I think a lot about code readability a lot. I agree with most of this except the names part and shorthand constructs. Especially for the latter, it's unfair to make a comparison with the wrong operator. The example in general is a bit weird. I think a better one is `if (myObj !== null) myObj = someOtherObj`. A very common pattern for which js now has a nullish coalescing assignment you can use insteal (`myObject ??= somOtherObj`) or there's also ||=. These sacrifice some readability upfront due to them being "uncommon" operators and the code might be harder to read for someone whose never seen it, but is so much easier to read once you get used to it. There is of course, always a trade off. Using a lot of .? to access properties can be code smell, but also sometimes very helpful, as the alternative would expand into a lot of code.
Regarding names, I think the suggestions are a bit in conflict, as often to avoid variable shadowing you have to do stuff like name things node, _node, node2. I try to have distinct names, but I'd rather the shadowing in those cases where it's hard. As for i, and j. I don't like them, but they're such conventions it's hard to avoid them. I always try to use them only once, and assign the variable I need: `item = obj[i][j]` if possible.
I'm glad the writer has actually tried Tailwind and I respect it's not really their thing, but I've got to hard disagree with the Builder vs Crafter/specialist look on it. Tailwind will only just barely save you from not knowing CSS, it's still fundamental to understand it. Also I would consider myself very well versed in CSS, but while my handcrafted css works, it cannot compare in maintainability to its tailwind equivalent. CSS inevitably becomes a spaghetti soup of states after a while. I switched an entire component library to tailwind + tailwind-merge and everything was much cleaner and easier to understand. So much so I could not believe it.
> CSS inevitably becomes a spaghetti soup of states after a while
I think it happens eventually with most of code, whatever language. If you don't have a clear structure or methodology at the time of writing it, it will become a mess at some point. I don't think it's a particular problem of CSS.
So that unveils me as a "crafter" - well, am a graphic designer doing CSS since 2006 or so; in fact I've thought that way about doing 'raw' CSS, that is the most "artisanal" thing one can do in the world of web dev - and whereas it is true Tailwind can save time in styling a web page or whatever, it takes away from the expresiveness of doing it "by hand". Many people even here wonder from time to time why contemporary websites pretty much look the same: many people are using frameworks to style them.
It's kind of something like doing your own furniture in a pretty artisanal way vs. getting something from Ikea. Or more like growing your own potatoes vs. buying processed potatoes at a mall. You'll end with potatoes in your stomach, but they will taste differently.
Yes, I can't believe how few good complete solutions there are for this that don't involve me curating anything.
Currently I have obsidian notes for different libs and technologies and really useful stuff or things I plan on reading, they go there but search of the page itself is non-existent. For sites I go to again and again because chrome's search sucks, I tag my bookmarks in the url title with an underscore (e.g. _python _docs) and stuff them all in a folder. An underscore actually works and you can combine them to quickly find stuff. For highlights, I don't highlight much, but I use hypothesis because it looked promising, but honestly it's been very slow with any management related features. I also run a local archivebox for pages I don't want to loose. It has search but doesn't show you where the term matched.
And I've been keeping an eye out on spyglass, which is a local search engine with the concept of custom "lenses" that you can create or you can get ones created by the community. It can also index local files and bookmarks. It recently fixed the shortcut issue I had on linux so I'm properly trying it out and it seems very promising. I hope to be able to hook it up to all those different services. Need to clean my older bookmarks first....
This just sounds like lucid dreaming awake imo. Kind of scary some of these people believe they're actually jumping dimensions or something. Wonder how much control they can exert compared to a lucid dreaming.
I've not managed LD awake/meditating yet , but I can fall asleep awake if my body is tired enough but I'm mentally awake, though it requires a lot of concentration. And doing it does not feel nice (you can feel your body paralyzing, feels like you can't breathe and you have to avoid reacting).
Every once in a while there are posts on r/LucidDreaming from people who are beginning to believe they’re time traveling or dimension hopping or the like.
Part of it probably is hypnagogia though I was so alert that it did not feel like that normal transition to sleep. It felt more like I had meditated myself into a lucid dream. There were some stray thoughts but none of that cloudy brain fog with senseless thoughts I would normally get going to sleep.
Also from what I understand the feeling of suffocation is quite common for people who experience sleep paralysis. You're not actually suffocating. Given I induced it, that's probably what that was. The first time it woke me up, the second time I ignored it and a few seconds passed and then the sensations stopped and I was lucid dreaming. At least that's what it felt. I slept for slightly more than an hour most times (I've only managed it during naps) and lost lucidity at times. It felt like the dream started immediately but it might not have. Also at other times I could feel my body in the bed again but wasn't dreaming just asleep.
