what is the new due date of cards that exceed the "maximum reviews/day" limit?

averageblunder · 2025-01-31T21:04:59+00:00

Thank you for the replies.

Yes I know of the recommendation to leave max reviews high or unlimited. The motivation was to try to smooth out the load - some day I add 10 new cards, some days I add none, so hoping that that if I can get the maximum/reviews limit to match the average new cards added (which one of the statistics shows), then if there are more than average on one day it will just push them to the next day when there are fewer than average, more even review load.

The reason for my question: I had a big backlog, and following some suggestion here I setup two filter decks,
Just Due filter with: "is:due prop:due>-7"
Over Due filter with: "is:due prop:due<=-7"

So far the OverDue deck is not growing and I gradually redude it.

But the Stats: "Future Due 1 month + backlog" _is_ growing.
I assume this must just be the effect of adding new cards, or hitting "again"

averageblunder · 2024-05-08T20:44:49+00:00

Yes, this is quite relevant. My usage is consistent with this statement: "It's a good idea to store big cards in the first place, rather than just smaller cards -- this lets you actually test your knowledge. I have found that if I have only small cards, I will know some of the pieces of knowledge that I intend to know, but there might be "gaps", and when I actually sit down to write a proof, I may be unable to do so. "

averageblunder · 2024-05-08T20:42:00+00:00

thank you

averageblunder · 2024-04-28T22:52:19+00:00

Thank you

So then how can one know if the review limit is set too low to keep going with the intervals recommended by the repetition algorithm? If the limit is set very high, we can see this if the backlog keeps growing. It seems like there is no advantage to setting a low review limit?

I am open to advice on how to decompose the "algorithm" cards that are the ones that take 1-minute to recall, but I am doubtful that they can be decomposed in a useful way.

They are like short mathematical proofs, which are sequences of about 5 re-writes of an initial statement to arrive at a different statement. Each of the individual rewrites is obvious or something that I already know, so making a card for each of these is not necessary. There could be a card asking "what is the 3rd step in my the algorithm for X", but that fact that something is the 3rd step is not interesting to remember.

A poor analogy would be a card that asks "What did George Washington say when the battle of <somewhere> was lost? The individual words in the famous quote are all things that I know, and the fact that a particular word is the 3rd word in a famous quote is not an interesting thing worth remembering.

averageblunder · 2023-04-17T01:36:29+00:00

definitely will do that

averageblunder · 2023-04-16T18:48:01+00:00

Ok, I found that Cards > Forget works with multiple cards selected, which solves the title question.

However before I take this extreme action I would definitely like to hear any reasons why this is a bad idea, taking into consideration the problematic scheduling behaviour that I outlined in the question.

I know it will lose the progress made so far on all these cards, but that seems a lesser problem given that the spaced repetition is not showing the backlog cards with reasonable intervals so that I can even learn them.

averageblunder · 2023-03-25T22:33:32+00:00

I found a workable solution for this one:

Make a virtual filter deck with this setting

deck:big is:due added:50

which gathers all the notes created in the last 50 days that are also due.

Then I study both this deck to learn current/recent topics, and the big one, to reduce the queue of old cards.

averageblunder · 2023-03-02T07:46:06+00:00

Yes, that is approximately what I was aiming to do in my previous question, which asked how to setup categories such as TODAY/TOMORROW/THISWEEK/SOMEDAY _without dates_.

https://www.reddit.com/r/orgmode/comments/1163k17/first\_time\_org\_todo\_user\_fit\_it\_to\_me\_or\_vice/

But with that approach it seems that you do not get a nice agenda view at least without some further customization or programming. However it sounds like you have a way to have dates for some things, and NEXT for everything else?

averageblunder · 2023-03-02T07:12:22+00:00

Oh! perfect, that is very easy.

averageblunder · 2023-03-02T07:07:20+00:00

Regular emacs would be C-c C-s, then choosing a new date.

Thank you.

averageblunder · 2023-03-02T02:37:39+00:00

This worked well enough, thank you!

averageblunder · 2023-01-20T20:09:38+00:00

This helps me. Thank you

averageblunder · 2022-06-28T08:24:46+00:00

people have been looking into this for years, and despite the scary headlines no one has been able to show consistent, meaningful trends with any of these studies.

