abannin

Don't fake identity. If the site requires a login, don't fake that login. This has legal implications.

There is a very active secondary market for sneakers. If you can buy before supply is exhausted, you can make some decent money.

Theory is very systematic if you start with listening, but will seem haphazard if you start with the physics.

You've never heard of this because it's not true. A note wants to resolve up or down based on it's relative distance from tonic. This had nothing to do with what it's named, the most important part of naming notes is not repeating letters in an 8-note scale.

> taking one example, F# "wants" to step up to G, whereas Gb "wants" to step down to F.

Uhhh....no? A flat or sharp can be the tonic, which does not lead to any other note. A note is named flat or sharp to maintain proper interval distance without repeating letters within the scale. A flat is typically not a leading tone because of interval distance, but can still want to resolve up or down. Any note can be consonant or dissonant, leading or resolved depending on the context.

Music theory is really a domain specific language. Like all languages (not programming), the only way to really learn is to converse with others. I don't think you can learn theory alone, it only makes sense when you talk about music using music theory with other musicians.

1) Talk to a lawyer. Details are going to vary wide depending on where you are and the documentation that exists.

2) Your work has value, quite possibly more value than the capital put in by Jim.

3) If you own 40%, Jim has to buy your 40%. You position as a shareholder is not related to your position as an employee. Ownership doesn't disappear. I don't quite understand how/why you would reduce to 5% from 40% (without dilution events).

4) Don't sign anything until you talk to a lawyer.

Whether or not the price falls within your expected range. Prices can rise faster than someone's perception of the price range, so the conclusion is that the asset is "overvalued". In other words, "overvalued" is a subjective conclusion that is weighted by human biases. What may be "overvalued" for one person might be "undervalued" for another. Another key component is the perception/faith of asset growth. Can the price of the asset continue to rise? If yes, then it is "undervalued".

- consequences for negative actions <--- big one

And probably more important, rewards for positive actions. Positive reinforcement is pretty powerful in general.

> Yes, but production <> distribution

Compare with the second paragraph: "The reality is that Facebook is one of the most powerful companies the tech industry — and arguably, the world — has ever seen. True, everything posted on Facebook is put there for free, either by individuals or professional content creators; and true, Facebook isn’t really irreplaceable when it comes to the generation of economic value; and it is also true that there are all kinds of alternatives when it comes to communication. However, to take these truths as evidence that Facebook is fragile requires a view of the world that is increasingly archaic."

FB doesn't pay for the content, which is a major advantage over traditional companies that do both creation and distribution (newspapers) or ones where content is licensed somehow (television, music labels). FB is agnostic to the costs of creating the content, but their networks necessitate producers to user their platform.

Thompson's point here isn't about the content itself, but rather the supply chain for the content. Because the internet effectively provides 'infinite' distribution, the traditional models of controlling distribution are worthless. This is a very consistent theme in his writings.

Consider that both the worthless and valuable content that you've defined use the same methods for distribution; Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc.

Okay, let's use another example. I waited tables in high school. I was very bad. I knew I was bad, but I worked hard to improve. Still, even after a few years of experience a random person who had never had a job before could walk in and get better tips than me. My boss wouldn't fire me because I showed up for shifts, but I was generally a very poor waiter. Eventually I got smart and stopped waiting tables, and the world became a better place.

It's very possible to be bad at something AND know that you're bad at it AND not be able to reach the proficiency to perform the task at a professional level.

Also, it's pretty clear that I can read. If you are going to insult me, it's better to insult my comprehension or argumentation. However, I would argue that it's generally better to just not insult other people.

No, I am not a professional basketball player. I can't even compete in a neighborhood pickup game. That is the point; I lack the raw material to be a professional athlete. It's very possible to be bad at something AND know that you're bad at AND not be able to reach the proficiency to perform the task at a professional level.

I'm really bad at basketball. I have to insight to realize this, and I tried to get better. I really cared about getting better. But at the end of the day, I am not athletic. Sure, I can devote time and energy to improving my basketball skills, but I will never achieve anything beyond 'mediocre'.

There's also a chicken and the egg issue here; perhaps the author really does not enjoy coding and thus is not willing to put in the effort to improve?

Such bold conclusions from 900 words and a single perspective. Isn't it possible that the author is, in fact, not good at the job?

How very Keynesian.

Paying people to not contribute to GDP will result in decreased GDP. Lower GDP means less income to be distributed.

UBI is not the first time someone has proposed that a central authority should determine the income of the general population. It doesn't take much research into Russia to recognize this as 'serfdom'.

Looks good, I think there is a great foundation. The Pentatonic Scale feels out of place; but that's probably because I feel that pentatonic is just a mutation of other modes. Chords are really just stacked intervals, it might make sense to move them immediately after the 'harmony' section? The interface is really nice, but I don't think it clearly communicates or reinforces the idea of 'tonic', which is fundamental to understanding music theory. Please keep working on this, there needs to be a good interactive explanation of music theory!

EDIT: You might benefit from filling out the intervals section. Clearly articulate each interval, which are classified as consonant vs dissonant, etc. That would get the user/student thinking about 5ths vs 7ths, etc.

