For measuring things so small such as fringe patterns, having this thing sitting in a non-temperature controlled room with a laser going through the room's air (which your breath and ambient humidity / dust can affect) and a webcam whose framerate may be variable, I'd say it's a whole lot of science with a not at all scientific control setup. Where's the beam splitter for the laser so he can get a reference value for the fringe pattern?
Whatever you do, don't do what my office did - they installed speakers that play pink noise. It helps with the noise (so much chatter) but it's annoying as hell.
Well, one of my friends in Arizona has not necessarily his whole roof covered, but he is able to generate about 90% of his yearly energy usage. The only problem is that he doesn't have batteries installed, so he's selling his electricity to the local power company and buying it back. With batteries and a slightly larger system, he'd meet all his energy needs himself. It's definitely possible. One thing that helps is the hot water heater is solar powered as well.
Along those lines, is a cross-login of any kind really ever a filter for anything? Seems like it's generally more either a huge hassle or something to make seamless login much easier for people who don't care about using their facebook login for everything.
Shouldn't the content/workflow/UX of your site be what attracts certain kinds of users and disincentivizes others?
You make a very good point about content! Its true, that the content on the platform will determine whether the users get value from it. The caveat missing from your model is there are different types of users, with different, often opposing agendas, who might impact that UX.
Suppose for instance, we have a website where the content is generally great tech opportunities with cool companies.
Who's interested in that?
Engineers interested in job discovery might be and that is precisely our target audience. However, there are others who are also interested in that sort of information - recruiters, for instance, looking for leads. Now this is not the community we are trying to serve. In fact, we know that this demographic has the potential to seriously damage the UX of the employers of the others side of the platform (imagine if you signed up as a hiring manager to Workshape and it was advertised as direct employers only - and all you got in return was recruiters hassling you to give them a mandate to recruit for you...). So, we put into place mechanisms which firstly signal who our audience is, and secondly create friction to get in.
We understand that this is at some cost to rapid scale. But we don't value a platform which scales quickly, then equally quickly becomes toxic with the effluent of people who shouldn't be there.
Hope that makes sense! Keep the questions coming - feedback is welcome and necessary.
We know Github isn't a secure gate, but we also know that it is at least a gate - an extra admin layer to go through.
The analogy I'd use is similar to street crime. Your bike isn't secure because you put a D-lock on it. You're just making a little bit harder for the criminal to get it. A motivated bike thief? Yeah, he'll get your bike! But your casual criminal might just pass on rather than invest the time.
What we do want to avoid is to become a LinkedIn-like open platform, where recruiter parasitization is endemic. Our plan for a high signal, low noise platform is absolutely dependent on being agency free
Hope that answers your question. Keep them coming - all thoughts welcome!
In short, Deep Blue had 'preparation' against Kasparov from all his game histories, while Kasparov did not have the same benefit.
Kasparov had the benefit of playing all those games as well. ;)
As for your allegations of unfairness, code tweaks were allowed between games. It was part of the rules. Just not during games. And if Kasparov didn't think the rules were fair he could have declined the match.
>Kasparov had the benefit of playing all those games as well. ;)
You missed his point, its not about practice. The top chess players often study their opponents to understand what types of moves they make and in what situations they make those moves. If Kasparov were to play any other player in highly ranked matched both players would go and study their opponents move to get an insight in the way they think.
The "unfairness" in the Deep Blue match (or what made the Deep Blue match unlike other top-level play Chess), is that Deep Blue had a deep understanding of Kasparov's moves, but Kasparov had no information about Deep Blue's moves. And to make matters worse, any information he had built up in the previous games were erased once they tweaked the code.
Yeah, and all those things exist for Python, yet you don't see people using Pyjamas everywhere instead of javascript... people are not going to switch to ruby to do front end work that will work fine in javascript, especially when you have all these plugins in javascript that are great.
Reminds me of myself a few years back, but it was a different tactic. Ok maybe it was 13 years ago, but still... I was offered $14/hr for some job at a factory as computer support. I had an interview with the customer, and the agency accidentally forwards me what they were making. I asked for $17/hr or no deal. It was a fair deal because I knew how much they were making and their profit was still good. They threatened to get someone else, I hung up, they called back later and accepted the deal. After working there for a while I found the timesheets of the previous person ... at $17/hr. So I was glad that I held out. It was a fine moment of negotiation on my part. I could have asked for more, but I gave them a fair number that I knew they couldn't refuse.
