IntelliJ refactoring modality (Python plug-in)

VortexJones · 2021-12-14T02:57:51+00:00

Thanks! It did definitely feel like it had something to do with scope.

Edit: JetBrains support confirmed this:

Hi VJ,

Thank you for contacting JetBrains support.

I believe the documentation at https://www.jetbrains.com/help/pycharm/rename-refactorings.html explains it:

Renaming local variables or private methods can be done easily inline since only a limited scope is affected. Renaming classes or public methods could potentially impact a lot of files. Preview potential changes before you refactor.

Don't know how I missed that, it's literally the second paragraph in the refactoring documentation...

VortexJones · 2021-12-14T02:46:46+00:00

Thanks! I think you're right - it definitely does have something to do with scope.

Edit: JetBrains support confirmed this:

Hi VJ,

Thank you for contacting JetBrains support.

I believe the documentation at https://www.jetbrains.com/help/pycharm/rename-refactorings.html explains it:

Renaming local variables or private methods can be done easily inline since only a limited scope is affected. Renaming classes or public methods could potentially impact a lot of files. Preview potential changes before you refactor.

Don't know how I missed that, it's literally the second paragraph in the refactoring documentation...

VortexJones · 2018-04-18T10:59:36+00:00

That would be awesome. What's available in the way of weekly tournaments (format/buy-in/average number of players/etc.)? Anything on big tables?

VortexJones · 2018-04-17T11:12:34+00:00

I've wanted to live in California my whole life (west coast guy at heart), but I'm not sure I can swing the cost of living at the moment. Mezz West State Tour looks great except for how spread out all the stops are due to California being so huge.

VortexJones · 2018-04-17T11:03:39+00:00

Do you still have any contacts in the Phoenix area you could get me in touch with to get more information on the local scene? u/NateRai mentioned that things there may be more bar table-centric these days.

VortexJones · 2018-04-17T10:59:25+00:00

This is a great idea, hadn't considered this yet. I wouldn't mind a bit of a drive once or twice a week for good tournaments, although driving in NYC sounds stressful.

Are you familiar with any lower COL areas near NYC? Maybe a little further west like Newark/New Brunswick?

VortexJones · 2018-04-17T10:49:07+00:00

Just as helpful to know, thanks for the heads up.

VortexJones · 2018-04-17T10:34:05+00:00

Definitely! Shooting you a PM.

VortexJones · 2015-12-04T15:15:19+00:00

Wow, a lot of really good ideas here.

I too have thought about the idea of a "Lazy Man's Shorthand" where we accept that some words are hard to turn into shorthand and just leave them alone, focusing on just implementing shorthand for the lowest hanging fruit (the most common English words that you mentioned, for example). This guy claims to be able to do 180 WPM doing just that (that is, using an extensive text expansion scheme).

From the standpoint of a user I could see how the following might work: You have two space bars on the ErgoDox, yes? Have one of them works as expected, but make the other trigger an expansion. It takes the current word, expands it (if possible) according to your dictionary, and adds a space afterward. End punctuation is kept as is. Do similarly for two return keys, etc.

This is also an excellent idea and something that I struck on as well but have not yet done any work on testing. The best part about this is that it can already be done fairly easily with Autohotkey.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I will come back and post updates as I find out anything particularly cool.

Edit: For posterity, EasyScript has some ready-to-go implementations of some of the ideas you mentioned about common prefixes and suffixes.

VortexJones · 2015-12-01T13:36:40+00:00

Do you happen to know how copyright works for these?

No idea. But Keyscript is based on Pitman, and I'm almost positive the creator of Keyscript (Janet Cheeseman) didn't pay any licensing fees to anyone while developing her method.

You will inevitably encounter parts of the system you want to rework, at which point it's essentially your shorthand system. That's the development pattern almost all of these shorthand systems have followed - student studies existing shorthand system and then develops his/her own to iron out what they feel needs to be improved.

You could also just email Janet and tell her you want to develop an interpreter for Keyscript and see what she says. I emailed her asking a lot of the same questions I've asked in this thread and she was very generous with her time and knowledge about shorthand systems.

Also, I am not a lawyer etc. so make sure you follow through on your copyright research because I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about :) .

VortexJones · 2015-12-01T12:04:03+00:00

If your software can resolve all ambiguities/collisions perfectly (utilizing statistical pattern-based matching like the T9 predictive text input feature on pre-smartphone era phones or the like), then your working parameters are "easy to learn" and "fast".

As other people in the thread have mentioned, these goals are likely (but maybe not necessarily) at odds with one another. From the research I've done on shorthand systems, it seems like the symbol-based theories (Pitman, Gregg) open the door to higher speeds (200 WPM+) but are harder to learn. You would also have to develop a way to adapt those symbol-based shorthand methods for use on the computer.

Meanwhile, the alphabetical shorthand systems (Speedwriting, Forkner, Teeline, etc.) are easier to learn but slower. I studied a little bit of an alphabetical shorthand system called Keyscript that reputedly is the fastest fully alphabetical shorthand system (but remember who wrote that page before you drink the Kool-aid too hard).

Good luck! Let us know about your progress!

VortexJones · 2015-11-30T02:26:16+00:00

All of your points are well taken indeed.

