Definitely, but maybe that lets me see clear that is not that 'spotify killed the thrill of the hunt ' but rather 'i miss the old times', which wouldn't get as voted in HN.
In other words, clickbait title, not an interesting conversation topic.
Bad take, the more accessible is something to find, the easier it is for people to listen to it. And I think if you do music, you want as much ears listening to your tunes.
This romanticizes logistical issues for nostalgia purposes.
I did not live through that era, but his description makes me thankful i didn't have to go through all that to find my favorite music
OP, I would encourage you to take a sleep test. While it seems to be correlated with sound, it sounds (pun not intended) way too similar to my OSA symptoms
I can second this. The app basically shows more of what is proven to keep you in the app. It's kinda revealing to be frank: instead of getting mad with it just do some introspection.
Spanish is such a blessing as mispronouncing a word rarely changes the meaning.
Whereas in Chinese or to a lesser degree English, you have to very mindful on how you pronounce stuff.
As a native Spanish speaker the thing I dread the most is grammar and the absurd amount of verbal times there are. Even native speakers don't speak with perfect grammar.
Critical thinking, forming ideas, writing, etc, those are too stuff that can atrophy if not used.
For example, a lot of people can't locate themselves without a GPS today.
To be frank I see it really similar to our muscles: don't want to lose it? Use it. Whether that is learning a language, playing an instrument or the task llms perform.
I think this explains something of our human nature that we would not even know we have: It is coded within us to help people in need as we can very well be there at any future moment.
Just think about it, we are a social species and without this type of behaviors it makes no sense for individuals to stay together. It is a strategy of our genes to keep successfully replicating.
But even so, I agree with the author there is something really spiritual about this: deeply contradictory but firmly rooted in our nature.
Just a curious question if the authors or any maintainers read this comment:
Does this bug fix break the functionality of re-connecting the client? Or how would the client know they need to use the same port as the previous session?
(My understanding is that a new client coming from the same IP and different port will now be treated as a new player instead of a reconnect)
I'm a little bit skeptical but i dont have any objective argument or experience in the field to justify it. I didn't want to post it, but I was surprised that almost no one in the hn comments had the same feeling.
Don't get me wrong, I would love this finding to be replicable, it would be pivotal as what other nerves could we stimulate to change perception (think pain, mental health issues, loss of senses).
Also, I wonder if this could take us closer to understand a little bit more of how the brain works. Like this could be a great way for normalizing 'inputs' and see how different brains react to it.
Very very exciting news, but I will hold on my hype until someone else can replicate this result.
Not ultra experienced with react, but I have shot myself in the foot just because the way react is made compared to other frameworks:
- infinite loop due to re-rendering on the render function (it happens every single time i come back to react)
- using useEffect when not required
- nested object updates (dunno if this is still an issue)
- class vs whatever the name is (className?)
Overall as another comment said I feel more fighting against react pitfalls than focusing on my application's logic. That really takes a toll in productivity as part of your brain loses a small portion of 'RAM'/cognitive load as you need to make an active effort to not shoot yourself in the foot. I guess most people get used to it, but for me it just never clicks knowing there are similarly performant frameworks with way more friendly APIs.
That's exactly the fundamental attribution error. You're under-emphasizing situational explanations, and over-emphasizing disposition/personality based ones.
Following your logic, could we explain all crime the world just because criminal 'dont have agency'?
I assume the kind of uv used must be fatal, but is there a chance that a tiny percentage makes it?