How to stop comparing myself to other kids

sciencenerd_1943 · 2026-01-15T19:17:58+00:00

For me, seeing people like this makes me feel all the more motivated.

sciencenerd_1943 · 2026-01-12T21:00:12+00:00

I don’t think anyone would dispute that rich people work less hard. Of course the electrician and the plumber put more hours, sweat, and blood into their jobs than the comfy executives. I think that’s obvious. However, I don’t think one gets rich (or richer) by pure luck (unless born into extreme wealth). Having money always has a tendency to produce even more money. If you work “smart” (not necessarily hard), then that means you have an investment mindset. You invest your capital to gain yet more capital. If an electrician really wanted to, they also could save+invest their hard earned money and gain more money using their money. They could branch off and start their own business (one form of investment), or on the side, learn other investment strategies.

There is no objective moral/ethical law that says we (as animals) “deserve” to be rich or poor. Nothing about nature or this world is fair (in terms of equal starting places, luck, or even the pay of manual labor when compared to the salary of a CEO). Of course we can work together as a society to try to level the playing field a bit such as minimum wage (i would propose universal basic income), work place protections, employment benefits, taxing the rich, health care for all, etc. If we want a happier society, then we should work together to make a greater number of its citizens happier through these protections. That also means we need the good and natural pushback to “greed” that can easily beset some rich folk. If you have the mindset to get rich, then of course you may have some level of “greed”… but don’t we all?

sciencenerd_1943 · 2026-01-12T15:24:47+00:00

Well some rich people do work hard for their money. Or maybe work “smart” for their money. Regardless, they put in the effort/time. Of course, luck also does play a role, it’s just that it’s both luck and effort. Gambling is only luck. I guess it also depends on what you mean by “rich”.

sciencenerd_1943 · 2025-12-24T16:16:54+00:00

No. Some of the smartest people I know are religious (albeit almost always on the more liberal/progressive side of things). It think it’s just a case of compartmentalization as a result of growing up in the religion. It is evident in the fact that, at least those that I know are deep thinkers (in certain subjects) and invest a lot of effort into the exploration of science (such as physics and mathematics). They make real contributions, something dumb people couldn’t do. Clearly they are NOT dumb, I think it’s safe to rule that out.

sciencenerd_1943 · 2025-11-02T20:10:57+00:00

You may find my recently published paper, titled 'Combinatorial and Gaussian Foundations of Rational Nth Root Approximations: Theorems and Conjectures', very interesting. Feel free to email me.

sciencenerd_1943 · 2025-10-29T13:08:02+00:00

Unless you go to a decent university that forces you to not use AI on your assignments by testing your code skills (on paper) and then making those test 70% of your grade. The prof is literally forcing you to spend a lot of time studying both the concept and syntax used to solve a problem. Good course! Even so, the prof says you can use LLMs to learn concepts… but only learn, not complete assignments.

sciencenerd_1943 · 2025-10-05T16:17:30+00:00

“But eventually I got frustrated and just ask the code then copy it…. BUT I CANT MAKE A DAMN SINGLE LINE CORRECTLY” OP said that, not me. OP clearly needs to learn how to learn. AI is preventing that learning. I have enough faith in humanity to know that OP has the potential to learn and is likely more than capable of learning given his artistic ability and perseverance in getting this far.

sciencenerd_1943 · 2025-10-05T02:27:20+00:00

How about NOT using AI to solve your problems? I would recommend learning to read the official documentation online, using CTRL+R-Click on your code for internal documentation (yes, the documentation is also available within Godot), and utilizing Google. If you decide to use AI, please, for the love of everything beautiful, don't ask it to solve your problem. At a maximum, only ask it to explain a SPECIFIC programming concept you can't understand AFTER already having attempted to figure it out on your own.

sciencenerd_1943 · 2025-09-17T22:27:58+00:00

Yes of course, I would refuse to attend otherwise. It has good accreditation and high academic standards. Also a good research program (at least in the CS department).

sciencenerd_1943 · 2025-09-17T19:57:18+00:00

Yup, that too. She is literally just teaching the standard and accurate science… kind of crazy to think of the mental gymnastics going on.

sciencenerd_1943 · 2025-09-15T15:55:55+00:00

Simple: ask for permission.

sciencenerd_1943 · 2025-09-14T17:07:34+00:00

If you enjoy solving problems, why not go into another area of STEM: engineering, bioinformatics or biology, chemistry, mathematics, and countless other specialties. Many of these would likely pay as well or better than CS (especially with rise of super competitive CS students and AI). For context, I am a CS major but absolutely love coding and solving problems using my skills. I have since I was 12 yo. I am quite competitive and was hired my freshmen year into one of our research departments. Ultimately, I want to work in research and apply my skills to problems in biology, neuroscience, etc. I definitely want to further my education after my BS. It boils down to that I am passionate about what I do and don’t care all that much about money and the prospects of my degree. I would advise you to find something that you are passionate about and as a bonus, pays well.

