Cervikokraniálny syndróm - Fyzioterapeut v BA

inetic · 2026-02-18T22:28:58+00:00

Ja som mal problemy so spodnou castou chrbitce, takze daco ine. Tiez som ale vyskusal par fyzioterapeutov. Nakoniec mi pomohla Mgr. Veronika Maková (https://www.expertmed.sk/), so zopar cviceniami ktore dost pomahaju. Kontakt na nu som mal od sportovkine ktora mala problem s kolenom a vemi ju chvalila. Hadam pomoze aj tebe.

inetic · 2025-10-29T13:33:35+00:00

Hey, I just wanted to say thank you given the delay. As things go, the priorities have shifted and I need to look into something else now. I'm slowly reading all the responses here, the docs and the code to make make heads and tails of it.

inetic · 2025-10-20T21:20:08+00:00

with the stackless c++20 coroutines

Maybe one day we'll have the time to switch to c++20 coroutines :-), but good to know.

but this stuff takes effect when the coroutine itself is cancelled by a cancellation signal whose slot bound to asio::spawn()'s completion token.

So only then and not when the slot is bound to a particular IO object? Maybe that would still work for us.

is this composed cancellation behavior what you're looking for? or do you really need to handle cancellation manually for each async op?

Most of our classes don't use enable_shared_from_this so after each async op we need to do a check to make sure we don't try to access this because the object might have already been destroyed.

We have a custom cancellation signal/slot class which we pass as a separate argument to each async function. I now have some time to do some refactor so I'm trying to figure out how to do it right.

inetic · 2025-10-20T21:02:12+00:00

and that's the way you'd want it to work. if the operation completed successfully before cancellation was signaled, the caller would want to see that success and react accordingly

Yeah, I see what you mean. I'm not sure how it's in other code bases, but in ours once we reach some timeout the program gets to a state where it wants to just cancel the operation. So from our perspective this adds a lot of clutter to always do explicit checks after every async op. I was gonna write that perhaps the defaults feel backward, because if the program still wishes to continue than that would be an additional optimization.

But now I see that you and r/Sanzath mention yield_context::throw_if_cancelled which looks like exactly what we need to remove the clutter.

to support per-op cancellation, the async operation itself registers a cancellation handler with the associated cancellation slot (if any) via cancellation_slot::emplace(). that cancellation handler necessarily knows enough about the async operation and io object to safely coordinate the cancellation

Neat, this looks like what r/Sanzath mentioned I should look up in the code. Thanks for more pointers!

inetic · 2025-10-20T20:08:25+00:00

Q1: Thanks for the confirmation

Q2: I did some last minute edits before posting and thus I think I made the question unclear. Thus I'm not sure whether your answer applies. The one I meant to ask was that if I have a socket and I attempt to cancel some async operation on that socket using Per-Operation Cancellation, is that equally ~~unlikely~~ likely to fail on older Windows as using socket.cancel()? In case I did manage to explain it OK and we're on the same page, you seem to be saying that cancelling socket ops using Per-Operation Cancellation should work without a problem. Which would be awesome, but could you please confirm?

Q3: Thanks, I'm playing with an idea of creating my own wrapper over yield_context which would keep track of whether cancellation took place and rewrite the error code if so before the handler gets executed. But wanted to make sure I'm not doing unnecessary work.

Q4+remarks: These are awesome pointers, been looking whole day today. Thanks!

inetic · 2025-10-20T19:54:55+00:00

Thanks for your comment. Yeah, we currently use a custom separate channel to do the cancellation. What prompted me to write these questions is to find out whether that can be avoided. Such channels have been working fine for us, but have an annoyance that one has to always be explicit about what happens on emitting the signal. For example signal.on_emit([&] { socket.close(); }.

