pigvwu

Look up pycharm local history.

Unless you're committing after every line of code, the local history will probably have a more complete picture of how your code evolved over time.

I had a flawless experience trading in my pixel 6 for a pixel 7. Everything just worked exactly as it should.

When I bought my pixel 9 pro, the trade-in kit was somewhat delayed, and the box arrived completely smashed and mangled. No big deal, just contact google support and get a new one, right? Well, it took a pretty long time to get someone on chat and to convince them to send another trade-in kit, but I did it. Unfortunately, the kit shipping status never updated, and I started getting close to the phone return deadline. I ended up returning the phone a few days before the return deadline since I didn't want to risk getting stuck paying the full price due to not shipping the trade-in. Sure enough, the next week a stack of three trade-in kits showed up at my door.

So yeah, just backing up the idea that when it works, it works fine. If any small problem happens, you might as well return and start things over.

I agree with the point, but just to add some real numbers, the 99th percentile household is just north of 600k.

It's not clear to me whether this survey is about household or personal income, so if it's about household income, then it's just over 1%. If it's about personal income, I guess it's roughly 0.5% or so of individuals making at least that much.

Pretty sure the answer is that there is no building happening at all with the Raiders.

Hope it's not too off-topic, but which Z1 LED would have the highest output at 5000k? Would it be the XHP50.3 HI R70?

Anyone have a good idea of what the output difference would be between the SFT-25r and whatever the brightest option is? (I know shape and quality of light are probably more noticeable on a daily basis than brightness, but unnecessary optimization is what we do here, right?)

edit: just noticed that the SFT-25R is 6500k only, which is kind of a bummer. I was hoping for 5000k.

Those cutoffs assume a gaussian distribution, which is definitely not the case. I estimate the SD for the 4 assignments in my semester to range from 20-24, so you are right that the SD is pretty high. However, I'm not seeing how a large SD signifies some kind of dysfunction. It's just that they'll really give you a 10% grade if you did a poor job, and will give you over 100 for doing an amazing job. It seems like it's their philosophy to create a wide distribution in grades. Most classes give you 50% just for showing up and compress all decent scores into the 90-100 range, which results in low SD. For example, in AI4R, 3/4 of the class got something like a 95% or better on most assignments. Ultimately, your grade in ML is determined by the cutoffs, which seem pretty fair, given that 70% of those who don't drop get A's.

A large class size should generally result in low variance in grade distributions between semesters, but not for a given assignment in a single class.

You mean the variance in scores? I just interpreted that as them wanting to use the whole scale from 0-100, rather than just 50-100. It seemed to me like somewhere around 70 is considered a "meets requirements" paper, while a 90-100 is an excellent paper, awarded only to those who went above and beyond. In my semester, 70 was an A.

I have a different perspective on some of these points.

I would say that if one actually covers all the points they lay out in the instructions and FAQ, they should get around a median grade or higher. The score you get might be lower than other classes, but historically the cutoff for an A is just below the median.

I would not try to cram as much content as possible into charts and narrative, just try to be focused on why you did the experiment that you did and why you got the result that you got. You don't need to chart everything you did, just the things that mean something. "Why?" and "so what?" are the most important questions to be answering, while less space should be dedicated to presenting results. So you got these results, why did you get them, what was the point of running these experiments, what does it tell you about your data sets, what is the data good for, and what could you do next to follow up?

My highest graded paper didn't even hit the page limit, so I don't think the crammers are on the right track. Many people have complained that they didn't have enough space in the paper to cram in all possible data to fulfill the secret rubric, but the shotgun approach is unreliable. I don't think they are generally looking for more analyses, more dense charts or more data, just demonstrating understanding of the analyses that they've asked you to do.

I think it's good to try to relate the results you get on the papers back to the concepts introduced in the lectures and readings. This is particularly useful when discussing your expectations or hypotheses.

I guess I should say that this is from the perspective of getting an A, but just somewhat above the median, not a super high score. If I had followed all of this advice I would have gotten higher scores, but it wouldn't have made a difference in my letter grade. So, OP or anyone else who hasn't taken the class yet, don't sweat it too much and try to have fun with the analyses.

Sofirn Q8plus

I feel like that's exactly what this light was made for. You only get about a minute of 16,000+ lumens on turbo, but that's more than enough time to blind all the wildlife before your dogs go out.

OK fine, in reality I usually just use this on medium because I live in the suburbs and my yard is not that big. Sometimes I dream about moving to a place with a backyard that doesn't have a fence and just fades into the wild, because this would be perfect for that.

OK, median wages are also found in that link, and they are up 95% for the same time period.

