kiloshib
Joined 2 years ago
Joined 2 years ago
The README for this GitHub contains the same info as the official Godot repo [1], so it's not clear what this fork does differently or changes.
This seems rather arbitrary as rep ranges will heavily depend on what type of exercises/routines a person is running.
3 sets of 10 reps doesn't really fit the bill for a strength training program. That is more of a "bodybuilding" routine focused on hypertrophy.
"Strength" in weightlifting is measured by the one-rep max (1RM) [1] of a given movement. Most starting strength training programs recommend starting off with 5 reps. (For example, Starting Strength [2], Stronglifts 5x5 [3], or Wendler 5/3/1 [4] were common recommendations for beginner routines when I first started lifting).
This is why most strength training programs focus on basic lifts like squat, bench/overhead press, and deadlift.
Some of the intermediate programs will also use "linear periodization" [5] that (iirc) is supposed to help prevent plateaus as a trainee acclimates to their routine.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-repetition_maximum [2] https://startingstrength.com/about [3] https://stronglifts.com/stronglifts-5x5/progress/ [4] https://www.jimwendler.com/blogs/jimwendler-com/101065094-5-... [5] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4637911/
Some of the biggest hits this year - like Baldur's Gate 3 and Helldivers 2 - came from independent developers (Larian Studios [1] and ArrowHead Studios [2], respectively).
That being said, I think that the "discourse" in gaming communities online seems to be full of people who are frothing at the mouth over this, that, or the other thing. It makes going online to talk about games a miserable experience sometimes.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larian_Studios [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrowhead_Game_Studios
Also, he has his very first interview up from when he was a kid which is kind of cool: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=002S7Bho3jE
The "reading" was basically a bunch of mandatory checkbox exercises that turn into a slog through a bunch of slow-loading prompts that were just "Click Next" to receive confirmation that I had read the info in the prompts.
Absolutely miserable experience all around.
(It also kind of ironic rewatching that video now considering all the bad press Brownlee is getting for is $50 per year wallpaper app [2].)
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddTV12hErTc [2] https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/24/24253023/mkbhd-panels-wal...
I feel like I've heard this argument before and a common rebuttal is the fact that one year at Harvard costs $82,866 - or Or $331,464 for a 4-year degree (albeit before financial aid) [1].
Is the point here that Harvard should increase its attrition rate?
I think that is a weak argument considering the comparison they set up with the SEALs and the military. Yes, SEAL training is hard and it has a high attrition rate, but to go to SEAL training you must first be in the Navy. If you don't make the cut you go back to the regular Navy - which means you still have a job, housing, medical benefits, etc. (Also, when you get out you get the GI Bill).
There is no "Navy" to fall back on if you fail out of Harvard; just a potentially crushing amount of student debt.
I agree that elite universities should strive to be elite, but I just don't follow the logic of that particular part of this piece.
During my job search, it was nice to have a portfolio to point to because I didn't have any "official" writing samples from my previous jobs (gov't). I wrote tutorials on some simple tech stuff - e.g., "How to install [this tool] on [whatever OS]" - as well as some thoughts on trying to learn computer science fundamentals as technical writer.
It really helped in the interviews to be able to talk candidly about all the fun I had learning different things, and the process had given me a deeper understanding of the tech related to the job.
>That’s not to say that disputes over categorization aren’t important. They may be necessary, especially in rule-making contexts like the law or in organizations. But you have to take the entire process with a grain of salt and recognize the limits of what the category can tell you.
If you peruse (safe for work) bisexual communities online, you will find a lot of people asking whether they are "actually bisexual", "still bisexual", "bisexual enough", etc. for a number of reasons. Some bisexual people who are in heterosexual or homosexual relationships (e.g., a bisexual man dating a heterosexual woman or a bisexual woman dating a lesbian woman) often share a sense of struggle with the fact that they have "chosen" a specific gender to partner with.
This creates a strange insecurity that I see to often - especially (IMO) among bisexual men - centered on whether that bisexual person is "no longer bisexual" partner because they have chosen a partner of the opposite sex.
Some people seem to have an idea that bisexuality implies a type of attraction that is evenly split between men and women. The notion that a bisexual person can have a gender preference at all seems to also be something people struggle with.
But, to me, this quote offers some much needed guidance. Namely, that bisexuality is a way of simplifying a complex form of attraction so that it can be easily understood. That simplification throws away a lot of granular information about the nature of a given bisexual persons feelings of attraction, but it is also a helpful starting point for those who feel this way and wish to understand themselves better.
In other words, like all categories, categories describing sexual attraction can be liberating, but also limiting.
That being said, you're still right when you point to reliance on the network. My network didn't get me that job per se, but I had a strong network from which to pull from for employment references (old mangagers, etc.) as well as a friend from school who now does career counseling/interview prep at a college.
I'd been unemployed for over a year, but was able to get a quick pep talk from an old mentor and some good interview advice from that friend from school. It was definitely great to have that support to lean on.
> I’ve always hated the 1 rep max mentality. Mostly saw it in high school with kids trying to out do each other, but it fails to promote strength.
I agree. There is a difference between the mentality of high school lifters chasing a 1RM to impress people (often called "ego lifting") and the use of the 1RM as a baseline for measuring a person's strength for the purposes of developing a strength training regimen.
The 1RM also takes into account comfort of the lift. If you feel like your spine is going to snap, but you complete the lift then the weight is probably too heavy, for example. Some lifters use the Rate of Perceived Exertion (RPE) as a heuristic for this [1].
[1] https://blog.nasm.org/rate-of-perceived-exertion