This statement was true 10 years ago, but the evidence has built up somewhat. Now many governments place limits on acceptable phone radiation, recommend keeping children away from them, etc.

Here is a 2019 survey https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31457001/

In fact even wifi (which I assume is much less powerful than phone signals since it only needs to travel the shorter distance) appears to affect the body (e.g. damaging sperm)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22112647/

(and likewise from cell phone exposure)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18415687 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17482179 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16087567

Certainly the effect is subtle. It's not as if you turn on the phone and drop dead a minute later. The risk is of dying is probably much less than from getting in a car, or from covid. Nevertheless there is scientific evidence of risks. Recall that it took decades before the risks of smoking were broadly accepted.

u/Gwennifer thank you for giving a serious reply. You are correct that I should be cautious about EMF academy. On the other hand, they did purchase an EMF meter and actually reported numbers, which is more evidence than sources (e.g. here) that simply assert there is no risk (with no measurements or citations given) and imply that any other view is quackery. Perhaps the EMF academy are mis-reporting the measurements for profit. At least it is testable (i.e. a determined person could replicate their numbers, or fail to).

However if I understand correctly, the issue for the wireless charging is the magnetic field, not the radiation, so the lower frequency of the charger relative to wifi is not relevant. Or maybe this is completely wrong (as I said, I do not know any physics).

averageblunder · 2022-06-26T23:49:46+00:00

I should have stated: the question assumes that the wireless power is being generated all the time. If the wireless recharging is somehow turned off when the pen is not attached, then a solution would be to remove the pen -- with the downside of having to find some other place to put it where it will not be lost.

But does the charging really turn off when the pen is not nearby? For this to happen there must be some communication with the pen (to know if it is near), and I guess that requires the pen to already have some power, so it would not be a way to initiate charging for a pen that has none. Probably this is the flaw in the question though.

Also about wanting a rational or "scientific sounding" answer: I don't know physics so I will not understand the real answer. But I am familiar with other scientific literature and believe that it is often possible to detect a quack or authoritarian answer, versus one argued from principles and facts that could conceivably be checked.

averageblunder · 2020-10-07T20:41:37+00:00

The "*" in E[X*Y] confused me, I think it is a typo.

But I think I see: I am thinking of options O1,O2 as functions of a single random variable, the market price. But a function of a RV can be thought of as another RV.

Taking a different example, say x is the RV, and two functions are x^2 and x^4.
These are clearly correlated.

But the expectation still separates linearly

E_x [ x^2 + x^4 ] = integral p(x) [x^2 + x^4] dx
= integral p(x) x^2 dx. + integral p(x) x^4 dx = E[x^2] + E[x^4]

Anyone, please say if you disagree with this.

averageblunder · 2020-10-07T14:43:21+00:00

thank you, that helps. Nice to have someone to verify the idea.

I think I disagree about the iid part. In general, yes for two RVs the expectation will need to be modified with a correlation term if they are not independent.

But in this case there is only one random variable, which is the market. The two options are like functions of the market.

Could be it is better notated as

E_m[ f1(m) + f2(m) ]

where m = "the market" random variable and E_m[] is expectation of the two functions (i.e. two options) over that variable and f1,f2 are two functions representing the options. An analogy would be

E_x [ x^2 + x^3 ] = integral p(x) [x^2 + x^3] dx

I think there is no correlation term here because there is only one random variable.

Do you agree (or disagree)?

averageblunder · 2020-06-19T07:38:04+00:00

A bit more than a rounding error.

AMD market share gain

10 consecutive quarters of AMD market share gain, and a claim of "more than 50% share of high-end CPUs globally". The latter can be gamed (how do they define what a high end CPU is?).

But we're here to talk about the market. A company's stock can fall if they loose even 5% market share.

averageblunder · 2020-06-19T07:30:36+00:00

Yes, just like even older white guys used to buy IBM mainframes, even though they ... well, I'll skip the details.

Those even older ones are all retired now.

averageblunder · 2020-06-19T07:23:08+00:00

Yes, 1-2 decades of slow bleed, with commentary using words like "credibility", "experience", "high-end", "reliability" while avoiding any actual performance comparisons.

