I agree with you and think it’s worthwhile to critically evaluate fonts.

So what happens if we evaluate cursive font? Well, for most people, loopy cursive is hard to read.

To understand why loopy cursive is problematic, here’s an excerpt from two experts on handwriting:

Conventional looped cursive has not held up to modern life and is being abandoned by most adults, because

• Its decorative loops and excessive joins obscure visual cues,
• It loses legibility when written quickly,
• It doesn’t reflect the writing we see in type or on screen, and
• 100% joined writing is typically slower and no more legible than writing that joins most, but not all letters.

So loopy cursive sucks, but does that mean that we should straight up ditch cursive altogether? Are there fonts that are quick to write and legible? Turns out, those same experts built a handwriting system, the Getty-Dubay system. Their writing system does not seek to “look pretty and fancy-pants” (to quote you). Instead, their writing system tries to “communicate clearly” (to quote you again). They built something logical and pragmatic.

How can you be sure of what I’m saying? Well, you be the judge!

Here’s a picture of the Getty-Dubay fonts, both print and cursive:

Here’s a comparison of different cursive fonts:

If you want more information, here’s a resource you can check out: https://handwritingsuccess.com/why-cursive/

So yeah, the way I see it, loopy cursive is hell, and italic-based cursive is the best of both worlds: italic-based cursive is fast to write and easy to read.

I’m glad you’ve seen positive results with physical therapy.

I’d argue that a good physical therapist will understand the cause of the injury, so that they make a good treatment plan. Similarly, a good (contextual) behavior analyst will understand the causes for their patients’ difficulties, so that they can make a good treatment plan. When you know where you’re standing, it’s easier to move forward. That is why evaluation is crucial in both physical therapy and programs like AIM and PEAK.

Or we can take the process-based approach, where we stop caring about defining boxes perfectly and we start caring about patterns of thoughts and behaviors. This may sound woowoo or without empirical basis, but some of the most successful programs for verbal autism are based on these ideas, the AIM and PEAK programs.

This study is from 2015.

Right?

I think it’s exactly a decade later, 2025. https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/evaluating-impact-ai-labor-market-current-state-affairs

As the other comment says, Anki already changes dynamically so that you study the hard stuff more. Just make sure to mark whether you got the answer and how hard it was to get it.

Now, here’s something that could help you, perhaps more than any multiple choice exam could ever help you with: when studying, make sure to not only blurt the answer but also use elaborative recall. In other words, make an effort to think and do so mindfully (rather than mindlessly).

Why? You learn through effort and through mindfully (and not mindlessly) connecting the new knowledge with what you already know.

You could even structure your elaborative recall through Visible Thinking Routines.

How does that look like?

• You start your study session.
• You get an Anki card.
• You remember this card clearly, and so you say it out loud and then check.
• You get it right. No need for elaborative recall. Better to focus your energy elsewhere.
• You get another Anki card.
• This one’s tough. You’re unsure.
• You say out loud why it could be any of the two answers you think could be right.
• You get the answer and sure enough it was one of the two you thought.
• You decide to do elaborative recall so that you learn this well. To guide your elaborative recall, you decide to use the thinking routine “Connect-Extend-Challenge”.
• So you do elaborative recall through a thinking routine. You do it by talking out loud or writing it out.
• This step may sound silly but make sure to celebrate so that you feel pride and satisfaction for doing something that takes effort (especially if you’re struggling with the habit of studying).
• Then you move on to the next Anki card.

The problem you’re describing (open sourcing critical software) could both increase the capabilities of adversaries and also make it easier for adversaries to search for exploits. Open sourcing defeats security by obscurity.

Leaving security by obscurity aside could be seen as a loss, but it’s important to note what is gained in the process. Most security researchers today advocate against relying on security by obscurity, and instead focus on security by design and open security. Why?

Security by obscurity in the digital world is very easily defeated. It’s easy to copy and paste supposedly secure codes. It’s easy to smuggle supposedly secret code. “Today’s NSA secrets become tomorrow’s PhD theses and the next day’s hacker tools.”

What’s the alternative for the military? If you rely on security by design and open security for military equipment, it’s possible that adversaries will get a hold of the software, but they will get a hold of software that is more secure. A way to look at it is that all the doors are locked. On the other hand, insecure software leaves supposedly secret doors open. Those doors can be easily bashed by adversaries. So much for trying to get the upper hand.

The choice between (1) security by obscurity and (2) security by design and open security is ultimately the choice between (1) insecurity for all and (2) security for all. Security for all would be my choice, every time. I want my transit infrastructure to be safe. I want my phone to be safe. I want my election-related software to be safe. I want safe and reliable software. If someone is waging a war, they’re going to have to use methods that can actually create a technical asymmetry of power, and insecure software is not the way to gain the upper hand.

Omg I just squinted and saw the pirate ships. Thanks for your contribution.

Huh. Interesting. What kind of math were you learning where you noticed the errors?

It sounds as if you’re saying Harvard only produces capitalist apologists. If so, do you know Stephen Marglin? Richard Levins? Paul Farmer? Michael Herzfeld? Terry Eagleton?

Regardless, it’s tempting to dismiss elite academic institutions. They have time and again served the interests of elites. However, they have also been the place where radical and critical thought has burgeoned. Academia holds in its hands the tools to build our prison as well as tools that we can choose to use to escape from that prison.

Thanks for taking the time to tell us this. I had no idea.

Ah. Hanlon’s Razor: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

If you’re going to download it, try the torrent option! That way, you can give back to the community that gives you LibreOffice.

Europe isn’t a brand, it’s a life/style.

I could be wrong, but I think they’re wealthy enough for money not to be important in that sense. If they accept you, they want to minimize barriers for you to attend.

That doesn’t mean that most of the people who get in have been trained for years for that and have loads of money. In other words, the problem is social inequality.

I see how they didn’t answer the question. However, maybe they’re not answering your question but commenting on “Brave is a great product”.

This. My partner’s office is stuck with “it has to be inkjet and not toner", and on January their printer got clogged…

Huh. That’s interesting. Are the MacOS coreutils incapable or not user-friendly in some way? Or is it more that they’re too different for people who know GNU and BSD coreutils?

I also wonder if their coreutils are open source. I quickly tried searching here but couldn’t find an answer https://opensource.apple.com/releases/

Thanks for the response. I’m ignorant in this topic. How is MacOS horrific?

It sounds like you really value skill, precision, and usefulness.

Fair enough. Now that I think about it, maybe the developer experience in Apple products are not universally lauded.

For example, I remembered Pirate Software saying that he didn’t develop for Mac because it was a pain, including having to pay Apple $100 yearly to distribute code without issues. Additionally, I remember my brother meeting a Spotify developer, and the Spotify developer said that Apple makes great hardware but lackluster software.

At the same time, it seems like Swift is not a hated language. The 2023 and 2024 Stack Overflow developer survey reports that, even though few people use Swift (~5% of developers), there’s ~60% of admiration for the language.