Sounds like you're using the Google Accounts feature, and using the [separate] browser profiles feature would exactly solve your problem.
In particular: you can log into different profiles in the browser (each window can be associated with up to one profile, and they can be different), by clicking the little "Sign In" tab in the upper right corner. See also https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/2364824?hl=en&co=GE....
You can then open tabs under the different profiles with right-click, "Open link as", and selecting the appropriate profile.
(Personally, once I tried profiles, I never touched multiple-accounts-logged-in again.)
The comment is not saying that prison will lower the risk of re-offending, but that it will lower the risk of impacting other people until the risk of re-offending falls suitably low (e.g. due to other means like treatment).
I agree with a lot of these bullets just as general design principles, and emphatic +1 to not hand-optimizing.
Just noticed this comment after posting https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15069116, which is specific to V8 but which I'd guess holds for other JS engines too. Relevant excerpt:
"""
...in just about every case, the real answer is "it depends". That's why V8 is ~1,000,000 lines of code, not 1,000.
Please don't try to follow some rule blindly, much less derive. More often than not, when you try to hand-tune for the last bit of performance, you'll actually trigger something that was introduced to streamline the other [95% of] cases/JS devs' code, and then you've spent hours on making your code less readable with no benefit.
There is no "Try This One Crazy Trick To Make Your JavaScript Fast!!!" (or even ten!)
"""
(And for the specific case of preallocation vs. growing as you go, right now, in most cases, the difference is negligible. In the others, it depends.)
I've searched for advice once too. At work I'm maintaining a compiler from C# to Java and JS and while the code emitted will by definition never do some things that are slow (e.g. call functions with differently shaped arguments or change the shape of objects) I'm in a far better position to implement other things that improve performance, if I knew what I could do. Of course, avoiding allocations helps other languages too and general algorithm changes should be done by a human, but things at the expression level that only change performance but not semantics could be easily applied over a whole codebase.
A large change we made recently was to extract private methods from classes and have them as normal functions in scope instead of looking them up from an object, but that was also mostly guesswork since "JS then no longer has to do a lookup for the function but instead can call it directly". In the end I still don't know whether or how much that changed, as ot coincided with a major library version change and we're faster than the old version overall.
Generally catering to not only Chrome, but also Firefox and Edge makes such things generally difficult as well, without a bunch of solid performance tests in place to catch regressions on certain browsers.
Ideas I had, but not yet tested/implemented:
· Inline compile-time constants so instead of having some.namespace.Type.CONSTANT, we'd get 25 in-place.
· Merge multiple boolean fields in a class into a single int and access them via bitwise operations from the getter. Might mostly help in how much fits into the cache.
· Append |0 to all sub-expressions of type int instead of only the outermost one. May help the JIT to not even emit code to check types in between.
· Using typed arrays instead of normal arrays if we have things like int[] or double[]. Needs a polyfill for IE 9 then.
Not what I said. I said to avoid /hand-optimizing/ code.
Trying to write performant code is good. Some examples of advice on that front:
- use an appropriate algorithm, and make sure the logic is free of bugs. For example, accidental out-of-bounds array accesses can really hurt performance.
- avoid needless computations. Don't do something (complex) twice if doing it once is enough.
If this sounds like "use common sense/generally good design principles", that's because it is (and hence the agreement with many of parent post's points that are simply and straightforwardly good design principles).
Let's take the example of "remove function calls". It's true that each call costs a few instructions, but unless the function you're calling is tiny, that overhead won't be measurable. If it makes sense for readability/maintainability/testability to split your code into functions, then by all means do it!
Another example is the "trick" to write "for (var i = 0, len = array.length; i < len; i++)" instead of the simpler "for (var i = 0; i < array.length; i++)". As http://mrale.ph/blog/2014/12/24/array-length-caching.html (from the original V8 team) explains in great detail, what seems like a no-brainer can actually do the opposite of what you'd expect --- and at the same time, won't make any difference whatsoever in most real code (i.e. aside from microbenchmarks).
Yet another example is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJPdhx5zTaw. You can spend all day on it, but at the end of the day, the best thing to do is code correctly and sanely, not hand-optimize the bejeezus out of the thing (mostly yourself, in many cases).
Two tangential cents/Unpopular Puffin: there's a lot of misinformation or half truths that are propagated about V8 in an effort to boil all their optimizations down to One True Set of Advice, in this post and others.
The thing is, in just about every case, the real answer is "it depends". That's why V8 is ~1,000,000 lines of code, not 1,000.
Please don't try to follow some rule blindly, much less derive. More often than not, when you try to hand-tune for the last bit of performance, you'll actually trigger something that was introduced to streamline the other [95% of] cases/JS devs' code, and then you've spent hours on making your code less readable with no benefit.
There is no "Try This One Crazy Trick To Make Your JavaScript Fast!!!" (or even ten!)