> Kind of scary some of these people believe they're actually jumping dimensions or something
Every time I have thoughts like this about <insert whatever> anymore, I find myself coming back to “well, there are actual Nazi wannabes still, so I guess <insert whatever> isn’t too bad” - let them live their life.
Once Nazis are out of the picture… then maybe we can justify cracking down on others things we don’t like :P
Interesting, but would not really use it unless it could auto group by url. I don't want to have to set things up. Like if I have more than X tabs for a site, group them automatically. This would be great when debugging/learning and I have 20-30 tabs open and more than half might be to one new site that contains the docs for x thing I'm doing/learning.
I knew there were people who don't see anything, but I would have thought anybody could do 6. I can imagine far more complex 3D stuff (more than rotating, also complex movements) but it's blurry unless I designed it or know the thing/place well (like my house), but I can "zoom" into things to get more detail.
You learn something new every day I guess. I wonder if this can be used to predict what fields someone goes into or could go into that they'd be good at (engineering, etc).
I asked half a dozen friends. Only one could see more than 1, and in that case they reported only 3. Most of us are in engineering. The one that could see 3 is closest to an artist out of us all. Those of us with strongest engineering background reported 0.
Mmm, strange. I do some minor diy stuff and I can't imagine not imagining stuff. I do draw on paper to brainstorm and use CAD but most of the design problem solving goes on in my head.
But then I am also an artist... Although more because of this than the other way around. Although drawing has further trained this ability, I have accurate detailed childhood (~5-6y) memories (of houses, schools, objects, etc) from before I was drawing consistently enough for it to matter (high school).
I wonder, can people who see 0 imagine movement if they're seeing the object right in front of them? And if they can draw 3d objects, can they still do so if they close their eyes?
As I said in another comment I think it's a communication issue. I guess it doesn't literally float in front of their eyes as part of the world for those who say 6.
Perhaps a better test is how difficult someone finds these exercises:
> As I said in another comment I think it's a communication issue. I guess it doesn't literally float in front of their eyes as part of the world for those who say 6.
That's the thing, though: apparently the same thing was being said about internal monologue historically, with people assuming claims contrary to their experience are just turns of a phrase. Until, the legend goes, somebody got enough academics in the same room that they finally realized inner voice is a thing that not everyone has.
So I'm leaning towards believing that people claiming they can mock their own visual input actually can do it.
(The hardware for that is already there. Despite being 1-2 when awake, every now and then I wake up remembering a dream that was a clear 6.)
Not sure if it connected, but this internal monologue is another thing that I fail to understand. I think I do not have internal monologue, but this is especially hard to describe.
Perhaps there is some crossover between people who can't visualize and those who do not experience internal monologue.
Another aspect I've known for a long time is that I have bad "situational" memory. I have good trivia/history memory but very bad memory about personal situations or events. I am not sure about faces, I didn't really notice myself struggling with it but hard to really judge.
Makes me wish somebody would do a study of all these facets simultaneously and put the answers on a scatterplot.
For me, it is:
- 1-2 / 6 on the "mind's eye" scale
- perfectly working internal monologue; almost all of my conscious thinking involves me "hearing" sentences in my head (I don't experience actual auditory stimulus, but I can "hear" the words, the cadence, and sometimes even tone)
- good trivia/history memory
- bad situational memory, bad memory for people's names
- I can only recognize faces of people with whom I dealt for prolonged periods of time
> perfectly working internal monologue; almost all of my conscious thinking involves me "hearing" sentences in my head (I don't experience actual auditory stimulus, but I can "hear" the words, the cadence, and sometimes even tone
Do you feel like it's always "you" who is actively saying the monologue, or is it being "dictated" from the outside, you are listening but not saying it internally? Perhaps by an imaginary friend, Jesus, aliens, gods, buddhas, whatever?
It's always just me. I never had an imaginary friend. I never felt a different entity speaking in my head. It's always my own voice in my head saying things or conversing with itself.
Strangely I did not have a strong internal monologue when I was young. My thoughts were mostly "visual" unless reading. It is more 50/50 now, but I still "see" most of what I think/read if that makes sense.
Apart from the other tips given, in particular proper technique:
Try doing a few meals in a row with similar ingredients and chop once for like the next 2-3 days (depending on what's being chopped).
Also you can try timing yourself. See how long it takes to chop an onion, record it. Now you know the REAL prep time for a recipe based on it's ingredients.
What really saves time is having an idea what order you're going to do things and how to parallelize tasks, but for that you need to have some intuition about time so you don't accidently burn something. There's a recipe I make that takes twice as long if strictly prepped first then cooked.
Also, just going to state the obvious, but if you're cooking for more than two people, it's just always much harder.
Personally I cannot really get the hang of linked editors like this that only use links or basic tags for structure. They require too much upkeep to keep things organized. I'm working on my own solution that goes a different way, but it's nice to see more open source implementations of these types of editors.
