Super interesting. My notes as a colorblind man (might be misunderstanding some stuff though):
(Being a little sloppy with sex stuff here. Not all women have two x’s, women can be colorblind too, etc.)
• Two of our usually-three cones are specified on the X chromosome
• When one of a woman’s X’s specifies an anomalous cone she ends up with a 4th, anomalous type of cone.
• This happens ~14% of the time for women.
• That’s about the same percent as color blindness in men.
• That’s not a coincidence. Because color blindness comes from one of these women’s sons getting that anomalous 4th come instead of a typical 3rd cone. This anomalous cone tends to overlap more with one of the other cones in its range of perceived frequencies, which is what causes color blindness.
• But only a small percentage (not sure what percent yet?) of these women with 4 different cones actually seem to be able to perceive more colors
• that’s because the 4th, anomalous cone might basically fully overlap with one of the typical ones in its perceived frequency range, so it doesn’t really give the brain any additional info
• one question I have: so it seems like not all these anomalous cones are the same. Is there a fixed number of types? Or is it more of a spectrum? Further, are /all/ cones on a variable spectrum? Or is almost everyone’s blue cone exactly the same?
• this was interesting: colorblind men actually have a set of colors they can distinguish that people with normal color vision can’t (the article explains why)
• in this study they found colorblind men (but by looking at unusual things they /could/ see, not things they couldn’t? Not sure) and then tested their mothers to see if they could see extra colors.
• Most of them couldn’t. One of them could. The study was only like 9 people? Safe to say /all/ of these women had 4 types of cones, even though only one of them had a sufficiently non-overlapping fourth one to get some benefit?
• As a colorblind man, I’ve never noticed an ability to distinguish colors others can’t. Only the opposite.
• it’s intellectually neat to know that’s possible, even if it doesn’t tend to “come up” in everyday life.
• It souuuunnndssss like the amount of extra color vision that these tetrachromats get is only the same as the extra color vision /I/ get—that same “theoretically there, but doesn’t seem to come up in everyday life” thing. That’s a little disappointing—I though tetrachromacy was more kooky.
If you enjoy devouring this guys writing, buy his book, “And Then I Thought I Was A Fish” (I think it’s the “novel” he references the game being based on?). I really really liked it. Link at the bottom of the original post.
The other book is just a collection of blog posts. It’s /okay/. But I really really liked ATITIWAF. The kind of book that makes you want to try your hand at writing.
This is the first time I've heard this characterization of Interview Cake as making the Google-style whiteboard coding interview accessible to small(er) companies.
It /might/ be /somewhat/ true. But I'm skeptical.
Anecdotally, when I started Interview Cake 6 years ago it was already true that most small companies my friends and I interviewed with were using these sorts of data structures and algorithms questions. The handful of exceptions were mostly companies that were outside the "scene" (usually because they weren't in SF or NY).
Oh yeah, looks like we messed that up. That space complexity also doesn't even agree with the final space complexity we describe in the write up.
I'm gonna actually change the space complexity in the table for both counting sort and radix sort to O(n)--that at least matches the amount of hand-waviness we used for the time costs for those two in the table.
Curious: did people notice that you can click on each algorithm and click the blue button to get a detailed write up of how it works? (Or is that too hard to find?)
My dream is to make film and video game scores.
Oh and I did this goofy lil thing the other day: https://youtu.be/ie9JHxFAsCo