Heh! I remember getting shit about this early in my career because of a 3-star commit, because wtf is wrong with someone who needs a pointer to a pointer to a pointer?
But it wasn't; it was the address of an array of strings. Because C. It was the most straightforward solution, which I maintain to this day (some 20 years later).
(In my co-worker's defense, it probably had no comments. That part was on me.)
Looking forward to this change! I am constantly switching to the wrong piece by clicking on the piece I want when it's already selected.
Another thing that would help me is if it showed a ghosted image of where the piece will be before I place it (like Starcraft, Age of Empires, and a million other games do). If you had that, I would never place the wrong piece accidentally, or accidentally in the wrong place.
I rotated the inner ring to capture the sense that (for example) Amin shares two notes with Cmaj and 2 notes with Fmaj, so belongs between them.
You can drag the chord gear, click it for a kind of awful synth-piano sound that I had a lot of fun making, switch modes, etc. I actually originally made this in wood/acrylic:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lwIS-1sPNyIpYM1nCcFkU9Iq...
but I like how the online version renames the notes sensibly.)
Mostly I was just trying to explore music theory concepts, and have a few other toys at https://pine.fm/music
(also the code is gross; I've been a manager for almost a decade now and am rusty; you've been warned, lol)
It's true, but I don't think this has anything to do with decriminalization. Covid and the months of protests and Portland becoming a target for Proud Boys and the like, those are what destroyed downtown. (AFAIK, the rest of Oregon hasn't been hit in the same way at all. Even the rest of Portland is still pretty cool.)
Seems like a disproportionate number of these comments are about using the vegan analogy. So setting aside offense or ethics, do you think it was a good idea to go with this analogy, or is it detracting from "the value of sparking useful conversations about personal approaches to AI ethics"? (emphasis mine)
When we (like, nearly everyone except maybe Wolfram) talk about intelligence, we aren't talking about computational complexity. We're talking about the ability to learn, and to apply that learning to achieve desirable outcomes. Just like swirling storms don't.
> At an abstract computational level it’s like our intelligence.
True, but abstract computation isn't what matters about intelligence. How about this thing I just made up:
By letter count, "computations" is like "intelligence".
I mean, it's true, but the number of letters in the word is also not what matters about intelligence.
The rebuttal is almost identical to the argument it rebuts: If computational complexity was the same as intelligence, then a swirling dust cloud of sufficient size would be more intelligent than all of humanity.
But it wasn't; it was the address of an array of strings. Because C. It was the most straightforward solution, which I maintain to this day (some 20 years later).
(In my co-worker's defense, it probably had no comments. That part was on me.)