wow, that's terrible. I was a competitive swimmer in my youth, and we did similar competitions from time to time (very rarely). I've never seen or even heard of a swimmer passing out underwater.
A more common drill we would do in practice were called "hypoxic" sets, where we would do one length of the pool breathing every 3 strokes, then the next every 5 strokes, then 7, 9 etc.. until you were going across the whole length (25 meters) without breathing. Not everyone could do it towards the longer distances without breathing, and the coaches would look out for "cheaters", but never once did anyone pass out. Maybe most swimmers, by way of the typical training and exertion in the pool, just don't develop a very good suppression of the "breath signal". I also never remember seeing anyone purposely hyperventilate so that they can stay under water longer.
I think this sort of technique is used in boxing and MMA: play a good defense, stay out of trouble, and let the aggressor exhaust themselves until later rounds when you feel you may have a fitness advantage. I think there were good examples of this in the early days of MMA, when there was much less, if any, specialized training, techniques and strategy. It's probably much less effective now, since a well trained aggressor will know how to pace themselves too.
Our motor controller had a 100 page datasheet that was overwhelming and dense - but uploading it to Claude and then asking questions let us quickly resolve one of our issues!
That's interesting. I've tried exactly this with chatGPT (enterprise install), and it failed pretty miserably when asking it basic questions about configuration/control. Although, I do have to add that the datasheet in question was a lot more complicated than a motor controller, and included a Firmware API guide.
I’ve used AI quite a bit when working on new codebases that I don’t know yet. It’s still unclear whether it helps me to get to know the codebase better.
When you think about the promise (or hype) of crypto/bitcoin/blockchain 10 years ago, in some sense it augured equally, if not more, transformative change/disruption than AI.
Crypto portended drastic and fundamental changes: programmable money, disintermediation, and the decentralization of the very foundations of our society (i.e. money, banking, commerce). Suffice to say that nothing close to this has happened, and probably will never happen.
So I can see how many people are equally skeptical that AI, as the next hyped transformative technology, will achieve anything near the many lofty predictions.
People have been comparing and contrasting successive technology innovation cycles for a long time. OP mentions railroads, but that doesn't mean there's an "effort to hitch" AI to railroads. It's just a comparison, which may or may not be useful in understanding how the latest innovation cycle may impact the world.
It depends on the counter offer and your situation. I would have agreed with you, but a couple years ago I told my employer that I had a job offer kind of land in my lap (I wasn't actively looking), that it was good and I was inclined to take it. I wasn't unhappy at my current job, but the change in title/seniority and compensation of the job offer was definitely worth it. They didn't want me to leave, so they countered with a very strong offer, which I decided to take and stay with the company. If you want to leave because you're unhappy with other aspects of your job, then I agree that accepting a counter offer doesn't seem like a great choice.
governments should have been falling over themselves to buy or otherwise subsidise expensive solar PV, because the more we bought, the faster the price would fall
That's quite a stretch, especially considering that there are plenty of examples where government subsidies and intervention distorts markets and makes them less efficient and more dysfunctional. I don't disagree with the general premise of the article: more could have been done to transition to renewable energy sooner. But it's really simplistic to say there was a clear, easy answer to this, and it simply involved more government spending on solar energy.
I don't know a lot about these tools, but I've used QCAD[1] for home improvement projects, drawing schematics and layout diagrams, and been very happy with it. It seems quite powerful. It's also open source, although not browser based.
I'm just wondering why QCAD doesn't seem to get much if any mention on HN when CAD tools and open source comes up.
QCAD is not a parametric 3D CAD program. You have to know what your part will look like before you draw it, because all it really does is neatly draw lines and curves.
Contrast with Solvespace (or FreeCAD, or any of the popular commercial parametric 3D CAD programs), which lets you specify relationships (constraints) between elements in 2D and 3D. The shape of your part is the finished result, not the starting point.
I'm impressed what people are doing with 2D CAD, because for the life of me I can't figure out how they do it. I love the constrained based sketching in 3D CAD tools and didn't have the impression that qcad had anything like it?
Qcad is commercial software. The author is doing his best to ride the line between commercial and OSS, but most free software developers don't want to play. LibreCad was forked from an earlier version of Qcad and fell behind. Now they're doing a whole new LibreCAD but it's been years in the making.
As a user of QCAD I am more than happy to pay the extra for the features in the commercial version and support the developer (Not vastly different but adds a few tools that make certain constructions easier). I used it free for a while and appreciated it enough to exchange some money. The extra features are a bonus but it's worth the money even for the free version.
I think it's a shame that LibreCAD has stagnated and diverted, particularly on usability. QCAD has one of the best 2D CAD UX I've used, akin to AutoCAD but more light and nimble. Exactly what is needed for most 2D CAD.
If you need a powerhouse, then you really need 3D anyway, and most likely you aren't a hobbiest if that's the case. For 2D, it's QCAD all the way. 3D is nice, but 2D gets the job done 9/10 times. 3D is overrated.
LibreCAD v3 is very nearly abandoned. I could be wrong, but the vast majority of the new code there came from GSoC students who didn't quite stick around for long except just one who did multiple GSoCs but also eventually left.
A more common drill we would do in practice were called "hypoxic" sets, where we would do one length of the pool breathing every 3 strokes, then the next every 5 strokes, then 7, 9 etc.. until you were going across the whole length (25 meters) without breathing. Not everyone could do it towards the longer distances without breathing, and the coaches would look out for "cheaters", but never once did anyone pass out. Maybe most swimmers, by way of the typical training and exertion in the pool, just don't develop a very good suppression of the "breath signal". I also never remember seeing anyone purposely hyperventilate so that they can stay under water longer.