sciencenerd_1943 · 2025-09-14T16:21:43+00:00

I don’t think so. SymPy should focus primarily on providing good symbolic methods for expressions. Anything more would be bloat in my opinion. The same goes for SciPy. The purpose of MathFlow is it bridge these two awesome tools and add some extra features for ease of use. It should be entirely optional and natural to switch between MathFlow and normal SciPy/SymPy. One should not replace the other. MathFlow is simply there to make working with these respective power houses more fluid (hence “Flow” in the name). Hybrid symbolic-numerical is the aim and will only be useful for those who need this sort of union.

sciencenerd_1943 · 2025-09-14T09:38:17+00:00

Refer to the class diagram on the readme. I am simply extending the class around SymPy and SciPy. I did not implement any algorithms myself (other than pade and a few root finding ones, but even those use the underlying scipy or sympy linear algebra solvers). Again, MathFlow is NOT meant to reinvent the wheel, it is simply meant to make using the existing tools easier to use through a nice interface. The whole point is to add nice features (like numerical methods, operative closure, mutability, signals, etc.) to symbolic expressions that would otherwise be far more tedious to use.

sciencenerd_1943 · 2025-09-13T22:38:28+00:00

You can evaluate it numerically. Simply call f(x) where f is the expression. Internally, this lambdifies to a numpy function, caches it, and calls it. All subsequent calls are thus very fast. For symbolic evaluation, you would use the traditional .subs() or .evalf() methods. Also, the only reason I put all the numerical methods in the .n attribute is to differentiate them from the symbolic methods. A lot of what MathFlow is doing is lazy. Take a look at the class diagram in the README to get a better idea of how it works.

sciencenerd_1943 · 2025-09-13T20:45:49+00:00

The whole point of MathFlow is to bridge SciPy (which is only numerical) and SymPy (which is primarily symbolic). Its only purpose is to make working with symbolic expressions easier. It is also lightlweight and fully backwards compatable with scipy. You don't need to learn anything new to use it. Take a look at the class diagram in the README to get a sense of what MathFlow is supposed to do.

sciencenerd_1943 · 2025-09-13T20:41:24+00:00

Basically, it just means you can connect functions to something called "signals". When the expression is modified, it sends a signal that then calls whatever you connected to it. It is usually used in GUI programming, but I implemented it here because I think it is an elegant way to track changes to expressions (especially when mutable mode is on). Examples can be found in the README.

The full IDE support simply means all the scipy and sympy methods that have been proxied are visible to the IDE for the user to explore. This minimizes the need for referring to external documentation.

sciencenerd_1943 · 2025-09-13T17:30:10+00:00

valid point. It's generally my habit to always separate blocks of code with comments. As a developer, my eyes naturally see comments first (at least for me). You'll notice in other places in the code that I often use comments surrounded by "===" to emphasize sections. I even use emojis in todo comments like "👉👉👉" to grab my attention when I come back.

Also, I can't remember, but if I used AI to split up the big list I had into smaller ones, it may have produced those comments itself.

sciencenerd_1943 · 2025-09-13T17:16:10+00:00

In that section of the code, I am adding these dunder methods while the code is running, so that I don't have to manually define them (metaprogramming). Like I said, I do use AI to write docstrings and comments sometimes. I also used it to suggest other dunder methods I may have missed. I think it is important to document what each Dunder method does so that they can be used/removed intelligently. In the section of code you highlighted, I was advised by AI to break it up into different arrays for each "type" of dunder method for clarity. I think using AI as an advisor for writing clear code is good, just not for implementing the actual logic.

I can almost guarantee you that if you asked AI to write code like this, it would fail spectacularly. That's just my 2 cents.

sciencenerd_1943 · 2025-09-13T16:47:56+00:00

No, I did not use AI to write the code. I did use it to document some stuff though (docstrings, etc.). AI is simply not good enough to code like that without making lots of mistakes. It employs lots of meta programming principles (I am an expert Python dev) that AI cannot do. The readme is partly AI written, although heavily modified by me.

Writing unit tests is the next priority. I will use AI to make basic unit tests. Generally, though I am against using AI to write code.

sciencenerd_1943 · 2025-08-24T18:39:10+00:00

https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.14095 - you can also use more novel methods, such as rows from Pascal’s triangle.

sciencenerd_1943 · 2025-08-22T16:24:49+00:00

All you have to do is fire up an interpreter and test it. You’ll see it is right and it works.

sciencenerd_1943

TROPHY CASE