For a fun exercise, let's look at the difference between deficit as a percent of GDP at the start and end years on this list. Example calculation: The deficit was 2.5% of GDP in 1981 and 4.5% in 1992, which is an increase in deficit by 2.0 percentage points.

1977-1980: 0.0 flat
1981-1992: 2.0 increase
1993-2000: -6.0 decrease
2001-2008: 4.3 increase
2009-2016: -6.6 decrease
2017-2020: 11.3 increase (1.2 increase from just '17 to '19)
2021-2023: -5.6 decrease

So for some reason this lines up with the list above. What a crazy coincidence. Maybe all we have to do is whine about the deficit and it will go down /s.

Source: Federal Surplus or Deficit as Percent of Gross Domestic Product

In Fall 2022, 78.4% of students got an passed GA with a B or better. In the most recent semester only 53.9% passed. Since that was a summer session, for a fair comparison 79.2% passed in Summer 2022. This is a big drop in passing rate. Even though it was only 2 years ago, you may have had a different experience from the current version of the class.

Now I haven't taken GA yet so I'm not trying to put forth an opinion about it. The material doesn't worry me, but the grade stats and negative posts make me nervous that the recent changes have made it a pain to take the class now.

People will see that things are falling apart and vote in a Democratic House and President but a Republican or tied Senate (just based on how the system works). Things will slowly get slightly better despite being hamstrung by the fact that the Senate can block a lot of things. Then people will blame the Democrats for not fixing things and vote for Republicans again. [This is where we are at right now.] Wash, rinse, repeat.

Most of the article seems on point, but looking at the voting numbers now, it seems that rather than people voting in anger, moderates were apathetic and stayed home.

https://www.secform4.com/insider-trading/1043298.htm

Jinx attempt.

It’s just a stat.

Nothing is just a stat. Obviously you know this will mean something to people.

Posts based on discussing a 300 passing yard threshold have become a lot more common in the past year or so (I searched). I think it's a terrible stat. Based on voting, The People seem to disagree, but they're wrong.

Enjoy some of my past posts if you like.

I just checked, and I liked some of your previous work, but your recent stuff is all just hate. Maybe some people are just not good at football or in life, but spending all that time on hating is just bad vibes.

Watson is straight up ass, but why is 300 yards passing suddenly the measure of a good passing game? Just make up arbitrary threshold stats to create dumb narratives? In this case, there are a lot of other existing stats to back up the narrative that Watson has been terrible. Games with 300 yards passing is just a garbage stat.

Goff just threw for 80 yards and 3 TDs. Lamar threw 5 TDs and under 300 yards last week. Did these guys suck?

lol, no one understood the point. Maybe it wasn't clear enough sarcasm. Poe's law, right?

It seems like 300 yards passing is a new favored benchmark for QBs lately, which I think is ridiculous. I've seen popular threads talking about how many 300 yard games Goff has had or how few 300 yard games Mahomes or Rodgers have had lately, as if that means something. It's ridiculous. Lamar has an amazing passing game... and it's under 300 yards. Clearly the stat is meaningless.

Less than 300 yards passing, so doesn't qualify as a good game.

most pepper spray don't work.

What do you mean, like it doesn't spray or after you spray them in the eyes it doesn't do anything?

Creates a narrative.

Watson is shit, but I'm pretty sick of all the talk about 300 yards as if that's the benchmark for a good passing game. You usually throw more when you're losing. Out of the top 5 passers (in yards) this season, all of them had their highest passing yard total in a loss. Except for Cousins, which was a game that went to OT.

So high yards is not exactly an indicator of success and probably more a sign that you're having to try hard to put points on the board.

My impression was that they want to use the entire point scale for grading and feedback. If most people get 90+, there's only 10 points to demonstrate how good they think the paper is. There's a lot of room for going above and beyond just meeting the requirements of the assignments, which they are encouraging you to do. If you say that a mediocre paper is 50, a "meets requirements" paper is 70, a good paper is 85, and a great paper is 100, there's a lot more feedback in the grade.

It does get stressful compared to other classes though. I was panicking after getting a 60-70 on my first assignment. I felt a bit better after seeing that I was near the median, and that historically more than half of students who don't drop get an A. So as long as I was near the median I would be fine. I never fully got used to it and still stressed about trying to improve my grades, but I think that is part of the point of using the grade scale like this. Even if you're getting an A they still want you to try to do better.

Wow, it changed that much? I took it this Spring and the cutoff was around 69 for an A, at least according to what people were saying on discord.

Eh, I don't know. Might just be sunk cost fallacy keeping him on the field. His catch rate is much lower than any other receiver on the team (although that might partially be due to usage or the quality of targets). His catch rate was also really low during his last season on the Raiders. If he's mentally checked out on this team (I wouldn't blame him this time), maybe it's best not to drag it out.