Interesting. I have always felt I am missing out on not using tools like Mathematica or MatLab. I see some people doing everything using MatLab, including building GUI and DL models, which I found surprising for a single software suite, and - nowadays - one that is quite affordable (at least the home edition).

Mathematica seems a little pricey but maybe it would motivate me to learn more math.

I would love to read what non-mathematicians use MatLab, Mathematica, and Maple for.

Matlab and Mathematica are VERY different.

Matlab and Python are in the same ballpark. Easy syntax and large standard library. Matlab provides a lot more dedicated libraries for niche areas but the overall experience feels the same.

Mathematica doesn't really have a standard counterpart. Jupyter notebooks try to capture the experience but the support for symbolic expressions makes the Mathematica experience very different.

Matlab is fundamentally not a great language. It's not great at interacting with data that isn't already blocks of numbers, it's terrible for UI design, and even for matrix manipulation numpy is beating it nowadays. The main reason to use it is if you really need something in one of the toolboxes that doesn't have an open-source equivalent, or for Simulink. As a general data processing language it's far from the best default.

I'm a non-mathematician and I used it for lots of novel stuff - GIS, visualisations of all kinds, machine learning. The Wolfram Community staff picks is a great introduction into the varied things you can do: https://community.wolfram.com/content?curTag=staff%20picks

To be fair it was used a lot during my physics studies. I opted to use it afterwards for integrals and derivations, very powerful.

Yeah, I was one of those schmucks that used sympy / python instead of mathematica in my physics coursework. Policy was "mathematica is recommended and supported, but you can bring your own tools if you want to and can make them work."

In retrospect, doing the work in mathematica would have probably stretched my brain more (in a good way!) since it provides a different and powerful way of solving problems vs other languages...maybe I'll have to revisit it. Perhaps even try advent of code with it?

While python did get the job done, it feels like the ceiling (especially for power users) is so much higher in mathematica.

MatLab was taught and used extensively at my university, and has many strong sides and a fantastic standard library. We used it mainly for physics and robotics calculations. The licenses are (were?) prohibitively expensive outside of academia though. Hard to compete with free Python + NumPy and a larger talent pool.

I used mathematica for real last time in SGI days and loved it. I know probably a ton has changed since, but I do have to ask those that use it today if you'd still use it for non math-heavy (and even so) tasks if you have access to the wonderful world of python and jupyter / polars, R, and similar?

Mathematica is awesome for weird, one-off tasks in fields that I'm unfamiliar with, since the documentation is excellent, and the functionality is really broad (so I don't need to figure out how to install a specialty program for every one-off task). But for fields that I'm experienced with or tasks that I'm planning on running frequently, I'll usually just use Python, since most of the Python libraries have more functionality and run quicker than Mathematica.

(Mathematica is of course much better than Python at symbolic math, but this isn't what you are asking about)

You have a good product, but I would remove beautiful* from your copy. Based on what I tried, every result page has the same AI aesthetic, with low contrast text which is at times _very_ hard to read (e.g., small red text).

Strudel is great! But... are these really chords?

note("c4 e4 g4 c5").sound("triangle")

As a sibling comment said, it's a C major chord, but voiced one noted at a time. "usually" / in pop, you hear all the notes at once.

> but voiced one noted at a time

I think OP's point is that the very definition of a chord is a bunch of notes played at the same time.

Whereas when played separately it would be an referred to as an arpeggio. But in harmony we might still refer to it as a chord, as in saying, arpeggiate the C# minor (chord) to start moonlight sonata.

This might better be described as arpeggiating C#m second inversion or even C#m/G# in the right over C# in the left...

This is getting possibly-weird but you could call it an arpeggiation of G#sus4(#5)/C#

I think chords at least three notes played at once, with the exception of maybe power chords. Using your definition, every piece with two or more notes has chords :)

https://www.britannica.com/art/chord-music

As per my knowledge, and as per Britannica, a chord actually uses three or more notes. A two note structure is called a diad, which implies a bit of confusion in the term "power chord" (written as 5, as in G5, which == G D == 1 5).. as it is not by definition a chord but a diad.

This may be a pedantic clarification, but that is the definition

TBH "definition" depends on the theory from which you're looking at the notes.

In the eyes of the Common Practice two simultaneous notes are not chords; in rock they most definitely are; in EDM you don't even care, since timbre is all that matters; in jazz you'd say "it depends" (e.g. might even be a triad with an omitted 5th... depending on context!)

Music theory is too post-hoc.

What do you mean? Yes that is a C Major chord.

Is it? :)

https://strudel.cc/#Cm5vdGUoImM0IGU0IGc0IGM1Iikuc291bmQoInRy...

Arpeggiated chord?

I quite enjoyed the writing style (despite a little wrinkle around context/contextual), but I am a bit disappointed that the article was so light on details.

it is light on details because the author wishes to invade your privacy in exchange for catering to your perversions

Relating it to the OP, github sometimes feels like the original world "wild" web.

Sure, wild in the confines of Microsoft's corporate landscape, but I find it more likely to come across something interesting and useful there than on a random blog. (Plus, no pop-ups, newsletter subscriptions, etc.)

Looks great! Would you have a recommendation for intro materials to help me learn the basics of electronics using CircuitLab? I have a working understanding of signal processing but building an actual circuit without electrocuting myself, not setting my Raspberry Pi on fire, or selecting the right set of components for the simplest DIY project based on spec sheets are a mystery to me.

Not sure if it’s a fit for what you’re looking for, but maybe https://ultimateelectronicsbook.com/ (maybe more theoretical than practical).

I’ve heard good things about “Practical Electronics for Inventors” but haven’t gone through it myself.

Best comment! Thanks.

You can delete memories in ChatGPT and ask your bot to add a custom ones; memories can be instructions too. Gemini lets you create and edit memories.

Maybe it depends on a person, but I find some of their products quite useful. For example, I use a few of my own custom GPTs almost daily and have a few scheduled tasks running.