I don’t use it as much because my day-to-day is RStudio and Libre Office, but whenever I edit .nix files, I do it with Neovim. What convinced me was the internet’s lauding of Vim and reading about Lua and other quality of life improvements in Neovim. What convinced me was how easy it is to install and use for my minimal use case.

I don’t think I had an evaluation period beyond using interactive Vim tutorials until I felt comfortable with it.

I think I just exposed how expensive and rare I think kidney-stone treatments are…

Edit: clarity

Oh… I wonder how expensive using that bathtub is. Are they rare? Like, would almost any hospital have one?

I’m glad that you have such a nice experience with your pens, but I don’t know if this is a showerthought :(

Some would argue it’s not OK.

Thanks! I changed the post so that it reflects the broader concept rather than the specific indicator :)

I know encapsulation is desirable in part because of security. I figured something similar could happen by removing the ability to import anything from another program. However, I struggled to think about other situations in which no imports were desirable, and so I wondered…

That sounds exhaustive in the good sense. Rigorous. Would you say your math education was particularly good compared to that of, for example, the rest of your country? Could you know, perhaps through standardized testing, if it was good compared to the rest of the world? Would you attribute the exhaustive domain and range statements to just the book, just the teacher, or just the school administration, or some combination of them?

Fair enough, I changed “never” to “rarely” :) I’m actually curious, did you have to specify the ‘type’ often?

lol I see how this shower-thought can seem obvious.

What lead to the shower-thought was thinking about dimensions in linear algebra. If you want to represent a function with more parameters, you need more dimensions.

For example, two parameters could be represented by ax + by = c where a, b, and c are constants and x and y are real numbers. Note that this equation describes a 2-D plane. Three parameters would require an additional variable and an associated constant: ax + by + cz = d, where d is an additional constant and z is an additional real number. Note that this equation describes a 3-D space.

Can you see how if you wanted to represent four parameters, you would need four dimensions?

However, facet plots seem to override this need for more dimensions in a particular way: splitting up axes, like cutting up a cake. If you have four parameters (in which two of them can only take up discrete values), instead of requiring four dimensions, you can split up two dimensions in discrete chunks, like a cake, and represent four parameters in two dimensions. That was interesting for me to realize.

I guess for cake-cutters, this post is silly and trivial. But for someone trained to think “more parameters = more dimensions in the sense of going from ax + by = c to ax + by + cz = d”, it was surprising to realize facet plots break that rule.

https://plotly.com/python/facet-plots/

In case you’re curious about why I’m saying what I’m saying: here’s what I said in another comment:

In the socialization process, I think there’s a tension between the already-existing abstract world that language conveys, and the flexibility and creativity that kids have. I say that because I was reading a book on wonder, and how children are immensely curious. However, over time, socialization can lead to the internalization of rigid identities and worldviews. In effect, older people are much less curious because they believe they know exactly who they are and believe they already have good-enough answers to the questions they care about.

That is what makes me wonder if the reason for the new slang that comes from young people has to do with the experimentation that young people do with their identities as well as the lack of internalization of rigid identities and worldviews. In other words, if I am a child and I don’t have a (relatively) rigid mind, to what extent could that explain my slang?

Fascinating!

In the socialization process, I think there’s a tension between the already-existing abstract world that language conveys, and the flexibility and creativity that kids have. I say that because I was reading a book on wonder, and how children are immensely curious. However, over time, socialization can lead to the internalization of rigid identities and worldviews. In effect, older people are much less curious.

That is what makes me wonder if the reason for the new slang that comes from young people has to do with the experimentation that young people do with their identities as well as the lack of internalization of rigid identities and worldviews. In other words, if I am a child and I don’t have a comparatively rigid mind, to what extent could that explain my slang?

Yes :) this is what I mean. And we can go further back in time, beyond proto-humans. Our ancestry includes mammals, reptiles… all the way to single cells.

I see what you did there with the word “novel” 👀

You’re right :) what I mean is that the internet demands a couple of keystrokes or a click to change content. A book may require getting up from my chair, or worse, going to a store and waiting a couple of days for them to get the book I want.

Fair enough. I can see how I could save myself time and effort. However, I’ve read many long comments in the past that are very interesting. And, considering the 90-9-1 rule, I suppose this happens to other people too.

Yeah. Sorry for the lack of clarity. I edited the comment. I hope it makes sense now

Interesting. What makes you say that?

Yes. This is what I mean.