Alex_MJ
I'm a relatively experienced lifter - heavy squats 3x per week is brutal for the first week or so and then your body adapts to it.
I've found that I'll actually stick with a ~hourlong workout, 3-5x a week that I believe in and have goals for over anything quick with no discernible aim. And it's amazing how time magically appears to actually show up at the gym when you prioritize it.
A "scientific" 7 minute workout with no discernible goals is an admirable thing but honestly it's a cheap novelty at best - I've never heard of anybody actually sticking to one, "doing the bare minimum" is just not motivating at all. Scientific according to whom? To what end? Why am I doing this?
Exercise science is inherently a little bit voodoo. Motivation and consistency are much more important than the time requirement.
If somebody's had any success with vague goalless 7-minute workouts, or has even stuck with them consistently, I'd love to hear differing opinions.
Super useful for automating things that are easy to handle by looking for patterns/things on screen and hard to handle with APIs (or lack thereof)
There are a number of books I enjoyed in the paper era that I flat out can't find on Amazon now, and I tend to think of Amazon as "ALL THE BOOKS".
Can you double-check your link? I tried following it but it just links to this thread.
I'm not missing that at all. The fact that we expect corporations to further their own interests over those of the public (and that people who are cunning enough to get into powerful government positions often come from industry) is exactly why the law is lettered that way in the first place.
If you think you get to a position anywhere close to where these guys are by being a jeopardizing valuable relationships in the name of doing-things-in-the-spirit-of-selfless-public-service, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'm looking to sell. Good price, too, shoot me a PM.
A high level official got invited to a party, and declined because "the rules folks over here tell me I can't". They know each other (makes sense, they're both working at a high level in the same industry) and they have people watching their backs to make sure they don't do anything that can legally be considered corrupt (again, makes sense, shit's a minefield and an ill-defined one at that. If I were in that position I would have people keeping an eye on that whether I was corrupt or pious as a lamb)
Am I missing something? I clicked on that link salivating for the political blood of Comcast executives and all I got was a polite grownup email version of "sry bro can't come, rules n shyt, sounds bumpin tho"
Compared to 95% of their peers (which are, at least statistically, true underachievers in that they never made it into the mainstream or at least the tech-mainstream, or didn't survive long enough that we would recognize them today), they're waaaay on the right side of the bell curve.
Indeed. What a bunch of slackers!
(2) Having limited legal knowledge, I'm curious what he means with "a lottery ticket to a lawsuit". Is he indicating that patenting something would make a company more likely to get sued? My basic understanding is the opposite, that patents yield protection from lawsuits rather than create exposure to them. Is this flawed?
In general - I want to give people who don't know me personally (and especially people trying to sell me anything) less power to catch my attention and pull at my impulses, not more.
I'll be darned if he couldn't find someone to work with who could handle getting his work online though. It's mere wishful thinking, but he could draw and communicate (or not) in whichever way he wants, and some trusted friend and gatekeeper handles all of the scanning and online stuff, which could be kept very simple and noncommercial. No ads, twitter, comments section or any of the usual "social media branding" stuff, literally just a page with a comic on it.
Sigh. Man, I still miss Calvin and Hobbes.
The message is "The Verizon Network is Crowded Right Now." not "Verizon is Deliberately Slowing This Right Now." (or some less loaded version of that)
It's bad PR for the ISPs, but combined with the fact that most people can hardly spell ISP, and that Comcast and their FCC homies keep describing the new toll booth as a fast lane, if I were a nontechnical consumer my first response would be, "What the hell are they waiting for? Put in the fast lane! I wanna watch my damn movies!"
As a non-neuroscientist, the WashU course on Coursera about Computational Neuroscience was also really good. Not sure if there's an upcoming offering, but I'd highly recommend taking it. Keep in mind it's heavy on computation on a "simulate neurons and small networks of neurons" level and light on top-down neuroscience
Remember their free-publicity drones segment on 60 minutes that made Amazon Prime go apeshit right before Black Friday? They've got a very clever marketing department.
Furthermore, this is exactly the kind of thing that would
(a) Drive traffic that otherwise wouldn't care to a promo for a video about another goddamn smartphone
(b) Convince whoever watches it, even if purely for entertainment value, that this is a totally different phone and worth paying attention to (like the opposite of when I keep ignoring Samsung or whoever's "THE NEXT BIG THING" every two months...yeah, whatever, the screen is a different size or something)
If they just announced "we're making a smartphone guys - here's a video!" it wouldn't be nearly as huge. I wouldn't be surprised if this gets on the front page of reddit purely because it's hilarious when you misinterpret it.
Hell, worked on me.
It's kind of a bummer that they're needing to pivot and find a way to revenue - from a non-business, purely consumer perspective I find the site really enlightening and valuable.
