thats right. a year ago i decided, fuck this going to the gym randomly and not having a plan and only kind of committing. im going to do it. so i got a trainer, committed to 4 days a week, and so far ive kept that up for a year. and now, if i find myself running out of time in the day i make time for the gym. it is such a part of my routine that i simply do it without much questioning. because i know if i dont go i will no longer be able to do the things in the gym the way i do them today. i enjoy that feeling and wish to continue. i think the point of life, at least partially, is to figure out things that you enjoy that don't take from you and do them consistently.
i think what is missing from this narrative is not whether or not people have a routine, it is that exercise elevates your mood away from the depressed state, therapy encourages you to question your thoughts and decisions through out your day that might lead you away from a depressed state. to put it a different way, whats the point of exercising every day if you continue the thoughts and habits that are less than satisfactory to you without any self awareness?
all of the recommendations at the bottom are fake. the profile pictures come from https://randomuser.me
so doubtful this does anything it says it does. don't have any idea why you would want to have fake reviews on a product you are asking for feedback on.
I always assume the person either didn't use coding agents in a while or its their first time. don't get me wrong, i love claude code, but my students are still better at getting stuff done that i can just approve and not micromanage. thats what i think everyone is missing from their commentary. you have to micromanage a coding agent. you don't have to micromanage a good student. when you dont need to micromanage anymore at all, that's when the floor falls out and everyone has a team of agents doing whatever they want to make them all billionaires or whatever it is AI is promising to do those days.
Around a Uni I think a lot about what students are good at and what they aren't good at.
I wouldn't even think about hiring a student to do marketing work. They just don't understand how hard it is to break through people's indifference and lack the hustle. I want 10-100x more than I get out of them.
Photos in The Cornell Daily Sun make me depressed. Students take a step out the door, take a snap, then upload it. I think the campus is breathtakingly beautiful and students just don't do the work to take good photos that show it.
In coding it is across the map. Even when I am happy with the results they still do the first 80% that takes another 80% to put in front of customers. I can be really proud of how it turned out in the end despite them missing the point of the design document they were handed.
I was in a game design hackathon where most of the winners were adults or teams with an adult on them. My team won player's choice. I'll take credit for my startup veteran talent of fearlessly demonstrating broken software on stage and making it look great and doing project management with that in mind. One student was solid on C# and making platformers in Unity. I was the backup programmer who worked like a junior other than driving them crazy slowing them down with relentlessly practical project management. The other student made art that fit our game.
We were at each other's throats at the end and shocked that we won. I think I understood the value everybody brought but I'm not sure my teammates did.
> Using both Frequentist and Bayesian methods, we compared the groups and explored the associations of strengths knowledge and use with outcomes across both groups
This is such a strange statement to me. If you scroll down you see they mean they calculated statistics like cramers v or Bayes factors. I think it’s so strange to differentiate things into frequentist and Bayesian buckets. Like I get it, the authors want to do some kind of group wise comparison like an ANOVA or ANCOVA. But it’s all the same data. The only thing that matters is demonstrating the differences to test the hypothesis. I am sure this is field dependent. I have published a lot in physics education research. In that field there are some people who attack anyone who doesn’t use some hierarchical Bayesian modeling or mixed effects or random effects modeling because they think that’s best. I even wrote this paper:
Arguing that the type of model doesn’t matter what matters is your ability to recreate the underlying distribution. Once you have demonstrated that ability, then you can interrogate your model to see what it knows about your data.
I guess this is more of a comment than a question. And I’m trying to provide myself context as to why the authors would differentiate between frequentist and Bayesian methods to do group wise comparisons.
> I feel like I would definitely notice if I went from 12 to 25 reps on any exercise I do.
To be clear, the implication is that 12 and 25 have different weights so they tire you the same amount. Do you think it would be a very strongly felt difference in that situation? What would the difference feel like?
Yes, this is why classic body builders like high reps because they get the pump but you can get the same growth (and there’s lots of research saying more) with training to failure with low reps and high weight but it doesn’t give you the pump.
Well the idea in the earlier comment is that a 2x rep difference isn't very much to be the difference between "low" and "high". It's not disputing that you can get a difference, but saying the study didn't try very hard to probe it.
Of course you would personally notice. But the parent was talking about the effect on muscles. And it has been long estsblished that 5-30 reps (perhaps even highter) will cause the same hypertrophy.
Obviously, for practical reasons the optimal range for each exercise will vary. For squat 5-10 is definitely better than 10-20 let alone 20-30. For DB side raises highter reps would feel better than the lower rep range.
You consciously notice of course, like what kind of argument is that. The point is the stimulus is the same for the body unless you change it by orders of magnitude, the study agrees that this is the same also.
reply