It took me about 5 minutes to understand what this is doing.
For anyone else confused, it doesn't listen to you play, it just logs your use of the metronome and provides tabs.
IMO the app would be cooler if it was simply the metronome app on a page. And if you want to track which song you are working on, then just add the ability to label a session. Could have a different mode for people who want it over videos, but usually when I'm practicing, I know the tab and am not watching a video while I practice.
Thanks for the feedback. I know the UI is not as intuitive as I'd like it to be for first time users. Multiple early users have told me that they expected it to either listen to them play or play back some audio. I am planning to record a small videos soon to clarify this.
> IMO the app would be cooler if it was simply the metronome app on a page. And if you want to track which song you are working on, then just add the ability to label a session. Could have a different mode for people who want it over videos, but usually when I'm practicing, I know the tab and am not watching a video while I practice.
The tab is mainly for (1) future reference, specially if you are creating your own exercises (2) sharing them with others. Sometimes I come up with short exercises myself that cover a specific technique or some picking pattern I am struggling with. Overtime I tend to forget those. In an earlier version, you could either add a tab or embed a video. But then I thought why not both! Feedback taken though, it should be fairly easy to make the tab/video section collapsible. Ability to label sessions in also on the roadmap.
Recording and watching or listening to myself play has been very helpful for me. Even a temporary recording of just the current session, or most recent n minutes/beats would be nice. It's hard to evaluate execution in real time while performing it. To get it right as a user experience is not a simple task though. However, your great minimal feature set could also be seen as a plus to drive the practice routine efficiently no matter the quality, you'll get better too.
Agree about recording and listening to it. I also do it sometimes. My concern about implementing the record/playback functionality is that it may introduce a bunch of complexity considering it's a web app (permissions to record mic, browser compatibility etc, limits on local storage etc.).
I never quite got the setup right, but Rocksmith seemed to live up to the promise of "guitar hero on a real guitar". It came out during a time when spending my free time tinkering with computers became much more important than tinkering with guitars.
I went into Rocksmith because of this promise and for me it worked out well. Though it did not greatly improve my guitar playing skills beyond some of the basics, I do enjoy that I can interact in some way with the music that I like. It's like whistling along with your favourite song but with your hands, so the experience is much more engaging and it's feels more rewarding than guitar hero as the sound that I'm making sound a lot more like music than that clicking of buttons.
Nowadays they have a subscription service, I don't know what the quality of that is. But I mostly still play on the "2014 remastered" edition with a "real tone cable" on macOS, but I think they updated that and you can play with any "audio interface" device you like. There is also the customsforge library for unofficial songs, but quality varies.
Between Rocksmith and Youtube tutorials, playing along with my favourite songs is the most fun I can get out off playing guitar that my skill level and time investment allows. I'll never play in a band or make a decent sounding song, but enjoying and getting enveloped by music is good enough.
I really wanted to like Rocksmith, but the progressive difficulty didn’t feel quite right. I would get stuck on new chords, try the recommended arcade games, get stuck on those even harder and less satisfying tasks, then lose motivation. By the time I picked it back up it didn’t respond to the fact that my skills had regressed and I had to start a new profile. I spent more time noodling in the tone modeler than anything.
In retrospect, playing Rocksmith mostly improved my timing. And made me "keep the song going even if you miss a note". If you're just playing alone, without a metronome, backing track or a band, it's a habit to stop and repeat bad section.
I found the best way was to use the lessons and then the riff repeater on songs you want to learn, turn on all notes and slow down the speed until you can play a section. Then increase the speed or add a section.
like is doing some heavy lifting here. We have had asteroids pass by at a distance closer than the moon. That's pretty damn close in my book relative to the size of the cosmos. At that scale, that's pretty much a ringer in horse shoes.
The buzzcut is a very strange question though. If the thing enters the atmosphere and does not burn up, it is hitting the ground.
You are slightly mistaken. There have been hit-and-run asteroids that entered the upper atmosphere and skipped through. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_Great_Daylight_Fireball The Grand Teton Meteor / The Great Daylight Fireball of 1972 came within 35 miles of the surface. A huge iron meteor might survive a low pass but this would be a very rare event.
Anything that comes closer than the ISS (give or take) is going to interact with the atmosphere which is going to change the dynamics considerably. Generally something with the right orbit to pass 20m above the earth's surface is going to burn up in the atmosphere or hit the surface. The drag is going to kill its orbit fairly quickly.
