Sounds more like a combination of pitch and yaw:
"I trimmed the aircraft to fly in a kind of sidelong skid: nose high and with the tail swung around slightly to the right"
In terms of preparing against your opponent, at their level and with enough time to think over the board, one has to know so much theory about many lines, that as white you're forced to find "novelties", which are brand new or mostly never played lines that might never come up in the game, in the hopes of throwing your opponent of their preparation. With black, you have to prepare a few opening lines and know them so well as to avoid surprises and maximize chances of at least a draw. This takes a lot of time and energy and memorization becames a huge factor.
When you face many opponents, the ROI of deep studying a few lines doesn't pay off against people who have a myriad of styles, so memorization plays a lesser role; and you play many tournaments so having a few bad ones isn't such a big deal, comparing to playing for WC.
Between candidates (the tournament) and the event (the championship between current champ and challenger) there is a large gap so the top two can have time to study each other. Other tourneys you aren’t putting in so much prep about all your possible opponents because there are too many of them.
To be honest - and this is to my detriment; I have no idea how much crypto i have/ what it's worth at any given moment. So... no haha.
I participate in 30 different defi pools across tons of different protocols, have money in various excahnges, run like 10 different nodes on Eth, BTC, Sol, Filecoin, etc.
I was lucky enough to get into crypto in 2014 and treated it like a game. Started mining from my gaming rig and have been addicted since. I haven't put any money into the ecosystem besides harware (My filecoin node as $12k, gaming rig is $25k, bought 2 helios miners, bought some NGX chips for ZK's, etc.)
I used to love runescape. I would love waking up, checking my flips in the grand exchange, running dailys like farming and checking my ales, etc. As i got older, i discovered blockchain has similiar mechanics. Now it's one of my favorite things in the world to check the various defi pools available, read about different projects, leveraged trading, 'daily's and is just a distraction from my real life. work.
So in short, crypto is a game. As long as people keep taking it too seriously, they will lose the game.
Why try your absolute best to not think about it, instead of taking some steps to reduce your animal consumption and actually feel better about it? I get that something like mortality is an intrusive thought that you can do nothing about, but it's pretty easy to take steps to reduce meat consumption and actually feel better about it.
Airflow uses it for task ordering within a DAG, but that's used in the parsing step that happens before/outside of any actual task execution so it's not really in the source code of tasks at least.
The Airflow 2.0 TaskFlow API[1] doesn't use the bitshift operators any more -- if you pass the result of one task into another, the second task is automatically downstream of the first. So it all just looks like function calls, despite using XComArgs behind the scenes.
I completely agree, with the exception of wanting easy support for powering from a lipo battery and also charging that battery without disconnecting it. This has led me to use the Adafruit Feather RP2040 lately because it has a builtin lipo charger and will automatically switch between USB and battery power as needed, but of course it doesn't work for projects that need WiFi. I'm hoping that we'll get a board that easily combines the two soon.
I've always wondered about this too, but kind of landed on something like this:
Sure, there might be (and probably is) life out there that falls so far outside our definition of "life" that we would never detect it. If it's undetectable, and maybe even incomprehensible, to us, then what's the point in even thinking about it in the context of a "search for life"? What we really mean by the question "Is there life out there?" is "Is there life out there that's similar enough to the life we see on Earth that we could recognize it as such and interact with it?"
I don't have a good way to phrase what I'm getting at without sounding dismissive - I do think it's interesting to think about other forms of "life", but it seems almost philosophical at that point and not scientific.
Honestly I think similarity is a bit of a red herring. The most interesting question is whether there are other beings we can communicate with in any sense of the word, so that we may learn from each other. For a somewhat trivial example, if we found robots on another planet, we would not consider them "life", but it would nevertheless be an incredibly important discovery.
On the other hand, it's of course imaginable that there are beings that we would in principle consider intelligent agents, but who exist in a way that in practice we have no hope of recognizing as such. Again to pick a somewhat trivial example, if galaxies were in fact intelligent beings that take billions of years to form a single thought, we may both in principle be very interested in communicating with each other, but in practice could never even hope to recognize each other as sentient beings, because of the intense difference in time scale.
> Honestly I think similarity is a bit of a red herring. The most interesting question is whether there are other beings we can communicate with in any sense of the word
Much the same thing, as I read it: I think the GP meant "similar" in the sense of "alike us in that it even does 'communicate' in any sense in the first place".
There are certain questions that are so stubbornly elusive to science (as the study of nature), that they should feel by now to belong to the realm of philosophy (e.g matter, consciousness, mathematics, an infinite universe). The study of life itself, not its manifestation in nature, has so far displayed all those fleeting qualities.
But I guess science is stubborn too, so let's see where we get.
See the 'God of the Gaps' argument. At any given time, there has been a list of things considered to be the rightful domain of philosophers and theologians rather than logical positivists. So far, the list has only gotten smaller.
