Both! Usually outdoor bouldering is a bit more of an undertaking to get into since you’ll have to travel and bring matts & additional gear. But look up “climbing gym” on google and you should be able to find some if you’re in a reasonably sized metro. Not sure if you’re in the USA but the southwest has a ton of great outdoor bouldering.
And tragically most users prefer the auto playing previews. Theprimeagean has a YouTube video about how he tried to a/b test it before release thinking "no way that's what users would prefer" and was unfortunately wrong.
My problem with turning it of is that if you _do_ want to watch the preview it's very cumbersome. Clicking on it goes to the movie/episode. So to get to the preview you have to go to the list of Episodes, scroll down (and try not to get spoiled) to trailers then play it. So I have one profile with it on and one with it off, depending on if I'm browsing or not.
100%. Wasn’t trying to contradict your statement - just giving some additional context.
And he is a semi popular tech YouTuber that has risen to popularity in the last couple of years. I think he also streams on twitch but I’m not on that site so I can’t say. But he worked for Netflix for about 10 years.
Thank you for sharing this. Are you feeling more fulfilled in life now? I have been struggling with hating tech for a while and am considering getting out.
For what it’s worth I’m on the other side of this. I’ve been a licensed counselor for 13 years and working in behavioral health for 17-18 years and I’m itching to change careers. Basically the opposite of the post above.
The work can be rewarding but it can also be emotionally demanding and the pay and benefits can be quite shit, frankly. The mental health system (assuming USA) is designed to be exploitive to someone; either it’s going to exploit you, your clients, or both.
You can get an administrative job that pays a bit better and has better benefits but your work life balance will be poor and you’ll still generally struggle to make what tech workers make in equivalent roles. You can work outpatient but you’ll make less unless you charge a lot but then you’re excluding a large segment of the population who have a high need for services. Depending on where you live this may not be feasible even if you’re open to it. It’s dependent on your ability to keep a stream of somewhat affluent individuals coming in, obviously
Or you work with insurance but then you open yourself up to a great deal of red tape and financial liability that you either eat or pass on to clients, thus creating financial burden and worsening their mental health. It’s not your fault but it can feel really awkward and shitty to charge a client $800 when their insurance claws back 6 sessions worth of appointments. Alternatively you eat the loss, which can be something that inherently happens because (rarely) they’ll claw back appointments from 12+ months ago. This can also be challenging from an obtaining clients perspective. I run a private practice and contract with a group and right now I have 0 people coming in with no wait list. This isn’t common but it does happen and it means my income dries up a bit. It’s not the end of the world because the holiday season was a heavy period and it will likely pick up again soon but even people with insurance struggle to afford therapy now. More and more people have high deductible health plans with sizable deductibles so they end up paying $70-150 a visit, pretty considerable weekly/biweekly expense. Around summer I start getting a strong uptick because the high deductible people start meeting their deductibles (although young healthy ones often never do)
Sometimes it’s hard to leave work at work with this job. That’s any job of course but with this job you can hear some real heavy shit sometimes. That’s generally not the norm though; most people are just not doing so hot or having relationship troubles or whatever. But every once in a while you’ll get a person that has had some truly awful experience that sticks with you for a bit. Or a person that is manipulative, constantly tests your boundaries, and sticks with you in a bad way.
There’s a lot of positives to it too of course. I set my own hours, I don’t have dumb staff meetings, I set my boundaries with people so if a client goes too far or is outside my scope I can cut things off, etc. I earn 100% of my money minus minimal overheads (telehealth practice is really light on overheads). There are tedious clients of course but many clients are interesting and challenging in an intriguing way. But I feel like people don’t advertise the ugly side really
I always wonder who do counselors go to for counseling. And then, recursively, who do the meta counselors go to for counseling... where does it end? Or are we just adding emotional stress to an overtaxed system with no relief?
we go to other counselors, generally. although some do specifically specialize in counseling counselors, often who have quite a bit more experience and act as supervisors
supervision in counseling is odd. it's ethically obligated but not enforced. continuing education in many areas is loosely enforced too. this leads to other critiques about the field becoming, for lack of a better term, crappier. there are and (hopefully) always will be inspired, ethical, and passionate clinicians but there are also a lot of lazy ones who just burn through the checkpoints so they can bill insurance or clients $130/hr. Once they get licensed no one will check to make sure they do CEUs (depending on state), no one will check to make sure they consult with supervision for outside feedback, etc
it's one of those "we will self regulate" things but I don't know how well the field self regulates
I use FF and my coworker uses Chrome. He says the thing that pisses him off the most when watching me use FF is that there is no fuzzy search when manually applying styles. I.e. you have to search "justif..." to see "justify-self". You can't just search "self". That's the only example I've really noticed between the two but I'm sure there are more. It doesn't bother me enough to change though.