To have enough energy to come that close without doing so means it has enough energy that superheating the atmosphere or generating nuclear events through impacts with air molecules starts to become a problem (or both: first one then the other). This is the "baseball at the speed of light" type problem from XKCD.
If you come in at exactly the right angle (because you'll skip off the upper atmosphere if you come in too flat) and if you're fast enough, it's entirely possible to enter the atmosphere but fail to complete the aerobreaking maneuver, resulting in an exit from the atmosphere at above escape velocity.
The stress of this maneuver is considerable, especially if you get as low as 20m above ground, so the object would need considerable shear strength and yield strength. Also high density and high thermal capacity. But not unrealistic, I think a tungsten ball (or better yet, a solid tungsten lifting body with aerodynamic steering authority) should make it through.
You can even exit the atmosphere but not have escape velocity, effectively using the aerobreaking maneuver to assist in the gravity capture of your object. But you'd better circularize the orbit shortly after, otherwise your next pass through the atmosphere is going to be terminal.
Relativistic baseball effects aren't very relevant yet, I'm talking about objects hitting the upper atmosphere with around 20-50 km/s. Enough to leave again, not enough to start a fusion reaction.
I don't think a 20m buzz cut and back to space is possible. To get back to space you need at least low earth orbit velocity which is about 16,000 mph and stuff going that speed low in the atmosphere gets very hot and would probably melt and break up. Maybe if it was a big one some would break off and some make it back.
I am not that good in physics so someone should probably correct me but if an object comes at such a speed that it escapes earth gravity, it'll probably eject us from our solar path into the unknown.
The mass of such an object is likely be miniscule compared to the mass of the earth. So even a very close approach isn't likely to make much difference to the earth's orbit.
E.g. an asteroid 100m across with the same density as the earth is going to have ~0.0000000000001 the mass of the earth.
Mass is relative to speed. If the object has a very high speed, it can reach the mass of the earth or even higher. That's why my understanding is that if it can escape the gravity of the earth, it means its own gravitational field is as or more powerful.
The mass of an object increases appreciably with velocity only at relativistic velocities. This is completely irrelevant at the speed an asteroid is likely to be travelling.
If an asteroid travelling at relativistic velocity passed through the atmosphere, a change in the earth's orbit would be the least of our worries!
A bit of a tangent, but I've been shopping around for the best code based CAD software. I gave cad query a shot and had a few issues. Any recommendations? My use case is 3D printing.
Yeah, if you have 1 million dollars to spend every time you run a data migration or anything else that touches many rows.
I've seen some new libraries crop up for writing your own replication slot clients. I wouldn't use fivetran for PG.
Either you have a lot of data and fivetran will be too expensive or you don't, and you're better off just using a postgres OLAP plugin/extension.
Maybe it was because it was in beta, but I had a nightmare of a time with fivetrans API trying to coordinate connectors and destinations and git access.
I just went through this journey, except I learned freecad.
You end up having to click and enter so many numbers if you need exact dimensions, so I'm planning on switching to cadquery.
It would be cool to make a framework for modifying cadquery code with natural language, for example "make box 1 and box 1 flush" or "create two concentric semi-spheres and subtract the smaller one from the larger one"
But idk, maybe once you're fast at fusion this kinda stuff is faster to hotkey than speak
Have you tried the new VarSet in 1.0? I found it more ergonomic than the old spreadsheet approach. With a formulas first approach, I find the modeling flow more controllable. Come to think about it, it starts to resemble a view/model arrangement I am used as a frontend dev.
VarSet has an incomplete GUI but you're right it's a better fit; it has fewer massive recalculation bombs than the Spreadsheet approach (and it can still AFAIK work as an interface to a configuration table sheet).
The Spreadsheet module is awesome (particularly configuration tables, which I used even in one of my first serious designs) but I still don't really know why my model has to recalculate because I changed the background colour in a cell. That seems to me to be unnecessarily deep integration.
I’ve had such a hard time with Claude and cadquery/build123d; did you do anything specific to get better results? I tried turning the examples into a markdown document to feed into sonnet as part of the prompt, and that helped a bit, but still couldn’t get it to build basic parts reliably.
At the moment, at Vela, we are using the model to run on all new startups being created and flag the highest probability ones for investment, at scale.
However, we'll also incorporate in our product so that entrepreneurs can submit their Linkedin and we can give immediate feedback.
