One really neat thing is that you get free major updates. I bought a Blackmagic camera back when resolve was version 14 I think, and today I still use the very same license with Resolve 21.
Not that I spent any extra money on the license compared to what the camera itself costed, but I also feel like the 0 money I spent was well spent :) Harder about the time commitment to move from something you know really well to something new, but the time I spent on that was very well worth it too.
This is exactly what's needed to get general users off of Windows.
Anecdotal, but whenever my friends/family are looking for a basic laptop I almost always suggest a Lenovo for the price/performance/quality they're looking for in the $400-600 range, even though I myself would never get anything besides a MBP.
I would recommend this to them instead every single time. The build quality of macs are unmatched and now in everyone's price range.
actually the #1 criticism i had has been fixed since the last time i made reading progress: one-click progress updates from Home. I launched the app on my phone and bam, it's right there!
I'm not sure there is anything I'd improve. I recall when I started creating a list of Akutagawa Prize winners in translation, it was a bit painful because I had to input a lot of ISBNs for rarer books. Also I struggled for a couple books with picking the right version so the page count was correct.
But I haven't done either of those in a while since I haven't read more rare stuff in a year. Possibly they've gotten better, too.
not OP, but sometimes I add the ebook version to my library even if I never use them. To find it again and fix it, sometimes I need to scroll through the years of read books to spot the tiny icon that distinguishes the version of the book.
It would be nice to have a simple filter by book type (physical/ebook/audio) in the library page.
I think that’s why the author put “vector” in quotes. I kind of imagine it as an ephemeral, infinite list where for some real, when we use that real value as an index into our “vector”/function, we get the output value as the item in this infinite, ephemeral list.
I think the only thing that matters is that the indices have an ordering (which the reals obviously do) and they aren’t irrational (i.e. they have a finite precision).
Imagine you have a real number, say, e.g. 2.4. What stops us from using that as an index into an infinite, infinitely resizable list? 2.4^2 = 5.76. Depending on how fine-grained your application requires you could say 2.41 (=5.8081) is the next index OR 2.5 (=6.25) is the next index we look at or care about.
A vector is always a vector -- an element of something that satisfies the axioms of a vector space. The author starts with the example of R^n, which is a very particular vector space that is finite-dimensional and comes with a "canonical" basis (0,...,1,...,0). In general, a basis will always exist for any vector space (using the axiom of choice), but there is no need to fix it, unless you do some calculations. The analogy with R^n is the only reason the "indices" are mentioned, and I think this only creates more confusion.
> and they aren’t irrational (i.e. they have a finite precision)
No, if you want only rational "indices", then your vector space has a countable basis. Interesting vector spaces in analysis are uncountably infinite dimensional. (And for this reason the usual notion of a basis is not very useful in this context.)
> and they aren’t irrational (i.e. they have a finite precision).
I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding what you mean by 'finite precision' but the ordinary meaning of those words would seem to limit it to rational numbers?
In practice you're always computing with finite precision. (Even computing with symbolic expressions is just a preliminary step to what's ultimately a numerical result with finite precision.) The whole point of real numbers is to abstract away from detailed considerations of precision, and figure out what happens if you only ever care about putting satisfactory bounds on the output and are willing to bound your input to the extent required.
The idea of R is that it allows you to reason about things like "I need more than X input precision to achieve Y bound on my output". Just sticking with naïve computation in Q does not suffice for that.
When an alarming number of friends (all under 40 years old) from the same small neighborhood in my hometown were diagnosed with leukemia I started to look into the superfund site nearby. The pond that is connected to the stream that supplies the municipal wells in the area was still disgusting (with visible oily residue on the surface) nearly 15 years after the company, Congoleum, stopped operations and the plant was demolished. Soil testing some years earlier revealed benzene, which has been linked to AML.
This is one of the most impressive demos I've ever seen. Truly incredible. I have been dreaming about working on something like this for a while. Open to help?
I've been building https://heylangley.com as a solo side project for a little while now. The initial MVP took about 2 months, though I have not had much time to market it. It's pretty much identical to this. I also applied to YC for W23 and was rejected.
Not sure what else to say beyond this: if you have a project that you've been wanting to start, believe in yourself and build it!