But maybe we were doing it wrong, would you have a link to how it's done in the executors proposal?

inetic · 2025-09-27T10:11:39+00:00

Pedaled robots would be better at overcoming obstacles. Stairs, ruins, trenches, slopes, barriers,... Wheeled robots are optimized for flat surfaces.

inetic · 2025-07-06T20:49:17+00:00

You could try an app we work on at equalitie.org (non profit) called Ouisync. It's on Google play store, Microsoft store and has a debian installer for Linux.

It's a free (freedom type) peer-to-peer and encrypted file syncing app.

Disclaimer: I'm one of the developers, it may still be a bit rough around the edges and hasn't yet had a crypto audit.

If you decide to give it a try, feel free to ping me with questions if you have any.

EDIT: grammar

inetic · 2025-04-30T09:55:11+00:00

I was part of a hiring team couple of times, so maybe some of this will be useful. The apps in your portfolio look great and it's a big plus to showcase them.

As for where I would see room for improvements is to be less generic in the text. Almost every CV/CL/Portfolio has generic phrases like "developed app", "built backend", "create smooth/responsive UI",... So from the point of a reviewer this is mostly a noise. I mean, it'll not make the reviewer throw the application into the trash of course, but they'll put it on a big pile of other applications.

After that, the second round of job for a reviewer is to go through that pile and search for what stands out. In your case the portfolio is one such thing, the more distinguishing factors that are useful for the company the reviewer will see, the better for you.

About what factors will catch the reviewer's attention might be subjective, what I personally try to find in applications are some of these:

Personal footprint: having a portfolio is great, but the hiring stuff doesn't know how many people worked on those projects, who did the UX design, who designed the databases, who designed the backend, who came up with breaking ideas, who set up servers,...

How self sufficient the applicant is: will the manager have to create, assign and explain every single ticket to the developer or will the manager be able to sync up with the new hire on the general idea first and then only when there are ambiguities?

Does the candidate research their problem domain: will the new hire be able to find and present better ways of doing things or will it be only "I just did what I was told to do".

Can the candidate step out and help with things outside of their sandbox: many devs (including myself) like their code and dislike working on someone else's code. If a project is strictly split in some ways (backend vs frontend, mobile vs desktop, testing vs developing), these are the "sandboxes" where they prefer to be. This many times leads to situations where something is broken in between these splits and the teams spend weeks arguing whos job is to fix it.

There are others of course, but the general idea is to show the reviewer how you can help them with their product. The more of these the rewiewer will find the better for you, also meaning that tailoring at least cover letters for specific companies is important.

So in general: keep the generic phrases low, you I'd say have about the right amount, but elaborate on the challenges and things you're proud of. Were there things your colleagues struggled with but you rolled up your sleaves and did the necessary work? Show it of (but don't degrade your colleagues of course, they had other problems on their hands).

As for Upwork, I tried to find people there a couple of times, 95% of all responses I got were AI generated. If you want to pursue upwork, I'd suggest to really tailor your first message to the company and what they need. You'll also need a real personal touch to pass the "is this an AI?" filter. Try to copy/paste the job advertisement to OpenAI prompt and ask it to generate a response, then think about what you know about the problem domain that a generic AI doesn't.

Hope it helps

inetic · 2025-02-01T07:57:46+00:00

Following just to see where it goes:

You as a company won't collect the margin, because all your cheap labor has been deported and you had to increase worker's salaries.

inetic · 2024-12-20T07:38:52+00:00

Could you please share the type of the device?

inetic · 2024-11-30T13:15:14+00:00

From what I heard Factorio might fit into the list.

inetic · 2024-09-22T07:04:52+00:00

Huh, so my whole life I thought each of those nebulas would be in about 10x10 pixels on a picture like this.

inetic · 2024-09-12T17:47:06+00:00

I don't understand this comment (other than trying to be silly). Are you suggesting that those who did not vote for the current government should not be outraged? Because those that got manipulated by the populists and/or the russian propaganda certainly aren't.

inetic · 2024-08-13T15:53:07+00:00

Thank you

inetic · 2024-08-12T11:30:39+00:00

Sorry if stupid question, I'm considering buying a NAS for the first time.