Yes, equal temperament is basically a compromise of tuning methods. While it can help ensure that a piece which modulates into different keys is in tune (as close as possible), equal temperament cannot tell the key that is being played.

I can see the G major argument. That would be a I/3 into IV. My professor would have said that answer is wrong due to voice leading, the 7 to 1 is very powerful. And the last chord is C, in root, meaning that's where you have resolved. Had the second interval been G+B, it would make the GMaj argument stronger. Ultimately, it's really context. You're really just asking about cadences, very roughly translated means "how chords resolve".

I'm not sure this applies here. Equal temperament explains how an interval is in tune and does not determine what key a song is in.

This gets pretty complicated and subjective.

Strictly speaking, a "note" cannot define a key. To determine a key, you really need at least 2 intervals, wherein interval a somehow resolves to interval b. Keys are just a mapping of relationships; how does each of the 12 notes relate to each other? If you just play a C major chord, you aren't really playing in the key of CMaj, you're just playing a CMaj chord.

For example: Play B+G, then C+G. This is (arguably) C major. The B note resolves into the C note. That's the 7th moving into the Tonic (#1). This is an example of a V-I resolution, the strongest possible. If you'd like more examples, look up "cadences". There are 'principles' for determining the key, but they should not be understood as proofs.

I think you're also asking if/how to change keys. This is not only possible, but often highly encouraged. There are two extremely common key changes in pop music: 1) Up one step: This is incredibly common and can be heard in "I Will Always Love You" (album version, right after the 3 minute mark when she starts singing the chorus again). Once you start hearing this, you can't stop. It's all over the place. If we're in the key of C, we'll just play a D chord with a lot of confidence, typically after a G chord. 2) Minor to Major (or reverse, moving from sine to cosine in the analogy): This is much more subtle than the previous example. Typically you'll recognize this as a change in 'mood' or 'feeling'. You'll find a lot of Am-Em changes, then the chorus will be a lot of C-G changes. The tonic changes from Am to C, even though all the chords and notes being used are still the same (although the duration of said chords will probably be different).

Most "classical" music moves around keys pretty frequently, in extreme cases multiple times within a measure. And then there are chords/sections in which the key is debatable if not indiscernible (I would argue that the intro to Smashing Pumpkins "1979" is changing keys every 2 measures, but I think there's also a strong argument for it being in a single key)

Thinking about keys in terms of phases is a good basic explanation, but ultimately phase is much easier to measure. Perhaps I see it this way because my understanding of music is much better than my understanding of physics.

It's awesome that you're finding new things to learn. Honestly, reading sheet music is beneficial in a frightfully limited number of situations, and many many great musicians simply can't do it or find it a large struggle. Tabs are a wonderful entry point, I would encourage you to pursue learning by ear before reading. Keep playing!

When clients ask this question, I always suggest starting with a good SQL solution and then figure out why it won't work. So if you're not hitting any major problems with MySQL or SQL Server, then NoSQL solutions will just be incredibly labor intensive for, from your perspective, a loss in functionality. Each NoSQL database is different and designed to approach problems from SQL databases differently. For Mongo, this is having a very flexible denormalized schema with very fast reads. However, companies such as Pinterest and Facebook have found they can accomplish this with MySQL or Postgres through different data modeling. I think the reasons for NoSQL become much clearer when trying to build applications that do not keep a normalized data model.

I suspect the issue is one of two scenarios: 1) CEO has low bandwidth, hands off a nice-to-have-but-not-critical feature. They don't have to invest much time; if it works, awesome, if not, no problem. If you don't complete the feature, it may or may not get done. 2) Company is overwhelmed, feature is perceived to be easy(-ish). It will get done, you're just a first pass.

If (1), you're probably best served not asking for much help. If (2), you need to educate & manage expectations about the complexity and necessary steps for the feature. Either case, you would probably be best served by prioritizing the input/output functionality (input a picture, output a prediction) over optimizing precision/recall on the algo. This allows you to 1) show progress to others and 2) you can start having conversations about false positives/negatives by showing different images and the prediction output.

I don't think you need a mentor to say "I'm not confident that I can deliver that functionality within the timeline provided. Help me understand the most important parts of the feature so I can prioritize and deliver ASAP."

Congrats, you are getting a first hand perspective of a startup; there are no syllabi just a vague sense of which direction to walk. What you describe as "lack of guidance" can also be described as "hands off delegation". The presence or absence of task tracking, feature specs, etc mean nothing right now. Your success depends on your ability to take ownership of the feature, anticipate requirements, deliver the code, and ask for feedback. You've been thrown into the deep end of the pool while your peers who took normal internships are in the kiddie pool with floaties. Have fun and make time to come up for air every so often!

Sounds like you're dealing with some tough stuff. Everyone has times like these, so just know that you're not alone. I'd really encourage you to talk to a professional.

One of the things that helped me get through a pretty dark rough patch was just time away from responsibility. Then, when I jumped back in, being in a supporting/safe environment.

This is a fantastic overview of the issues surrounding DB's. Would love to see some deeper discussions on graph databases in the next version!

Not necessarily high rise, so much of the city below 4 stories. Just upzoning to 8-12 stories would triple density.