logram

Apparently it did: https://github.com/RaRe-Technologies/gensim/issues/1873

I was under the impression that you paid for a transaction. That wouldn't be free, would it?

From [1]:

Wikipedia develops at a rate of over 1.9 edits per second, performed by editors from all over the world. Currently, the English Wikipedia includes 6,167,378 articles and it averages 598 new articles per day.

Doesn't seem to be much, to be honest.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statistics

No, I think he means using the tuner to tell how well you sing intervals, etc. Find a center pitch, sing relative to that and keep track of how off you go from the correct notes.

Your last comment really resonated with me. This year I started thinking about how we relate ourselves to food, and I've come to think that we live in a very food-centric society. We have TV shows, instagram accounts, magazines and influencers all dedicated to sharing the best meals, recipes and restaurants. It is also very hedonistic. If you eat, it must be something delicious and picture-perfect, otherwise it's a missed opportunity. Don't bother cooking if you're not a MasterChef-level cook, it's better to just Deliveroo.

It's okay to sometimes cook bland food, or food that doesn't look that great. It's just food after all. And honestly we cook and eat so much. We don't need to consume as much as we do.

After gaining a few kilos last year I decided to stop following so many cooks and recipe channels. Suddenly my obsession with food was gone. Before, if I wasn't cooking, or eating a meal or a snack, or thinking about going to a restaurant, I was watching cooking videos or reactions to meals. After cutting it off, I only thought about food when I was hungry, and I could spend the rest of the day with more important things. After that I started counting calories and I was surprised how little food we actually need to survive, especially with a sedentary lifestyle.

There's a part of a Louie CK special in which he talks about what would happen if God came back to Earth and talked to Man about what he'd done to his creation. "Why do you need money for?" "I need money to buy food" "What do you mean buy food? Just eat the shit on the floor!" "Yeah, but it doesn't have bacon in it". And honestly we place so much importance on what the food is. It's just sustenance, eat some leaves and you'll be OK.

There's this quote from Kundera's The unbearable lightness of being. Perhaps it makes sense in this context.

    We all need someone to look at us. We can be divided into four categories according to
    the kind of look we wish to live under.  
    The first category longs for the look of an infinite number of anonymous eyes, in other
    words, for the look of the public. That is the case with the German singer, the American
    actress, and even the tall, stooped editor with the big chin. He was accustomed to his
    readers, and when one day the Russians banned his newspaper, he had the feeling
    that the atmosphere was suddenly a hundred times thinner. Nothing could replace the
    look of unknown eyes. He thought he would suffocate. Then one day he realized that
    he was constantly being followed, bugged, and surreptitiously photographed in the
    street. Suddenly he had anonymous eyes on him and he could breathe again! He
    began making theatrical speeches to the microphones in his wall. In the police, he had
    found his lost public.  
    The second category is made up of people who have a vital need to be looked at by
    many known eyes. They are the tireless hosts of cocktail parties and dinners. They are
    happier than the people in the first category, who, when they lose their public, have the
    feeling that the lights have gone out in the room of their lives. This happens to nearly all
    of them sooner or later. People in the second category, on the other hand, can always
    come up with the eyes they need. Marie-Claude and her daughter belong in the second
    category.   
    Then there is the third category, the category of people who need to be constantly
    before the eyes of the person they love. Their situation is as dangerous as the situation
    of people in the first category. One day the eyes of their beloved will close, and the
    room will go dark. Tereza and Tomas belong in the third category.   
    And finally there is the fourth category, the rarest, the category of people who live in the
    imaginary eyes of those who are not present. They are the dreamers. Franz, for
    example. He traveled to the borders of Cambodia only for Sabina. As the bus bumped
    along the Thai road, he could feel her eyes fixed on him in a long stare.

Just a question: why do you use the third person when describing yourself? I've seen it in resumes and some formal settings, but never on a personal homepage. Also I find it a bit odd.

The danger about making these lists is that you may end up thinking that you have to get a high number of reasons to make your claim seem valid. I would not be surprised if the author started stating five to ten reasons and then thought that 23 was a good number for the reference, therefore proceeding to fill up the article with whatever nonsense. That's the only process I can think of that nets you "they sell your DNA to other companies", "scientists can make gifs with your DNA" and "companies buy ads" to be arguments in the same hierarchical level.

Some of them are pretty serious consequences of using their services: some of them involving the company's practices, and others involving the dangers of developing this industry. Both should be considered in separate to get a clearer picture of the issue. This article is treating it as BuzzFeed treats a new game of thrones episode, therefore depriving it of any legitimacy.

I'd like to see more elaborated on three points particularly: the privacy implications of having your DNA shared, the accuracy and precision of the purported results and the possible dangers of applications of this industry.

I got lost at the thief part. I agree that knowledge sharing is good for both giving back to the community and as a goal in itself. But why does it make sense to call a thief someone that contributes to a community, even if done for self oriented goals?

You can do both of those things in vim. I don't mean to be nitpicky, I'm just mentioning in case someone reading this didn't know and uses vim. You can set scrollbind and convert splits (off the top of my head I think it's Cw Ch and Cw Ct).

Hopefully I didn't misunderstand what you meant, but I'd argue that a hobby is exactly not instant gratification. That I would call entertainment.

In my opinion the gratification of a hobby comes from enjoyment of the process itself. For example, if you play music, drilling through the same couple of measures until it sounds right might not pay off until the end, which might take hours and hours of work across many days. If you don't enjoy the process then you won't take it up as a hobby, but that doesn't mean there is constant gratification. Even more, the end result might not be as good as a professional product -- but it's yours and it's the journey that counts.

I say that instant gratification is entertainment because I would compare that to playing games or watching a movie. There's no process there, it's just gratification.

An example would be the people that make emulators as a hobby. Across their journey they find so many special cases and undocumented behaviour that it is certainly a lot of work riddled with unexpected obstacles. But exactly that is the process of problem solving and ultimately what they enjoy.

I haven't found a mobile option that doesn't considerably slow phone down yet.

You provide a certain input and you get a certain output. When you provide the same input again and again, you get the same output. This is very different in the brain. In the brain, even if you choose the exact same stimulus, the response varies from trial to trial.

Where does this variable response in the brain come from?

There are various hypotheses. There is, for example, unreliable synaptic transmission.

Maybe I am looking too much into a very simple example, but I disagree with it. The brain has recurrence and memory. The first time you show me something I react differently than the second time you show me it. Time has passed, my brain has acquired tons of feedback information, I have an idea of what it is before you show me again. If you have even the most simple models that incorporate memory (such as higher order Markov chains), they will react differently too.

The article falls a bit short I think. What if you consider each function as one character? What about automatic generation of solutions? (Maybe by dynamic programming?) IMHO it proposes an interesting problem and brushes it off.