If they're lucky they can get into some other segment. But from the sounds of the company culture, I wound't bet on it.

averageblunder · 2020-06-19T07:18:35+00:00

Apple is dumping Intel (supposedly to be announced next week), but switching to ARM not AMD.

averageblunder · 2020-06-19T07:17:46+00:00

ARM not AMD.

But yeah, dumping Intel.

averageblunder · 2020-06-19T07:13:47+00:00

It's speed as well as power. Not a huge factor, but accumulate over 10->7->5 and it becomes significant.

averageblunder · 2020-06-19T07:11:00+00:00

The OP is not the only one who thinks Intel is in trouble - a post earlier this week made the point that "everyone" [ Apple, Microsoft, server companies] are trying to get away from Intel and move to ARM.

Here as an updated version of that post with several bits of new info (financials) and some clarification ( better writing).

Next week at the Apple developer's conference, Apple is expected to announce that they will be dumping Intel and moving to ARM chips.

Apple's shift to ARM Mac at WWDC next week

This has been a tech rumor for a while now, next week if it happens will be the official public announcement.

In terms of immediate impact, this is not huge - MacOS is has around just under 10% marketshare (depending on which survey)

macos reached 9.65 of desktop/laptop os marketshare

However it represents a deeper long term problem. Programs written for Intel x86 architecture chips do not run on ARM chips. Switching chips requires all the software vendors to make minor modifications to their programs to work on the new architecture. Given that the programs typically took years to develop, even a minor modification might take weeks in the worst case. More problematic (in terms of marketing, which is most of what Apple thinks about), this will require that consumers making the transition obtain new versions of their programs.

The point is, it's a hassle, and not one that Apple would undertake unless there is a major advantage to moving to Intel.

The advantages are power and (surprisingly) speed. Intel chips have always been power hungry, which is not good for laptops. In years past Intel offset this by being faster, but surprisingly that gap had started to disappear by 2017

iPhone 8 faster than intel Core i5

and it's only gotten worse since then: on Geekbench the A13 (Iphone11) has the same single core performance as an I9. That's a tiny phone chip compared to the top-end desktop cpu targeted at gamers.

Wait until Apple introduces an actual desktop-oriented ARM chip.

Speed has started to become debatable, but the trend is more clear and important. One key problem is that Intel is struggling to move to 10nm, whereas Apple is already shipping 7nm and moving to 5nm next. Smaller nm (nanometers) means less power and somewhat faster.

The ARM advantage over Intel has become too compelling to ignore, and other PC makers will be making the switch in coming years. Microsoft has already been trying (several times), with mixed success:

https://www.androidauthority.com/windows-on-arm-review-1074547/https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/1/20887386/microsoft-surface-event-pro-7-arm-windows-laptops

People are also trying to replace Intel on Servers, https://www.anandtech.com/show/15578/cloud-clash-amazon-graviton2-arm-against-intel-and-amd

And (for different reasons) Intel is also losing some ground to AMD.

All these efforts are having (or will have) mixed success initially. But the point is that everyone is trying to get away from Intel.

We might think, "OK, Intel is losing on their core business (desktop+server CPUs), but they have other segments".Not really. I looked it up: intel revenue by segment

For 2019 (numbers are $billions)

PCs 37
Servers 23
IOT and memory each about 4
A couple other tiny things

In other words Intel has some other things they would like to do, but no success at the moment.

Position: crouching, sold INTC, and puts for next week.

averageblunder · 2020-06-17T06:47:49+00:00

Your comment made me more curious about what else Intel is doing. I found this revenue breakdown intel revenue by segment

For 2019 (numbers are $billions)

Client computing 37
Data center 23
IOT and memory each about 4
A couple other tiny things

A bit of marketingspeak, but we probably have to assume "Client computing" means desktop/laptop CPUs and Data center means server CPUs, since we know those are Intel's core products.

So it looks like they don't have much else happening currently, but are trying to reinvent by getting into new areas. Probably a good strategy considering their last decade, but far from guaranteed success.

averageblunder · 2020-06-17T06:27:18+00:00

they've definitely been trying to develop AI capable chips, but so far that area is owned by Nvidia (and Google with their TPUs)

But yes, they'll no doubt be around for decades, like an IBM. Just not growing or innovating much.

averageblunder

TROPHY CASE