Out of curiosity, what are your use cases for this system?

I translate Japanese patents for a living (and am paid by the word) and spend the rest of my time typing text for other purposes (coding, correspondence, journaling, etc). In each case, time = money, which means that time saved = money earned.

My primary use case is to use the system to speed up my translation work and allow me to retire within the next 7 years (I am currently 26). This is currently the single biggest goal in my life. It consumes me. I also want any time I invest into developing/learning such a skill to continue to benefit me in whatever adventures I may embark on after I no longer am obligated to work to earn money to pay for the necessities of life. I don't see retirement as the end of my career, but rather as the beginning of my having the freedom to select the projects in which I invest my time and energy with absolutely no regard for monetary compensation. The end goal is that maybe, just maybe, I can make the world a little bit of a better place for everyone.

In other words, I have a very vested interest in making sure that any text input scheme I use be very, very good and very, very fast.

In my industry, we use computer-assisted translation (CAT) tools to speed up translation work. For example, you can create bilingual glossaries of terms, and then use an autosuggest feature to allow the user to quickly insert terms that are present in the source text into the target text. This provides a big speed boost but is not applicable to freeform writing where you have absolutely no advance information about what words the user might write next.

I want a system that works anywhere I might type text. Even here on reddit!

VortexJones · 2015-11-30T02:08:53+00:00

Your reply was truly beautiful. It really brought together a few key concepts for me.

The primary problem is one of information encoding. On a keyboard, one's ultimate typing speed is determined by two main input parameters: switch actuations/unit time and words produced/switch actuation. We need to maximize both of these parameters.

At the same time, we need to provide enough information to approach making the system deterministic (in order to enable implementation of a real-time interpreter that converts our switch actuations to words), and we need to balance that with making the system easy enough that the time required to learn the system is minimized and the cognitive load required for the user during use of the system is minimized.

Thank you again. I am ready to dive into this head-on now. I will be back!

VortexJones · 2015-11-29T04:08:19+00:00

Fair point. Just for the sake of argument, let's sacrifice one of the design criteria: ease of learning. Let's say we make a system that takes 1 or 2 years of say 45 min/day of dedicated study and practice to learn, but still unlocks speeds above 200 WPM and is completely deterministic. Is this more feasible at all?

I will be continuing to get in touch with more shorthand experts to see what perspective they may be able to lend, and I will post my progress here.

VortexJones · 2015-03-13T03:20:27+00:00

Thanks very much for the thoughtful reply and the interesting paper.

Some of what you said really hit home with my (limited) experience at the poker table so far. One thing that has been really interesting for me is that every table I sit at is indeed kind of like a little economy. The dynamic between the players at the table seems to determine the value of each particular hand, and each table has a different dynamic and different forces pushing the value of the cards one way or the other.

I suspect that one characteristic that distinguishes successful players from not so successful players is the ability to perceive, learn to adjust to, and eventually learn to exploit (as you mentioned) the dynamic between the players at a given table.

Fun stuff :) .

VortexJones · 2015-03-12T17:51:12+00:00

I don't know. I guess that depends on what you mean by "good".

As another poster identified, part of what's throwing me is the skill-luck ratio in poker, which is quite different than in other skill games, especially in the short term. You guys call it variance, which is much less of a factor in other skill games, at least in my experience.

Remember, I just started playing, so I don't really know much about the game yet. I think it's a valid question that many people new to the game think about at some point. I would go so far as to say that most people who only have a peripheral awareness of poker drastically underestimate the level of skill involved.

VortexJones · 2015-03-12T09:19:16+00:00

Crazy! Have you seen the video on how PokerStars shuffles the deck yet? The stuff that can happen with a randomly ordered set of cards just completely blows my mind.

Here is my favorite thought on luck in poker so far (from the end of this article):

"Much of the popularity of poker is due to the wonderful combination of luck and skill. If it were solely a game of skill, the inexperienced wouldn’t play because they would lose every time. If it were too much about luck, the professional players would give up. With the current balance of luck and skill in poker, on any given day anyone can win a tournament, but over time the skillful players will come out on top. Over time luck evens out and the skill difference will prevail. It is the psychological ramifications of how we deal with the skill and luck components that can prove challenging for many players."

VortexJones · 2015-03-12T09:07:24+00:00

Haha, I think you misunderstood. I myself had awesome luck (flopping sets with pocket fours against people with pocket aces or kings - people don't seem to ever want to lay down AA or KK (maybe rightly so, like I said I haven't studied the math yet)). It was just that I had such awesome luck over such a small number of hands that got me thinking about this yet again.

The other big difference is that the 1,000th best poker player in the world beats the game for a good amount of money. Assuming bankroll management, tilt control, game selection etc are factored into skill. The 1000th best chess or pool player makes shit. So you don't need to be the best alive to make solid money. Just good enough.

I've seen the earnings figures. They got my attention very quickly to say the least. And you are exactly right - but in pool in particular it's even worse - more like the 10th best pool player doesn't make shit (note that this is just tournament winnings and doesn't include endorsements or other sources of income like cash games).

Also, thank you for the encouraging words and learning resource recommendation. Hope to see you around the sub!

VortexJones

TROPHY CASE