(And in this particular case of pre-allocation vs. growing as you go? Usually the difference is so tiny it doesn't matter, and in the other cases --- it depends.)
Disclaimer: I'm not on the V8 team but I'm on a personal basis with some of them, and these are my own thoughts cobbled from casual conversations.
It's true that Confucian values talk about not self-injuring/damaging what parents gave to children --- their physical bodies etc. --- but pretty sure the abandonment of the long queue of hair on the collapse of the Qing was due to the fact it'd been imposed on the Han Chinese by the Manchus as a form of suppression.
Agreed with treve, what does culture really mean? If you read ALL the literature, listen to ALL the music, view ALL the art, can recite ALL the history and do ALL the science... and still conclude it's OK to cheat on your wife and taxes, the argument can be made that none of this culture was internalized, and hence you are not cultured.
Of course things are rarely so black-and-white, but that's the gist of it.
"The Master said, 'The prosecution of learning may be compared to what may happen in raising a mound. If there want but one basket of earth to complete the work and I stop, the stopping is my own work. It may be compared to throwing down the earth on the level ground. Though but one basketful is thrown at a time, the advancing with it is my own going forward.'" (The Analects, translated by Legge)
I'm struck by how much this echoes Confucius and the Analects and how they define the so-called gentleman or noble man (not to be confused with nobleman, and translation is hard). Given how unlikely it is that Chekhov had exposure to either, it's incredible to observe the universality of these qualities considered admirable.
If people haven't, do recommend checking out The Analects! Caveat: there are quite a few excerpts that need to be taken in historical perspective, or can be easily misinterpreted (e.g. advice to be slow to embrace new that was in context of centuries of chaos and warring, or statements on women that interpreted naïvely clearly contradict other statements on mothers).
Can you give some examples of those "statements on women that interpreted naïvely clearly contradict other statements on mothers?"
I've read bits and pieces of Analects, thought it was ok, but felt that is was very much reflective of the perspectives of the time. Most of it felt like stuff that was obvious and other stuff felt not applicable to the world today. IIRC there was some stuff about traveling abroad / being a good guest in a foreign country, and I did think that part was useful.
I don't really recall reading stuff about women though. I wouldn't expect an enlightened perspective from a man in that time period though, no matter how kind the interpretation. It wouldn't invalidate the whole work, it would just show that the author was wrong about at least one thing, which is not an issue (unless we're talking about holy books where it's not acceptable to acknowledge mistakes).
"The Master said: 'Girls and inferior men are hard to get along with. If you get familiar with them, they lose their humility; if you are distant, they resent it.'" (Chapter 17)
This sounds pretty bad. My reading of it is that he meant that relationships between men and women are particularly tricky (bearing in mind heteronormative standards at the time, etc. etc.), so one has to be careful not to misrepresent them or else everyone suffers. This can be generously reinterpreted to general use ("don't toy around with people and treat them straightforwardly"). Realistically... I'm happy to take it as a mistake on his part and just extract something worthwhile from it even if it's not what he meant.
With regard to enlightened perspective or lack thereof, there's an interesting question. I'm no expert on Confucius himself and how he regarded women, but his filial piety towards his mother is widely lauded (as was Mencius').
Russia and China were bumping into each other before Chekhov's time, and a bit of Googling is turning up cases of Russian missionaries translating Chinese works to Russian in the early 1800s.
If you have specific evidence of Chekhov referencing Confucius (the similarities are so striking that either he came up with them independently, which was my original point, or he was inspired by Confucius, which should then leave traces) please do tell! That would be really cool.
I'm not savvy enough to know whether or where to find a list of works the Chekhov studied in his lifetime. I'll leave that search to others. Just floating idea that him coming across a translated work and it influencing his writing without him actually referencing it directly anywhere seems at least comparably likely as independent invention. Especially given that such translations at least existed in his time. I've got no idea about how widespread or accessible they were.
But I'm not even a hobby historian or philologist, more of an armchair philosopher.
Just following up on the fascinating prospect you initiated.
Which Russian missionaries translated which Chinese classics, since that you've already searched? I'm turning up Russian -> Chinese, not the other way around.
Here's one of the resources I came across. I only perused it briefly, but it mentions a Father Yakinf returning to St Petersburg and translating "the Confucian classic Four Books (Sishu)" among other things.
Hopefully this link works for you and isn't dependent on local cookies or something. But the book is: China and Japan in the Russian Imagination, 1685-1922: To the Ends of the Orient By Susanna Soojung Lim
At a certain point, sure. There is, I suspect, an execution difference (which does not at all create mutual exclusivity) though. Have you read The Analects, out of curiosity? If so, you know what I mean. If not, by all means please check it out! It's a short read, unlike any of the Bible, Torah, or Quran ;)
The earliest sounds that babies make tend to be "ma/muh" sounds, as they're smacking their lips to signal for food. Seems likely for language then to develop that sound into the word for "mother", the nearest object (food source as the case may be).