Data - Python - Machine Learning - Human Learning
Software developer with experience in machine learning, statistics, web apps, data mining specific to hardware. Work mainly in python, flask/django, AWS, proficient with frontend technologies, but much more interested in complicated data-intensive stats-heavy find-some-insights work. If I haven't worked with a technology before, I generally figure out how to handle it pretty quickly. I'm also happy to consult with executives/management about leveraging data, being data-fluent, and not burning tons of money chasing vague "big data" dreams and getting nothing out of it.
EXPERIMENTAL: I'm absolutely passionate about self-directed learning, and the way that most companies incentivize their employees getting smarter is, IMO, somewhere between nonexistent and ass-backwards. If somebody wants guidance incentivizing employees to pick up new skills and mental models (whether technical, management, interpersonal) - definitely shoot me an email and let's talk.
Background also includes mechanical/industrial engineering, and managing large industrial projects, I'm very solid at leading/working alongside teams.
Contact: alex at courseradius dot com
If anyone in SF is interested in helping out, I could totally use a collaborator or two if skillsets/personalities mesh well. (I'm doing all the coding right now but the project could greatly benefit from a second developer with good design sense and some web dev experience)
High-ranking intelligence officials will push for more power, more capabilities, and will scrap things if they become risky.
If there's somebody sufficiently powerful whose career would be threatened from some risk of exploiting the bug, that risk will be taken seriously.
If there's somebody sufficiently powerful whose career would benefit from the government letting people know about that bug, it'll happen. This sounds unlikely, but this isn't my area of expertise and if somebody wants to correct me please do so.
Congress will largely ignore it because it has nothing to do with their constituency, they're mostly technically illiterate, and because they're being lied to anyways.
...and so on.
Out of curiosity, how do you handle conflicts?
Like, say you have an important customer who wants to meet in the morning, or things have fallen behind and DEAR GOD I NEED THOSE HOURS TO MAKE IT WORK?
I'd assume lots of get-things-done-in-advance so things don't get to that stage, but if that fails and it becomes one-or-the-other, how do you handle it?
IMO there's way too much fearmongering (largely from people who have no experience trading, or from traders who don't want to see other people do better than them) about this. I've traded options on a very volatile commodity ETF before (SLV) and came out quiet well on top by playing with patterns and timing. This was in 2010, but there was the same "THE COMPUTERS CONTROL THE MARKETS AND YOU'LL GET CRUSHED" fearmongering hyperbole as there is today. It'll be there four years from now, too.
There's smart money and super fast algorithms and all that for sure, but there's plenty of dumb money moving around too. There are also plenty of people (I will note: often nontechnical individuals) who make a good living day trading. You basically just have to find a pattern ANYWHERE, IN ANYTHING and trade it over and over until it stops working (...and catch on quick). You might lose money (especially starting out), but it's not at all the experience of "you will step in and BE CRUSHED BY EXPERT TRADING ALGORITHMS" that people portray it as.
Start a brokerage account, do some reading, put in a sum of money that's consequential but that won't break you if you 100% lose it, and play around a little bit. Try focusing on one specific (preferably fairly liquid) security. You'll be amazed at how sometimes you make the right call and magically you have more money than you started with, and how you don't immediately die and get shot and lose all of your money to some corrupt evil high-speed algorithm while being eaten by wolves because, you shameful Icarus fool, you dared to trade on the public markets by yourself.
Risk-averse people (especially programmers) who have no experience trading will think you're completely insane and lambaste you, especially if you make money.
Out of curiosity, what sites would you say have been constructive?
My intuition is that StackExchange would probably be good if you're knowledgeable in esoteric/lucrative fields, whereas most people probably don't use their real name on reddit (depending on the subreddit, perhaps), but I'm interested to hear your experience.
Whenever a website (or anything offline that might put rankings or whatever online) wants me to use my real name, I usually default to "Alex", "Alex M/MJ" or "Alex (gibberish)" depending on their guidelines. What they view as a policy that "encourages openness", I view as something that will guide first impressions when people google me unto eternity.
Even if it's not controversial, it's the first thing a potential client or employer sees when they type things into google, and I don't want to be reckless with that. I don't want to have to view every minor action that I make on a website as something that's potentially going to be on the front page of google's results for my name.
When I was in HS, my friends had a poker league, and we all had nicknames and personas - someone put up a page with hilarious (but decidedly unprofessional) caricatures and quotes and it was the first thing that showed up under my name. I noticed it and asked my friend to change it, which he though was hilarious but understood and did.
Same for Meetup. A long time ago I went to some meetups that could potentially be alienating to some folks (agnostics and whatever, way back in the day when I felt it was worth arguing about) and BOOM, google front page for my name. If I had a client who was somewhat religious, I don't care at all but I don't want that to show up and all of a sudden I'm accidentally alienating people. For showing up to something.
Whenever I run a 5k or do anything remotely prestigious I always use my full name so that the front page of google just gets filled with that kind of thing in case anything else that's potentially a liability pops up and I don't notice it. It's annoying.