They're a lot better than Save All's builtin decks, such as only including 1,000 of the most frequent words of a language, and only nouns, and not even including the word's gender.
Rarely with these SRS services do you see actual high-quality decks that outdo public Anki decks, which is a shame because it would be a great way to add value.
Instead of there being competing spaced repetition programs and services, I'd much rather companies just go down the route of making well-curated, frequently updating Anki decks and putting them behind a paywall instead.
Refold, a company focused on language learning, does exactly this [0], and having tried their JP1K deck for Japanese for a while, I can say without any hesitation that it was shocking just how high quality everything was.
It had the full works: Japanese audio, kanji, furigana, multiple definitions, a custom background, etc. And I wouldn't be surprised if there were even more changes since the last time I tried it.
I recall there being something similar to this for medical programs, but overall I'd say that this approach sadly isn't something that a lot of people are focusing on.
While good materials are easy to find, it'd be much easier if all assignments and solutions were available the way they are in this MIT course. I find a lot of value in verifying my solutions, or comparing to other valid solutions.
Cheating is a major problem, but I think the benefits (at least societally) would greatly outweigh the costs. I know sometimes courses don't change enough to make releasing solutions to assignments from past years a viable compromise.
I made one once! That's a story for another time, but lessons learned:
- Elite schools like MIT are cesspools of crime and corruption, at least at the top. By "crime," I don't mean metaphorical "bad stuff" -- I mean actual, genuine, bona fide scary stuff like the movies. MIT's endowment is $20M per faculty member, and if you're in control of $20B in endowment with that much slush and that little oversight, it draws the wrong people.
- Don't accept money from elite schools. You're gonna get drawn into deeper shit than you want to know about.
- Less elite schools are more honest.
- If you do get in too deep, sign an NDA and non-disparage, and make sure you're connected to powerful friends. The calculus was: (1) if bad stuff happens to me, they hit front page of NY Times (powerful friends) (2) If we're both left in peace, I'm signalling I'm probably not going to expose them (NDA+non-disparage).
What I found is that there's much better content overall one tier down, although without MIT's PR budget. You gotta know where and how to find it. If all of that were aggregate, that'd be golden.
In my experience when I see an open-source community use something like Zulip, Glitter, Matrix, or Slack it seems inactive relative to an equivalent hypothetical Discord community. I think this outweighs the privacy concerns.
Discord's biggest advantage in my eyes is that it makes it easy to build a critical mass of users. This makes it easy for newcomers to get answers to questions quickly.
> We should go back to the roots, forget about competing, focus on what's the best not for the end users but on what's fun for the FOSS developers, and bring back the hobby on open source projects.
I prefer Blender's approach of heavily prioritizing users over developers [0]. It's been a huge success.
In terms of methodological quality, "Fixing Faults in C and Java Source Code: Abbreviated vs. Full-Word Identifier Names" [0] is a favorite of Hillel Wayne's [1].
Do you have any one particular topic in mind you think isn't covered rigorously enough? If so, what's missing from it? That way someone can use "is that covered" as a heuristic for evaluating other resources in the future.
One week (two lectures, one discussion, one homework) for Fourier transforms?
Seriously?
Having been a TA for a course with similar pretentions. Students will be miserable because they aren't given the tools to deal with the homework, they will learn very little, and forget it all very quickly
Recording yourself debugging, then possibly reviewing the video later, is a good way to improve.
Maybe during debugging I consider the strategy of writing a minimal reproduction, but decide it's too time consuming. Then after reviewing the video, I can see that it would've been much faster if I had just written the reproduction to begin with.
Taking breaks does interfere with this, but I still think it's often a good idea.
Another strategy is to add assertions for your hypotheses, which can sometimes be preferable to logging.
Many decades ago I spent a few days with a colleague in one exhausting days-long continuous session, debugging a generational garbage collector. The nature of those (essentially a global graph rewriting) is such that failures will be greatly separated from their causes.
I really learned to appreciate an abundance of asserts; the sooner you catch the issue, the less time you have to spend chase it around. Of course, asserts are in essence filtering the allowable state at a point and it's always more powerful when you can express that in the type system, which is why I love languages with rich static type systems, like Rust and Haskell.
With Qubes you already by default have local root [0], because LPE is usually almost a forgone conclusion if the attacker has a sandbox escape.
> A Xen 0day, alone, isn't useful.
I don't think there any attackers with the interest and capability to acquire a Xen sandbox escape that wouldn't readily have access to browser 0-days, unless the target is using something like Tor Browser Bundle with JS, SVG, and PDF.js disabled.
The 24.5% cut is fine, you have to consider the 30% app store fees for a majority mobile playerbase, all hosting is free, moderation is a major expense, and engine and platform development.
Successful games subsidize everyone else, which is not comparable to Steam or anything else.
Collectible items are fine and can't be exchanged for USD, Roblox can't arbitrate developer disputes, "black markets" are an extremely tiny niche. A lot of misinformation.
It's annoying to see these videos brought up every single time Roblox is mentioned anywhere for these reasons. Part of the blame lies with Roblox for one of the worst PR responses I have seen in tech, I suppose.
> The 24.5% cut is fine, you have to consider the 30% app store fees for a majority mobile playerbase, all hosting is free, moderation is a major expense, and engine and platform development.
You have successfully made the case for a 45% fee and being considered approximately normal, or a 60% fee and being considered pretty high still. 75+% is crazy.
I can't think of any other platform with comparable expenses. Traditional game engines have the R&D component, but not moderation, developer services, or subsidizing games that don't succeed.
It helps that seriously marketing a Roblox game costs < $1k USD always, usually <
$200 USD. It's not easy to generate a loss, even when including production costs. That's the tradeoff.
I have less a problem with the cut, and more a problem with how they achieve it. It harkens back to company towns paying workers in company credit that is expensive to convert to USD.
Rarely with these SRS services do you see actual high-quality decks that outdo public Anki decks, which is a shame because it would be a great way to add value.