comment_ran

   合抱之木，生于毫末；九层之台，起于累土；千里之行，始于足下。 [1]
   This is not secret, almost everyone knows it thousand years ago,
   but most of people won't do it. Minimum effective dose is another
   way to say be consistent on thing that you feel important. The 3rd
   chapter on Atomic Habit also give a very detailed explanation.

   And it is so easy to find real word examples:

   "Mental toughness and resilience fade if they aren't used
   consistently. I say it all the time: you are either getting better,
   or you're getting worse. You're not staying the same." [2]

   "That’s often all that’s necessary to get the snowball rolling, the
   action needed to inspire the motivation to keep going. You can
   become your own source of inspiration. You can become your own
   source of motivation. Action is always within reach. And with
   simply doing something as your only metric for success—well, then
   even failure pushes you forward." [3]

   In cycling training:

   - "I have always been a really consistent rider" [4]
   - "The biggest difference in my training in in 2018 to today is
     consistency" [5]
   - "My Top 5 Tips To Increase Cycling Power: Number one is
     consistency." [6]
   - Let's finish up with the five key points to how you can improve
     your FTP. Number one, be consistent. [7]
   - I have three kind of important specs in training, so the first
     one and arguably the very most important is consistency. [8]

   But if most people agree with this idea, why not everybody do this
   way? I think is lacking a clear goal, and a good way to measure it.

   I used to be competitive as cyclist, but as I getting older, I
   start lossing this part of motivition. Nowadays, I am not training
   for FTP anymore, but training for "I don't want to make this f*k
   run in this frozen winter". I want myself to become as hard as
   Goggins.

   Life is short, what would you like to be consistent with?

   [1] 道德经【第六十四章】
   [2] Goggins, D. (2022). Never finished: unshackle your mind and win
   the war within. David Goggins.
   [3] Manson, M. (2016). The subtle art of not giving a f*ck: a
   counterintuitive approach to living a good life. New York:
   HarperOne.
   [4] 12 questions with Greg van Avermaet
   https://www.cyclingnews.com/features/12-questions-with-greg-van-avermaet/
   [5] 300+ Watt Ramp Test, My 66 Watt Increase - Trainerroad, Zwift,
   Sufferfest https://youtu.be/HPQUgrd7zR0?t=292
   [6] How I Increased My FTP By 140 Watts & My Top 5 Tips To Increase
   Cycling Power https://youtu.be/FVetgOjQxak?t=313
   [7] How to Raise Your FTP || Workouts and Strategies to Boost Your
   FTP in 2021 https://youtu.be/ECpZ1KxUfyM?t=802
   [8] How I´ve doubled my FTP in 3 years https://youtu.be/UJTHfK-hmYw?t=336

I still remember that was mind-blowing. High school physics is so simple, whereas the Hamilton is so complex. I later on notice that Hamilton is kind of a more standard way to solve the problem. Never mind, I'm not an expert on it, but I'm just kind of amazed by the Hamiltonian mechanics.

Both the quantum mechanics and molecular dynamics have shared a similar concept.

In structural mechanics, we use the virtual method to calculate the hyperstatic structure to determine displacements in a structure, given forces acting on the structure. Another kind of Hamiltonian.

"They used to say if man could fly, he'd have wings, but he did fly. He discovered he had to. Do you wish that the first Apollo mission hadn't reached the moon, or that we hadn't gone on to Mars and then to the nearest star? That's like saying you wish that you still operated with scalpels and sewed your patients up with catgut like your great-great-great-great grandfather used to. I'm in command. I could order this, but I'm not because Doctor McCoy is right in pointing out the enormous danger potential in any contact with life and intelligence as fantastically advanced as this, but I must point out that the possibilities - the potential for knowledge and advancement - is equally great. Risk! Risk is our business. That's what this starship is all about. That's why we're aboard her. You may dissent without prejudice. Do I hear a negative vote?"

- James T. Kirk Return to Tomorrow (1968)

If it is possible, then I will try using the sensor to measure my velocity at some place where I live, and I can run the model and see how the results look like. I don't know if it's going to accurately predict the future or within a 10% error bar range.

One simple idea for me is to, okay, is there any significant difference from a large-scale model with at the galax scale and the model we have, let's say, simulating a von Karman vertices because both of them are showing very similar structure. Yes, that's an idea of comparison.