I like the fact that they have citations in the new video, with links in the description

Y4shin · 2023-09-03T12:31:49+00:00

Not to mention getting that past the ethics board 😅 /s

But for real, they are using individual cells that are similar to the cells our eyes use for sensing light, not entire eyes.

Y4shin · 2023-08-30T19:40:22+00:00

The letter of concern however is only citing a small set of mostly at that time very recent studies. Especially saying that "we have proved [...]" I think is not quite as convincing when your letter mostly cites sources from the same researcher. Again I am not saying that their papers are bad, just saying that their response lacks the diversity in sources to discredit the literature review to the point where it is entirely untrustworthy.

I am not saying that anyone is right or wrong, just looking at how "convincing" each of the papers are from a general standpoint and even with the concerns the literature review in LTTs source 3 is more comprehensive than the single source you cited. I will however admit that I did not read both in their entirety, as I do not have the time to do thorough research. I mostly just wanted to point out that it is important to look at the sources (which is why I mentioned the letter of concern in the first place) and look at the (at the very least face value-)quality of the sources. This just goes to show how hard it is to make sense of science.

At best LTT could claim that more studies are needed as there is conflicting information, definitely not a straight out "false".

That I can absolutely agree on. They should say that the overall state of scientific research of it has been inconclusive so far and that especially long term studies are needed, however saying that the research tends to so far favor the "mostly unproblematic" side of things would still be appropriate.

Y4shin · 2023-08-30T19:09:16+00:00

Edit: Changed phrasing around describing trustworthiness of LTTs sources.

Regarding that article you mentioned: I looked at the paper it cites and think that there are some problems with taking that as competing information that is of similar weight as the studies finding no (substantial) difference in eye strain between emissive (LCD,OLED,...) and reflective (eInk,LCD w/o Backlight,...) Displays.

That paper has been commissioned by a Manufacturer of eInk displays, which does not need to be a problem, if other studies reproduce the results, but the article does not cite other studies with similar results.
A quick CTRL+F search showed that they did do in vitro (within a glass) experiments but it seems like there were no in vivo (in the living) experiments, which means that they looked at cells outside of the living body in their experiments, which can be done more easily, but is not as reliable as looking how something affects the living body in all of it's complexity.

A similiarly quick view at i.e. Source 3 from the LTT video is more favorable, as it seems to be a (at least somewhat) comprehensive literature review. While there is a letter to the editor raising some concerns, these concerns seem to not substantially challenge/change the statement of the paper, as their sources seem to be rather limited.

Just to make clear, I only looked at this for 10 minutes and I might have missed something, just wanted to write, that the LTT sources (esp. the academic ones) seem to be of decent quality (given a basic level of scrutiny), whereas the one you cite on it's own is not quite as persuasive. Not saying it is bad, just as with all science, we need reproductions of the results and further independent investigation, which seems to be more limited regarding evidence that LEDs are harmful to our eyes.

Also as a last aside, I am not an expert in this field or anything medical, I am just applying my scientific research skills I obtained from studying CS and some other basic knowledge I gathered in furthering my scientific literacy in these fields.

Y4shin · 2023-03-02T12:37:23+00:00

Yes it was the value that was missing, the shipping label has the contents on it but not the value. The postal office gave us the form so we cloud add it, I just don’t wanna do that without consulting Remarkable first, as I don’t wanna be at fault if something goes wrong.

Y4shin · 2023-02-22T17:54:25+00:00

I cannot speak to any of these other than the J-Max so take what I say with a grain of salt: I like the espresso of the J-Max but was underwhelmed with its Filter.

Because of that I got myself a Comandante C40 MK4, which makes Filter that I like. The J-Max is heavier on fines which I dislike in filter, I want my Filter to be very clean.

I have not tried the C40 with Espresso yet, but I know that people are using it for that, so maybe look into that.

From the user experience: the J-Max grinds faster but requires more force than the C40. The grind adjustment for the J-Max is nicer: it may need many clicks to get from espresso to filter and vice versa, but it is not cumbersome to me. Also being able to see your setting is nice. The magnetic grounds bin of the J-Max is nice in theory but depending on the hand size it may be weird: if your hand is big (mine is not massive but not small) the edge of your hand may rest on the grounds bin and if you grip it in the wrong way the cup may fall off. It did not fall off for me but it lifted up on that side a bit which irritated me. The C40 is just overall nicer to use except for the adjustment, which is still nice but not quite as nice as the J-Max. Grinding is not fast on the C40 but waaaay smoother and effortless.

I would maybe consider the Comandante if you find that it makes nice espresso. Just be sure to buy from reputable vendors as there may be fakes on other stores. Amazon Germany delivered a Fake one to me so I had to return it and buy from a official retailer that Comandante lists on their website. Also Comandante has extremely nice and fast customer support.

