This looks neat. I'm interested in some of the more advanced exercises like the Rick Beato one here (https://app.captrice.io/?eid=ph79of6zlotm8y24mc4) but a couple of things prevented me from truly attempting it:
Firstly, the tab for that exercise is long enough to need a scroll bar, and so I don't understand how one is supposed to play along with that tab to a metronome... am I expected to operate the scroll bar every couple of measures while still staying in time with the metronome? So I would suggest either auto-scroll, or better yet just find a way to get all 12 measures of the exercise to fit on the screen at the same time. I have a big enough monitor that it would fit.
Secondly, although you have the link to the embedded video player, I wouldn't be able to keep the intended sound of the exercise in my head long enough that I would feel confident I was playing the exercise right later. The app really feels like it needs a synthesized guitar sound that would play the notes of the exercise, so that I could play it along with the synthesized version and know whether I was hitting the right note. It would be OK if it sounded cheesy -- that would be better than nothing, and then once I was confident that I had the correct sequence down, I would disable the synthetic sound.
> Firstly, the tab for that exercise is long enough to need a scroll bar, and so I don't understand how one is supposed to play along with that tab to a metronome.
I agree, this app is not great for learning a piece of music but it works well for practicing an already learnt piece. This is how I have been using it for myself.
As I mentioned in another comment, the tab and the video are mainly for reference i.e. to answer the question what to practice. Earlier, it only allowed either a tab or a video. At some point I added support for both (because why not!) Looks like that's causing some confusion.
I like your idea of playing along with a synthesized sound in the learning phase, although I haven't tried it myself. I believe alphatab (the lib used for tablature) does support midi playback which could make it function like guitar pro. Need to see how much complexity it introduces (mainly related to getting both the metronome and the midi to play together, never tried it). Perhaps there could be two separate modes to keep things simple - a learning mode without metronome and a practice mode (same as current). Won't promise anything but will at least do a POC.
Thanks for the detailed feedback.
PS: The link you shared wouldn't work for anyone else, as it only exists on your device thanks to the local-only-ness. Have some thinking to do to make this more intuitive.
yes, the title of this post should be, "Zed, a collaborative Mac-only code editor....". I also find it kind of obnoxious that their front page says they are focused on making the world's best code editor without mentioning that it is tied to one platform. I don't think it can come close to being the best editor with such limitations.
I'm a game developer but not specifically a graphics programmer. Although I work with modern graphics APIs and GLSL shaders in my day job, when my 13 year old recently graduated from wanting to program in Scratch or Python to wanting to learn C++, I decided the best thing to do was break out the old OpenGL 1.2 DLL's that I still had on my machine since 1999 and starting him writing some code using glut and glbegin/glvertex/glend type of immediate programming.
it is just a lot more fun than trying to suffer through all of the setup that one needs to do with modern APIs. he is more interested in computational geometry type of things like voronoi diagrams so the graphics API is really just a means to an end and fancy shaders and lighting aren't important right now, and performance in C++ and old school OpenGL is about a thousand times faster than Scratch, so I think we hit a sweet spot for where he is at in terms of his progression of learning.
even with the simplified API of OpenGL 1.2, he is still biting off a pretty ambitious chunk of learning to try to grasp c++ at the same time as OpenGL, so the simplicity helps keep it sane and manageable, and things are going well. He did some neat marching squares demos and I helped add an IMgui menu to tune parameters at runtime. it has been entertaining!
if you're targeting enterprise clients, they may insist that your course fit in to their existing LMS (learning management system). A bunch of large corporations use these old and stodgy technologies and require learning materials to support the ancient SCORM API or the slightly less ancient xAPI API. You might find, if you go that route that you spend more time dealing with the complications of improperly implemented APIs, poor developer documentation for integration into those systems, organizations who don't really have people with the technical knowhow to help with the integration issues, Subject Matter Experts who aren't actually experts at anything, etc., and less time developing your own technology.
Compilers have always been making guesses about what the most likely code path is behind the scenes, but it still needs to behave correctly in the case where it was wrong (that will just be the less-optimal code path). All these attributes are doing is helping the compiler know instead of guess what the hot path is. if there is any way to confuse the compiler into giving undefined behavior with hints like this, that's a compiler bug. (not saying compiler bugs don't exist, but are you aware of a specific bug like this)?
this resonates with me.. I fell in love with python because it made it really easy to write 100 to 1000 like I scripts that I could whip out in no time and make something happen. I still love it for that. But I fell out of love with it working on a large codebase -- mostly someone else's code -- where I felt imprisoned by not knowing the types of most function parameters, what I could do with those types, and what code I could change without breaking other code. The lack of ability to navigate in the way that I can navigate C# or Java killed python for me
I still have to use python though. I make an effort to type-annotate everything I see, and python's type annotation features keep improving, but it still often feels like an awkward uphill battle
hmmm.. they don't seem to really explain the rules of the game here. Doesn't the length of time it takes to crack a password depend on the rate at which you are allowed to try different guesses at the password prompt, and whether or not you get locked out or penalized with delays after a certain number of wrong guesses?