This pretty much explains away the entire article.
The progression of sounds that a baby learns is well understood, especially the physiological aspects of language development and acquisition.
If we accept as a premise that cultures would tend to assign words most relevant to babies according to their physiological capability, then it becomes obvious why words for mother, father, and even facial features would be strongly similar across cultures. And why the similarity will slowly diminish as the meaning of words becomes less important, functionally, for communication with a child.
And especially for simple words the phonetics would have very little to do with cognitive development (and evolutionarily-dictated language models), but be controlled almost entirely by a baby's physical constraints--e.g. huge tongue in a tiny mouth, poor motor control, etc.
It does explain similarity of words for familial relations, but not for things like "nose". Babies don't randomly say "nose", or something that sounds similar, while pointing at their nose.
No, but they learn the words for various body parts very early in life, usually before the age of 2 and beginning around 1-year-old. A 2-year-old also has significant physiological and neurological constraints on vocalizations.
There are also cognitive development constraints, of course.
The question is, from where do we get the correlation? If it's physiological or neurological, then there's nothing to support fanciful claims of innate language models. It's the cognitive constraints that can support fanciful claims, but you have to first show that it's those constraints, rather than the physiological or neurological constraints, that are controlling word choice.
100 basic words (the corpus of the study) is such a small subset, especially if you posit very strong correlations among subsets of those 100 words most likely to be used in the first year of life.
And especially considering that the researchers "reduced all sounds to 34 distinct consonants and 7 vowels." (Consider that the more we reduce and simplify the vocalizations the more likely we should expect correlations. For example, if we simplified all sounds to grunts we should expect tremendous overlap.)
The correlation of the corpus of 100 words isn't particularly surprising given what we already know about language development. The null hypothesis was that there'd be no correlation whatsoever (i.e. the sounds would be completely random), which I don't think anybody could reasonably expect.
Indeed. Especially when the article gives us this: "...the team found a lot more consistency across languages than they had expected." What does that mean? Were their originally expectations reasonable, or did they merely re-discover the birthday paradox?
And you wouldn't mind if your so-called "primary" or "side" (how interesting to apply such terms for significant others) did the same to you?
Because most people would, whether they realize it or not, and that is why they agree to commit to a relationship in the first place---because they expect the same from their partner.
Also, your "primary" will know at some point. Is a configuration really stable if it sets the stage for collapse?
Humans are more complex than if a then b. Many women are OK with it without being explicitly OK with it. Being faced with it can be humiliating for anyone which is what sets the stage for collapse, not the act itself. So keep it discreet because otherwise a friend of hers will definitely try to cause a problem. For what it's worth, I have a way to make it clear from the outset that I am like that without being explicit. I know it works because she has to confirm it with her words, not mine. If a woman is happy to just be with you and you give her what she needs, it's not remotely the biggest issue in a relationship.
You state yourself exactly the problem with this and many similar situations.
"I may do injury to others, but they may not to me."
From observation, many women are NOT OK with it. They may be not explicitly not OK with it (which of course is wrong too).
A few other thoughts:
Causing injury is fine as long as the recipient, and "most of the world," is unaware? The onus is on the rest of the world not to "cause a problem," and for the recipient to point out that injury is being done, and not on the afflicter not to do injury in the first place? A woman should just be happy to be with you "as long as you give her what she needs," which apparently doesn't include fidelity?
A woman is free to be who she wants to be when she is with me, with the understanding that her fidelity is part of that. Most women want to be monogamous, or at least are serially monogamous. Men are perpetually non-monogamous. I think Dave Chappelle had a bit on this.
1) Nope, just stating what I've seen time and time again to be the case/interpretation of your points. This might not be the case for you, but I do want to point out an alternate perspective that is infrequently given coverage in such threads.
2) Also nope! Sorry if I seem a bit amused now. Controlling implies "You have to do such-and-such and be dominated by me, and I don't have to do such-and-such and be dominated by you." My philosophy is that what I expect from my partner, I follow all the way through myself. There is no power issue, because both contribute equally to the relationship.
I will again point out the seeming contradiction between "I don't need to be faithful; my partner[s] do," or if you don't like that, "Men don't need to be faithful; women do." Perhaps that's not what you intend, but it sure sounds that way.
In terms of "controlling," if you expect fidelity from your partners but not yourself, and if you say that expecting fidelity sounds controlling, that would logically imply you are controlling.
Incidentally, I hope you recognize nothing I've said should be taken as ad hominem attacks. Again, I'm just pointing out how many people might take your points.
In particular: you can log into different profiles in the browser (each window can be associated with up to one profile, and they can be different), by clicking the little "Sign In" tab in the upper right corner. See also https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/2364824?hl=en&co=GE....
You can then open tabs under the different profiles with right-click, "Open link as", and selecting the appropriate profile.
(Personally, once I tried profiles, I never touched multiple-accounts-logged-in again.)