dmlerner
The steps would be:
1) Drink > 140, PCM solid
2) energy flows drink -> PCM, drink cools toward 140, PCM liquifies gradually
Then two possibilities:
3a) drink cools to 140-epsilon before PCM liquifies fully
4a) PCM gives energy to drink in dynamic equilibrium, while also losing energy to environment, solidifying
5a) PCM is entirely solid at 140
6a) PCM drops below 140. drink gives energy to PCM and PCM to environment. drink -> PCM thermal conductivity is presumably much higher than PCM -> env, so drink and PCM remain at same temp
OR
3b) PCM liquifies fully before drink hits 140-epsilon
4b) drink and PCM stay at thermal equilibrium (see 6a) while cooling toward 140. energy flows drink -> PCM and PCM -> environment. The former is faster, so the PCM continues liquifying
5b) PCM is entirely liquid at 140. Due to thermal equilibrium, drink is also at 140.
6b) drink stays at 140 while PCM solidifies
7b) see 5a
8b) see 6a
grep for technogeek [here](https://joeveo.com/pages/the-temperfect-mug)
..........
> The formula looks at the variables below, and then spits out a "number" for every Googler. Each PA VP gets a % to cut, and as such there is a threshold. Anyone below that threshold gets RIF'd.
Variables are:
1) Location of labor. US Premium Plus was largely impacted versus cheaper areas. 2) Tenure and performance in level. 3) "Runway" of comp. (e.g. base salary vs MRP. eg. .8 of MRP Googlers have a long runway, vs 1.x of MRP Googlers are basically top of band, and 'tenured' with no runway except promo 4) Promo velocity
..........
Taken from https://www.teamblind.com/post/THE-DEFINITIVE-GOOGLE-LAYOFF-...
Disclaimer: Googler, but no particular internal-only information backing my impression of the above
I'm bitter about the whole thing, and also the upcoming [renovation of EC](https://www.reddit.com/r/mit/comments/nfpumq/east_campus_is_...) (the next dorm over, physically and culturally). The building is realistically past due for some TLC, but it's hard not to feel like it's motivated from more than that.
By contrast, Senior House was a significant legal liability due to large, public parties with a habit of sending people to the hospital for more interesting reasons than booze. That, the institute has financial, practical, concrete reasons to care about.
It's unclear to me that SH created more liability than frats and alcohol, but maybe, and it was certainly the perception.
For the kind of problems in physics 101, the Lagrangian is just kinetic energy minus potential energy: L = T - U. This is definitionally true; there's no "why" to that. Think of L as the formal specification of a system. There's no point in asking "why does this mass on a spring have L = 1/2mv^2 - 1/2kx^2": that equation specifies the problem.
In higher level physics, e.g. QFT, there are often identifiably kinetic and potential terms as well. However, there are also often other terms. At that level, you generally write L = sum of the most general possible terms that don't violate symmetries you want the system to have. This ability to work backwards from symmetries to L is to me the more useful perspective on Noether's theorem than going from knowing L to the symmetries.
> Do I define q(s) any way I want, or do I solve q(s) given the constraints of the system?
q(s) is the function which minimizes the time integral of L, and is solved for via the [principle of least action](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stationary-action_principle), which requires functional derivatives to understand. Most physicists, myself included, only marginally understand the math here and do a bit of hand waving. "d" "del" "delta" potato potahto.
The principle of least action also generates "equations of motion" from L. These are the differential equations that can be solved for x(t).
So, in short: a system is formally specified by its L, which has measurable meaning only because of the principle of least action.
If you didn't specify the principle of least action, or something else, it would be nearly meaningless to give an expression for L. You might as well say: "the mass on a spring has a potato of 1/3kx^97 - 1/2m^8*v^3 + 3". "Nearly" in that at least that would tell me that two systems with unequal potato are different systems.
Instead, I use Colab with Sympy + latex output and matplotlib (and most other things you could want to import, pre-installed). It's running new versions of things, and backed by more power, with an option to pay for even more. The latex rendering took a bit of poking around stackoverflow, but works just fine.
Feel free to copy:
https://colab.research.google.com/gist/dmlerner/23543255fdde...
An optimal fingering for n notes played one at a time by an F fingered hand can be found in nF^2 time, or I believe n(F^F)^2 if you allow F note chords. "Optimal" in the sense of minimizing a cost function defined in terms of state transitions: c(t, f, t', f') is the cost of playing note t with finger f, followed by note t' with finger f'. E.g. c(a3, 1, b3, 2) < c(a3, 1, b3, 5) because it's unpleasant to scrunch your pinky (5) that close to your thumb. (Notably, t/t' do not mean t_i and t_j, two notes in the piece.) There are papers quantifying such cost functions, apparently.
Side rant -
Having grown up on violin, but learning piano as an adult, (and as a programmer), it kills me to index fingers from 1 (thumb) to 5 (pinky). Violin doesn't use the thumb, so the pointer to pinky are 1->4! Worse, as a Suzuki violinist, I hear (to some approximation) the number of the finger I'm thinking about while playing. Worse yet, I read bass by "adding two" notes to treble, so I get a nice off-by-two to think about with my off-by-one.
I should, uh, probably get a teacher.
I was massively over using my pinkies with laptop modifier/arrow keys, and it's now all thumbs and home row. Took a while to come up with and learn my mappings in a Vim friendly way, but super worth it.
I had significant ulnar nerve pain. Tried PT, weightlifting, sleep braces, a (rather painful) nerve conduction study, stretches...nothing helped much, until the Keyboard.io.
As to say, not very "created in a weekend."
Took me...a while to decide how to map things for Vim + (on linux) i3wm + (on windows) Dexpot (for virtual desktops) and Aquasnap (as a window manager).
Some previous ulnar nerve pain got massively better. Thumbs are just such better digits. Why are we using pinkies for a billion keys?
-1/12 beers * $3 / beer = -$0.25
negative -> pay them for taking the beer
The -1/12 result is pretty widely known, but not particularly true. It's called "analytic continuation." There's a nonrigorous proof that's accessible at a highschool level - see [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_%2B_2_%2B_3_%2B_4_%2B_%E2%8B...)
Delightfully, this comes up in string theory, in computing the dimensionality of spacetime.