When they say it takes 48 minutes to "crack" my password are they assuming some specific rate at whichever the system they are trying to log in to responds to failed login attempts?
Very frustrating article to read. The article is setting up a straw man and attacking it. He is acting like everyone else thinks:
1) edges are the only important features in images and
2) line drawings can only represent edges.
Who are these brainless absolutists that he is attacking?
Then he's acting like he is the only one with other bright ideas that nobody will listen to.
I think it is obvious to anyone who thinks about this that:
1) edges are a useful feature for recognizing objects in images but not the only useful feature
2) lines in line drawings can and often do represent edges, but there are a lot of other things they can represent. Light and shading and texture of various kinds.
It would be fine to write an article that goes in to depth on the different nuances, but it is annoying that this author pretends that most other experts have naive and simplistic views, with "uncritical certainty", and "no one seems to question it", and the author "has a hard time convincing them otherwise". It is a very condescending tone that comes off sounding like the author is presenting themselves as some brilliant but misunderstood outcast, and the only one who can see the light of truth.
One of the problems right off the bat is not understanding that the classical "edge detection" algorithm doesn't actually detect edges. It detects rapid change in contrast. To then claim this computer algorithm's flaws are somehow proof that a psychological theory is therefore wrong is itself the categorically wrong thing.
There is a subset of the tech bro that believes everything can be reduced to a problem with clearly defined taxonomy and as such every problem can be solved by an engineer with no subject knowledge. This article very much reads like one of those people wrote it.
My favorited comments on this site are mostly this phenomenon. It’s annoying because there’s a built in default assumption that one is such a great thinker there’s no need to waste time seeing if an expert has already solved the problem. One of my favorite examples is the software engineer that spent significant time testing his shower mixer valve and writing a “manifesto”[1] on how to make a better one. A few minutes of googling would lead him to realize why a mixer valve might have such a wide range (inlet temperatures and pressures are not a given) and also to the actual, existing solution (thermostatic mixing valve).
A manager once told me he'd never hire a PhD because once they complete the specialized work we hire them for, they inevitably get put on something outside their specialty - like your linked xkcd - and then their acceptance as experts along with that behavior causes real problems.
Another time I had an older PhD moved to my area (outside his) where we were trying to meet a number of objectives. He said in a meeting that "it is mathematicaly impossible" to achieve one of our performance goals. I quietly went back to the lab and ran my new control algorithm and documented hitting that goal. Never refuted him, just filed the incident away in my head.
Edit: People being arrogant or know-it-all is probably not especially correlated with having obtained a PhD, but more with overall frame of mind, and I find this comment to be a uselessly negative ad-hominem.
Also people bringing this up remember the one time the PhD was wrong, while discounting the 99 times the PhD was right and kept them from doing a lot of fruitless work.
Sorry, but I think it's correlated in two ways. One is that very bright people, which I think includes most PhD-havers, are especially used to being right. When they have the rare experience of being ignorant and wrong, they may struggle with it much more than others. Two, academia is a bubble. I think that's great; I love that we have a place where people who are deeply interested in something can focus entirely on that. But it necessarily means that they're less likely to know about things outside that bubble.
That's not to say it's a perfect correlation. I know plenty of people with PhDs who don't have the problem in the XKCD cartoon. But I too am careful hiring PhDs in tech jobs. Professional work is just very different than academic work. It takes time to learn it for people whose main focus is the theory. After all, "In theory, theory and practice are the same. But in practice..."
I once worked with a PhD who claimed that basically any novel bit of coding was a "research problem", and thus not worth bothering. Using a hashtable to speed up an algorithm? Research problem. Using raw TCP instead of HTTP for a long running connection? Research problem. Implementing a graph algorithm you could read up on Wikipedia? Research problem. I think it was only when I solved three of those "research problems" in one week that he finally shut up.
But you actually don't have a proof you solved these tasks! Where is the arxiv preprint? Make sure all LaTeX is syntactically correct, and double-check that your chosen citation style is according to its latest edition!
I'm in the field but don't actually use USD so when I heard some colleagues talking about it I googled to try to figure out what they were talking about... but was unable to find anything that wasn't talking about currency. Even if I Google something like "USD format converter"I tend to get a bunch of currency converters. it is kind of a pain in the ass.
Firstly, the tab for that exercise is long enough to need a scroll bar, and so I don't understand how one is supposed to play along with that tab to a metronome... am I expected to operate the scroll bar every couple of measures while still staying in time with the metronome? So I would suggest either auto-scroll, or better yet just find a way to get all 12 measures of the exercise to fit on the screen at the same time. I have a big enough monitor that it would fit.
Secondly, although you have the link to the embedded video player, I wouldn't be able to keep the intended sound of the exercise in my head long enough that I would feel confident I was playing the exercise right later. The app really feels like it needs a synthesized guitar sound that would play the notes of the exercise, so that I could play it along with the synthesized version and know whether I was hitting the right note. It would be OK if it sounded cheesy -- that would be better than nothing, and then once I was confident that I had the correct sequence down, I would disable the synthetic sound.