marktani

I sort of reverse engineered the first couple riddles (the help menu helped too) before really getting the logic here.

What I gathered:

- the paramaeters in lemma banish() are "given" - the statement right after lemma banish() is what we want to prove - all "wip" needs to replaced by something - blocks need to be finished with "qed;"

From there it's using the available tools.

I agree with your sentiment here. However:

> if anything, by most traditional forms of evaluating software quality, the projects I work on are better than what they were 5, 10 years ago, using the same metrics as back then.

In this side sentence you're introducing so much vagueness. Can you share insights to get some validation on your claim? What metrics are you using and how is your code from 10, 5, 0 years performing?

I feel throwing in a vague claim like that unnecessarily dilutes your message and distracts from the point. But, if you do have more to share I'd be curious to learn more.

> I'm not in a large corporate environment, but that also means we're not always a well oiled machine

haha, I'm sitting in a very crusty corporate environment right now and your comment made me chuckle. I get where you're coming from though, of course!

I'm thinking that the domain of (competitive) sports is an outlier as such as it's probably the one domain where physical properties like muscle structure, height etc. have the biggest impact on "performance".

But the discussion in the article is not about performing to a high level in order to accomplish a certain outcome (win the match), it's more about exploring one self and honing a certain talent to reach deeper levels of self-expression and self-actualization: OP has a unique way of playing the piano, and they honed it by pouring love and time into it. They would probably not perform super well in some kind of piano contest where you need to play by ear, for example. And that's not the point I got.

Everyone can principally pour love and time into any domain or activity. A 1.50m tall person can explore and hone their basketball talent in order to form a deeper understanding of that part of themselves and share it with the world.

For me it feels like talent = \int_{time} love.

Reminds me of the meme where a kid is dropping tears on the math assignment sheet, "when you do homework with your dad". Forcing kids to spend time on something is an effective way to spoil it for them.

Exploring [math] from a place of curiosity, openness, joy - so, love - is to act out of alignment.

This also means that you need to start from within to develop your talent. What are you curious about, what excites you? Doesn't matter if that's math, obscure bird species or screws.

There's a compounding effect here, once you're deep enough in a couple domains you're starting to see their commonalities and less explored nuances at the domain boundaries.

True! When I started driving, I was using the "north is always up" setting as it helped me get a better understanding of where I was in the city. Somehow this was more fun.

At some point I switched to the more common setting (I assume) of having the map rotate.

In Japan, physical maps like in parks and city information booths are oriented to be aligned with the actual geography. Meaning, north on the map points to actual north.

Made me think of how much more accurate the end to end process of putting up that map has to be vs. maps oriented by "north is up".

Just imagine the map needs to be moved by 10m and rotated around for some last minute restructuring of the park before finalizing the project.

Anyway, it was fun to read these maps and think about how many assumptions we carry around that are shaped by objects around us we use daily.

thanks, you made me realize I'm not alone

this is just hilarious and not at all what I expected

> I was just thinking about that on 2023-10-10

FTFY

I hope it's also true that you're cranky just this morning

So the title of this post could be changed to "What Tranformers Are" or "What Transformers Do" instead

This reminds me of the absolute amazement and wonder in the faces of people who are tricked in older movies or video clips, sometimes with simple or outright ridiculous tricks (by today's standards).

It's not a great example (and the best I have on hand)... but the Rick and Morty episode where Morty meets the Knights of the Sun and similar groups from other celestial bodies shows elements of this as well.

I have the impression people on average were way more gullible the further you look back in time. I wonder then if LLMs suffer from a lack of data about such cases that may have been common in the past but became obsolete before the internet became mainstream.