Do you by any chance have the base model? I'm trying to see if folks think it's sufficient for their needs. It's hard to calibrate memory needs coming from Intel.
I have the base model 13" M1 (8gb ram, 512 gb storage) and it's rock solid and sufficient for my needs. I use it every day for dev work. Got my UI app running on it for local development, backend processes, connections to Heroku and my local postgres db, multiple browsers open, music streaming, multiple bluetooth devices connected to it...
Performs like a champ with excellent battery life. I keep waiting for it to start giving me some slowdown as our apps become more complex, so I can upgrade to one of the shiny new laptops...but so far, it's been a champ.
Are you worried about swap use at all? I’m on the same boat but I’m a noob so I just put my IDE and browser tabs on my memory. I don’t even know how to use docker yet
Not at all. I haven’t had issues with swap use so far and I intend to upgrade on a regular cadence (every 18-24 months) so I don’t expect it to be an issue for drive longevity.
The list is full of people who are obviously 'smart' in some way, but somehow also incredibly full of bad ideas. It's possible that being insightful also requires you to have bad ideas as well - as if they're fountains of ideas, good and bad.
Crucially though, these Nobel Laureates possess a lack of critical thinking to filter out the bad ideas (that are often outside their field of expertise). They're definitely not unique among scientists.
I think this happens for the same reason they win their Nobel in the first place: to just go wherever their curiosity takes them, without having a pre-conceived notion about whether that is good or bad. If you open fifty thousand ugly oysters you're sure to find some gems, maybe even a priceless one. But you're also going to find a lot of junk. So you are likely on to something there, and the lack of a filter is definitely an issue.
You see this in other fields as well: at some point having an opinion is about name recognition. If you are some unknown person and you have a bullshit opinion about something the world will ignore you. But if you're a Nobel prize winner, and actor or media personality, a well known athlete, a business person or a venture capitalist with a lot of money then people will pay attention to what you say and will treat it with both more weight than they would otherwise and they will burn you down far worse than would ever happen compared to an unknown person.
The Dutch have a proverb about this (we have proverbs for everything, so this should be no surprise), that roughly translates as 'tall trees catch a lot of wind'.
>I think this happens for the same reason they win their Nobel in the first place
You are absolutely right. As they say There is a Thin Line Between Genius and Insanity. The very intensity of their out-of-the-box thinking which got them the Nobel prize in the first place is also what makes them prone to go off in many other directions without regard to Social Standing, Ethics and Morality.
IMO, this is not a fault but Genius applied to the wrong beliefs/ends which does not invalidate any of their other achievements. I will take the Genius with all their faults over the Common Average any-day.
>In science, as well as in other fields of human endeavor, there are two kinds of geniuses: the “ordinary” and the “magicians.” An ordinary genius is a fellow that you and I would be just as good as, if we were only many times better. There is no mystery as to how his mind works. Once we understand what he has done, we feel certain that we, too, could have done it. It is different with the magicians. They are, to use mathematical jargon, in the orthogonal complement of where we are and the working of their minds is for all intents and purposes incomprehensible. Even after we understand what they have done, the process by which they have done it is completely dark. They seldom, if ever, have students because they cannot be emulated and it must be terribly frustrating for a brilliant young mind to cope with the mysterious ways in which the magician’s mind works. Richard Feynman is a magician of the highest caliber. Hans Bethe, whom [Freeman] Dyson considers to be his teacher, is an “ordinary genius”.
Einstein was unquestionably a magician. He had an incredible ability to come up with simple ideas, and follow the chain of logic wherever it leads, without prejudice against its outlandish conclusions. Those ideas appear as seeds of 'genius' to those studying his work. I'm not sure if it's 'smart', but it's definitely insightful. I've met clever people, but sometimes, they're not insightful. I've also met many insightful people who aren't clever in many ways. To quote Kac again:
>I am reminded of something Balthazaar van der Pol, a great Dutch scientist and engineer who was also a fine musician, remarked to me about the music of Bach. “It is great,” he said, “because it is inevitable and yet surprising.” I have often thought about this lovely epigram in connection with mathematics… The inevitability is, in many cases, provided by logic alone, but the element of surprise must come from an insight outside the rigid confines of logic.
I like this idea. Makes me think of nondeterministic v deterministic Turing Machines. It is easy to confirm that the magician is correct, but hard to see how they were able to get there.
Interesting you mention Russia. The leadership of Russia spends a lot of time thinking about how to denigrate LGBTQ+ folks. Racism is alive and thriving in Russia. They even recently went through the trouble of decriminalizing first time domestic violence. Could you elaborate on why you think a trip to Russia would be useful to [eta:American] progressives?
He did not say progressives, he said " anyone who spends a lot of time thinking about this type of thing", which I interpreted as the conservatives which can't stop talking about this.
Presumably because yellow should work for everyone. There will always be some people who are offended that a choice exists, even if they don’t plan to take it.
Fun fact about sardines: they used to be super popular in the US, until they were massively overfished on the west coast (Cannery Row is the classic example). They were gradually replaced over the 80s with milder fishes like tuna and tilapia.
This is a wonderful idea. Children (and adults) learn best by doing. There's such a big difference between watching some tv show and making an actual experiment to see structures invisible to the naked eye. I know I would have been psyched to see atoms as a kid.