It only needs to be paired to an iOS device for initial setup and configuration. A watch with cellular can operate independently of the iOS device after setup and configuration.
It's been a year or so, but some carriers refused to sell me a watch only plan, it had to be a new cell plan for a phone too. (And pairing with an existing phone meant it had that cell's number, not a watch only one.)
Yea, and Hilbert was just operating mathematically once he new the setup, as far as I understand. Einstein's special sauce with general relativity was the whole curved space-time thing. I mean, very few even really valued the theory once he released it until decades later. A century later, it's effectively unchanged, with a lot of extensions of course. It is probably the achievement in physics.
I would argue that the biggest achievement in physics ever was sir Isaac newton: not only the 3 laws formulating classical mechanics, but also inventing calculus itself - which nowadays is basically all what these scientists use all day now (massively complex differential equations) + statistics
> which nowadays is basically all what these scientists use all day now
Newton was a genius, but calculus isn't solely his. A lot of modern calculus is closer to Leibnitz's formulation rather than Newton's, e.g. notation [0].
My understanding has grown to be that Newton's genius was probably the incredible intersection of Calculus and Physics. (One or the other might have occurred to others, but Newton synthesized them better and faster and at the same time.) Newton's Calculus was rougher and aesthetically uglier, but he did the most the quickest with "Applied" Calculus. Leibniz had the raw math of the Calculus better and aesthetically his notation was much better. It was less "Applied" and didn't quite capture as much of the relationship to Physics (but it captured relationships to other parts of math that Newton missed, being so focused on Physics first).
We use Newton's insights into the applications of the Calculus to other sciences and we use Leibniz's artful way of capturing the Calculus to symbols on paper (and chalkboards).
There's a power of "dualism" in mathematics that sometimes you don't know that you have the right math until you've got two (or more views of it), enough to say "these lenses really do show the same thing".
I find it interesting to spot such dualisms, and especially how many of them were contemporary mathematicians working at some remove or another (countries or an ocean apart). From a computing perspective that's always been fascinating to me about the Church-Turing Theorem (which is always a relevant tangent on HN). Most people ignore Alonso Church's contributions and just call it the Turing Theorem, but the Theorem itself is about dualism (that all formulations we found of computation themselves are dual and can be translated or emulated between each other) and doesn't exist if it weren't for Church and Turing coexisting and conversing. (Plus, it has been said that it was Church that originally proposed the math to prove the dualism between their work and it was a sequence of correspondence that Church originated.)
That is no disrespect to Alan Turing, of course, to include Church in that theorem name and respect the dualism of their contemporaneous work. I think that balance looks a lot like Newton versus Leibniz: Turing knew the practical applications of computing and was starting from a place of having built them (though classified at the time) and Church was working from pure principles and theory in mathematics (the Lambda Calculus). We greatly benefit from both having worked on the same ideas as duals of each other, and we greatly benefit that their correspondence involved an ocean in between them so that they also weren't entirely in the same mindspace. We use a lot of Turing's applied practical synthesis of computing and we rely on a lot of things from Church's notations or things derived from it (including the Y Combinator for which this site's domain name refers).
Modern computing owes a lot to the dualism of Turing and Church. Modern Calculus owes a lot to the dualism of Newton and Leibniz. I find that incredibly interesting and I appreciate that about the mathematics of both things.
I think it's fair to say that Newton was a genius but also that a lot of the stuff during that time was ripe for the picking. There were several contributors to the developments of calculus.
And Newton's calculus was pretty quickly "re-factored" from geometric to analytic terms.
That's kind of like claiming that SpaceX isn't that special because it was all just "ripe for picking" (or any new tech or theory really was all ripe for picking at the time that it was picked).
It seems to me that people forget that the "picking" part is what it's all about: actually doing the work.
SpaceX isn't that special. It's 70+ years of NASA work and the inevitable improvements found in 2023 tech compared to the last time NASA was actually given budgets for this.
Making reusable boosters work was pretty special. No incumbent was going to attempt it because they were unwilling to reduce their per launch profit margin on an unproven risk. SpaceX changed the entire economics of launch services and obsoleted every other player with their plan that detractors were sure would never work.
I didn't say Newton's work wasn't special. The implication is that general relativity is special-er.
> because it was all just "ripe for picking" (or any new tech or theory really was all ripe for picking at the time that it was picked).
Yea, that kind of is the point. General relativity came out of nowhere and was executed on at the same time. SpaceX is irrelevant to discussing achievements in physics.