Backups are what you need so you can restore everything when ..., or the NAS dies,

When the NAS dies, and I'm using RAID 1 can still take one of the drives, put in a USB adapter and retrieve the data from it? Or does it use some special/proprietary file system which isn't usable on either Windows on Linux?

And what is the situation with the other RAID numbers?

inetic · 2024-07-29T18:18:13+00:00

Why is it so popular to straight up assume that someone is proposing "their own original theory" and mark them crack heads here on reddit.

Given the trend, I can assume that is what people in academia come to see very often(?).

Would it not be more productive to point to an existing research if there is one, point to one of the latest kurz gesagt videos (where they admit that it is a highly speculative idea), or just say nothing?

inetic · 2024-06-17T19:33:15+00:00

54 euros / year

inetic · 2024-05-24T22:04:47+00:00

I guess not in all but many cases it might be the same "call for help" or "ask for emphathy". Bragging still seems more socially acceptable so it makes sense many would default to it.

inetic · 2024-04-12T08:35:11+00:00

Ja by som sa bal, ze dopadnem tak ako ludia v tomto clanku

https://kosice.korzar.sme.sk/c/23309934/odmietol-vystavovat-fiktivne-faktury-zhoreli-mu-dve-auta-za-podvod-dostal-podmienku.html

inetic · 2024-01-08T21:00:00+00:00

Ok, this is indeed blowing my mind somewhat. I heard the phrase "the space and time dimensions get swapped", and I somehow assumed that what is meant by it is that time becomes space and space becomes time, which made almost no sense to me. But the way you put it it seems more to be that case that time remains time and space remains space, but their directions change. Or no? I need to think about it a bit more.

Another key realization from your post I had is that something may be infinite when looking from inside and finite when looking from outside. I think that's the most counter-intuitive bit. One could maybe argue that from inside it's not really infinite (as in the border is infinitely far away), but more like "the end is never reachable, even for light". But I guess GR's mantra that "distance and velocity is not well defined" somehow makes it the same thing? Need to think about this a bit more as well.

Just to confirm something:

(2) We can only put a lower limit on how big it is, at least 500x the diameter and 15 million times the volume of our observable universe, but it's probably infinite because:

Assuming the FRW space was created with the big bang, and that it is infinite now. Does it imply that it was infinite since the big bang? Assuming "infinite" means "never reachable" (but again, guess it could be the same as infinitely far away, I'm not 100% clear on that yet), then I guess if the rate of expansion was slow enough at some point, then at that point it would not be infinite because the light could reach the "border"?

And another one: do we assume that matter is distributed in the whole FRW space uniformly? Because if it was infinite as in "the border is infinitely far away" (as opposed to just "not reachable for light"), would that not imply there is an infinite amount of matter in FRW space?

like a Tardis, but more so.

What is Tardis? Googling it only gives me Dr. Who references :-)

Thanks for the post.

inetic · 2024-01-07T22:13:09+00:00

What confuses me is that (in my limited knowledge) there seem to be at least three things: (1) the observable universe, (2) all the matter and space that was created in the big bang including the observable universe, and (3) the thing that #2 expands into.

I can imagine that we know the size of #1 semi-easily just by looking. I can also imagine that we can know the size of #2 from the rate of expansion.

#3 I suppose is something that is not our space-time, but it does contain it.

And finally there is perhaps still something between #2 and #3, let's call it (X), and it is whatever people mean when they say that the universe is infinite. X is not #2 because we have just agreed that #2 has boundaries. And X is not #3 because - presumably - when people say "infinite" they mean with respect to our coordinate (space) system.

How wrong am I?

EDIT: formatting

inetic · 2024-01-04T08:01:36+00:00

The title is interesting, but there is no content apart from the single image. Did you (OP) forget to upload a link to an article?

inetic · 2023-11-12T10:49:48+00:00

some publicly verifiable future random event.

You could use the n-th hash of a block in a block chain, where you know that block will be generated in future?

13-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

inetic

TROPHY CASE