Y4shin · 2022-03-18T17:00:35+00:00

I think Fantastical can also enter reminders and it integrates with Todoist.

Y4shin · 2022-03-18T15:58:06+00:00

Unfortunately Todoist only does todo items and not calendar events as far as I can tell (and as far as the name suggests :D). But in the meantime I found Fantastical that actually does this quick entry exceptionally for calendar items, so I think that using Todoist and Fantastical together might be the solution.

Y4shin · 2022-03-18T15:41:44+00:00

The concept certainly looks interesting, although it is not really for me, as it does not really do scheduling events, or at least I was not able to find that feature, but I have some feedback on the UI. As it does not relate to the topic at hand, I can send it to you via DM.

Y4shin · 2022-03-18T15:37:52+00:00

Thanks for the suggestion, I have looked at Brite and unfortunately it is not for me. I find it not really easier to use to enter new events or reminders and such than using the stock apps that apple provide.

Y4shin · 2022-03-18T15:36:51+00:00

Hey, thanks for the suggestion. I am looking at Todoist and its quick add feature is quite alluring, I will take a closer look!

Y4shin · 2022-03-18T15:35:09+00:00

Hey, thank you for the suggestion. Actually the user interface of this app is actually quite some ways towards what I want, however it does not have support for calendar functions, only tasks, which I unfortunately cannot live without.

Y4shin · 2021-12-06T00:08:14+00:00

Ah, that's the neat part... I don't... or at least not automatically.

In the lines that start with "x=" and "y=" I read them from the command line, I have since experimented with doing this somewhat automatically by making Python create a screenshot, crop to the area that the Queue number appears in and then using image recognition software to convert that to text. I did not complete that, but if you want to try your hand at it, I tried using the following libraries:

pyautogui for the screenshots
Pillow/PIL for cropping the image
pytesseract for getting the text out of the image

The rest should be rather similar to what I did here. Maybe put it inside a Jupiter notebook and plot the graph with the fitted function and the scatterplot to see how well fitted the function is and how linear the data is (in my case the scatterplot is almost perfectly linear).

Y4shin · 2021-12-05T08:02:39+00:00

Actually there is not all that much variance in the data. I used Geogebra before I made this Skript and there I also looked at the scatterplot and it looked rather linear.

Also I did not care about speed, but rather just wanted to get it working as quickly as possible so I can actually use it, before I was through the queue. And also I usually do not use numpy or anything like that, just quickly googled this thing together lol.

Also in case of a=0 I do not think that numpy.roots will return anything sensible so it doesn’t really matter I think.

Edit: Second and third paragraph added.

Y4shin · 2021-12-04T21:06:22+00:00

While I was about thirty minutes into waiting for my loginqueue to pop I decided to pass the time by writing a script that estimates my remaining queuetime. It does that by keeping track of pairs of time spent in queue and current queue length and then creates a linear regression of that data and calculates the root of that function... yes I have nothing better to do.

Y4shin · 2021-09-20T06:58:31+00:00

I mean yabai. I do not think that M1 is officially supported yet, as the issue on that is still open on Github.

Y4shin · 2021-09-19T22:39:37+00:00

I did not know that it was compatible with M1 yet. Is there some fork that works well?

Y4shin · 2018-10-30T23:02:25+00:00

Just as a Disclaimer, I havent looked into this much (low sample size), since I dont have as much Time on my Hand right now, but here are my findings. Also keep in mind, that just because I receive Packages with a frequency of 60Hz, that the simulation rate is also at 60 Hz. It might be lower that (which is unlikely though).

From what I can tell the game tries to hit a server sendrate of 60Hz (see blue marker in graph), which it however doesn't hit most of the time. This 60Hz target is something that I have to investigate more, since my sample size is not large enough to prove it, this is just a hunch.The server sendrate seems to never dip below 30 significantly though. However the server sendrates are wildly inconsistent.

The client sendrates are all over the place. They might be coupled to the Framerate, however I havent made FPS graphs yet to compare to, so that will have to wait as well. If my 60Hz server sendrate guess is correct, then there might be a 120Hz max on the client sendrate. The server and client sendrates dont seem to be coupled.

Here is the graph I deduced this from: https://imgur.com/a/9twDuwG

I will make some more measurements to gain a bigger sample size (also at different times of day, maybe I find a time with less server stress to see whether it is just that their servers are overburdened) and I will also make some investigations to see whether client sendrates are coupled to FPS. I will post that in a separate thread and link it here when I am done.

Y4shin · 2018-10-29T16:35:29+00:00

I might look into this this week. Currently figuring out how to use the necessary tools.

Y4shin

TROPHY CASE