation while still staying flexible enough to show up fully for the rest of your life too.

[-] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 46 points 4 months ago

It’s about time Instagram enshittifies in a grotesque way, grotesque enough for people to realize it’s shit (because it’s enshittified).

25

Apparently, the researchers contacted some VPN providers. Perhaps Proton is one of them.

[-] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 42 points 5 months ago

It actually took me a while to realize he was not wearing the clothes of a McDonald's worker.

65
submitted 6 months ago by snek_boi@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
207
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by snek_boi@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.world
52
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by snek_boi@lemmy.ml to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world
13
submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by snek_boi@lemmy.ml to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world

Thinking a thought is like watering a plant in a garden. Your attention is the sprinkler. The more you water a plant (up to a point, of course), the more the plant grows.

Similarly, the more you think about a thought, the more that thought network grows. The denser a thought network, the likelier it is that you will end up thinking about/through that thought network. There are more entry points and the paths are better paved.

In other words, thinking thoughts make it likelier that you will think those thoughts in the future. This can cause psychological rigidity.

However, psycholofical flexibility can be developed through mindfulness. In particular, I am talking about mindfulness developed through meditations like mindful breathing. In that kind of meditation, you start by noticing your breath. When you're distracted by something, you pay attention to it, but you return to the breathing. The point is to develop flexible attention. You choose what to pay attention to, even when your attention is pulled by something.

That is why I say that experienced meditators would notice earworms just like anyone else (after listening to the song or remembering it because of another related memory), but because they can choose not to pay attention to it and feed that thought network, there is a lower probability of having those networks reinforced. Their sprinklers can turn off with more ease than non-meditators'.

Meditators can choose not to feed the cognitive network. Non-meditators could find themselves feeding the network.

-1
submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by snek_boi@lemmy.ml to c/unpopularopinion@lemmy.ml
114
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by snek_boi@lemmy.ml to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world

Semantic satiation happens when repeating word or a phrase over and over makes it temporarily lose its meaning. This was first written about in the psychological literature by Titchener, in case you search it online and find that name.

Because word repetition causes defusion (in the Acceptance and Commitment Therapy way), these professors could actually be more cognitively flexible than other people, at least in terms of whatever it is that they're grading.

37
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by snek_boi@lemmy.ml to c/socialism@lemmy.ml
[-] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 45 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think the way to formally prove this is to find the difference between the Fibonacci approximation and the usual conversion, and then to find whether that series is convergent or not. Someone who has taken the appropriate pre-calculus or calculus course could actually carry it out :P

However, I got curious about graphing it for distances "small enough" like from Earth to the sun (150 million km). Turns out, there's always an error, but the error doesn't seem to be growing. In other words, except for the first few terms, the Fibonacci approximation works!

This graph grabs each "Fibonacci mile" and converts it to kilometers either with the usual conversion or the Fibonacci-approximation conversion. I also plotted a straight line to see if the points deviated.

Edit: Here's another graph

So it turns out:

  • Fibonacci-approximated kilometers are always higher than the usual-conversion kilometers
  • At most, the difference between both is 25%. That happens early on in the terms.
  • After that, the percentage difference oscillates around a value and comes closer to it.
  • When talking about more than 100 miles, the percentage change approximates 0.54.

TL;DR:

  • Yes, the Fibonacci trick is true forever as you go higher in the sequence if you're willing to accept a 0.54% error.
view more: next ›

snek_boi

joined 3 years ago