One benefit to Mutual Funds is that you can do things like reinvest dividends, or investment plans. It's not a fundamental advantage that a mutual fund has, but no brokers that I am aware of would let you do those things with an ETF. So if you have long term "forget it" account, with ETFs it will accumulate cash from dividends. And the tax benefit of ETFs doesn't really help in a tax advantaged account (e.g. retirement). Finally, theoretically at least, when you buy an ETF there is an explicit "transaction cost". Even when they don't charge you a commission, there's a bid ask spread. Mutual funds trade at NAV both ways (unless of course there's an external transaction cost separately disclosed).
It used to be you could buy fractions of a mutual fund, but not ETFs. Recently, brokerages have started allowed you to do fractional ETFs as well though.
There are some minor advantages to funds left, especially in taxable. Some of the funds do their best to allocate certain costs to the ETFs so that ends up more favorable tax-wise.
The real main advantage of funds vs ETFs is they don't bounce around in price every millisecond.
It's not wild for people who choose to use a stable distribution that last released prior to smartmontools 7.4. It's exactly what they want and choose.
(Debian 12: 10 June 2023; smartmontools 7.4: 1 August 2023)
In a vacuum I don't love the changes he made to Part 2 but I can also see how they will make it flow much better into Part 3 than Dune > Dune Messiah ever did (that always felt disjointed to me); as well as make that story more compelling.
I've tried to avoid spoilers below, but there are some minor ones for anyone reading who has never read Dune Messiah.
I've read Dune at least a dozen times and followed up with Dune Messiah a few times. Sometimes I get that feeling of disjointedness. At its most extreme, Paul feels like a total stranger. (Stilgar might as well be a different characters; we see a changed character, but not the change.) Sometimes it feels like the books flows nicely despite the time jump. My best guess is that it depends on what aspects I've been most focused on while reading.
I'm reserving judgment as well, but one part is really stuck in my craw. Although I felt like Villeneuve's Chani was generally stronger I felt the last scene made her look like a child and my first thought was that it was a weak attempt to set up a particular relationship for Part 3.
I wish just for once these directors had simply made the movie of the book and damn the consequences of what Hollywood thinks audiences want. The movies that directors such as Peter Jackson make are brilliantly done - if only the story wasn't hacked. And that's not even addressing the worst of the travesties such as Radagast the Brown being covered in bird shit and the dwarves in The Hobbit being a bunch of circus clowns.
> What works in books often doesn't work on screen and vice versa. They are different media.
Not really. The biggest issue is time. As far as i noticed, one needs 2 hours of movie for 100 pages of a book. Anything below this (fitting 400 pages in 2 hours) is art. That's why Lynch's version is better.
Agreed. The difference between a book and a film is that they are completely different things. You can't just graft a story from one directly onto another and expect results.
Man this would have been nice when I was in school.
For some reason linear algebra still isn't part of standard Mechanical Engineering course load (Calc 1, 2, 3, DiffEq) which made life extremely difficult in some of the later classes. I remember spending weeks brute forcing a lot of things that would have been trivial with a little bit of matrix math.
I took a superficially similar class as a 400 level elective but it assumed everyone already knew linear algebra going in, and it was a disaster.
This would have helped me get an actual CS degree 25 years ago instead of CS-lite (networking & server admin).
It's not that I can't do calculus, I took it in high school, and then again in my first go-round in CS. It's that I hate calculus. Not the subject itself, just the grinding away at problem sets.
I did a refresher in pre-calc, calc I, calc II & discrete mathematics during COVID at the local community college (was planning to finish the few credits I need for an actual CS BS) & I started calc III twice (but dropped both times). I even got a 4.0 on my first calc III exam (and this was an in-person class, so no online shenanigans).
I just have some kind of weird aversion to 3 dimensional calculus. I have convinced myself that I'm simply not smart enough to actually do the work. I understand it, I just get clammy with it.
Truth be told, maths are my kryptonite. Despite working with numbers all day every day for 30+ years, and writing a lot of software over the years (and not just CRUD, but games of all things), I am absolutely ashamed that I just can't seem to grok math with any rigor.
I have all the Stewart textbooks on my shelf, many textbooks from libgen (ones I've seen recommended on HN from people who went to much better universities than I attended), and I even work through problems a few hours per week. I just can't seem to make that leap from a guy who's "good with numbers" (from a layperson's perspective) to a guy who's good at math.
Maybe I need to break open one of my physics textbooks and actually use the calculus in an applied context and that will break whatever mental barrier I have (I've even watched all of the 3 blue 1 brown videos, countless youtube lectures, etc).
A few hours per week simply isn't enough, the best success I've had studying was 6 hours a day, resting for 3 (leisure activity), "working" for 3 (class, commute, chores, related reading) and sleeping 12 hours.
In books like Stewart, staring at a theorem until you can write it's proof should trivialize most problems in the book.
If a method for solving a particular problem is too difficult for you maybe consider researching and/or inventing some new method to solve these problem. People created these methods in the first place because earlier methods were too tricky
Or just focus on work that doesn't require hundreds of hours to gain proficiency. As long as you have time every day to stop, think, and come up with an idea that solves a problem you won't become intellectually unfit.
Maybe your problem is Stewart? I used that textbook and was successful, but it's not for everyone. For example, beginning calculus with limits is another bit of misguided conventional wisdom. I still don't get limits, really. Serge Lang's calculus book takes the approach to just roll with an intuitive notion of limits, saving rigor for analysis. Which seems better.
Gilbert Strang has a textbook, also more intuitive and applied. Free PDF provided by MIT. Sylvanus Thompson's book is recommended here, again, intuitive, applied.
Other comments here, 3 hours isn't enough, use Math Academy, nobody gets it on the first approach, all seem relevant. One of the textbooks recommended here says in the preface that it's for a second course in Linear Algebra. Analysis is just calculus the second (or third) go round, and it's said to be the hardest class in a math major.
I am in your boat, but about linear algebra instead of calculus. This is what I try to get myself over the hump.
I honestly don't think the problem is the textbook.
I have Stewart (both the standard version and Early Transcendentals), and I also have a book from 1967 by Tom Apostol (the 2 volume set that covers single & multivariable calculus, linear algebra, a subtle introduction to differential equations and some probability as well).
My gut feeling is that I just don't know the correct way to study math in general. I have no problem doing the work. But it feels more like mechanical or algorithmic solving than it does like true understanding. There is a difference. I can't deconstruct a problem and think in the abstract to come up with a different method to solve it.
And there always seem to be some fundamental truth that I'm always missing. A part of a proof here or an axiom there that seems obvious to other people who study these subjects that I just don't "see".
It's incredibly frustrating, because deep down I know I have the aptitude for this stuff. I guess that most subjects have always been easy for me. I could ace exams without cracking the book (or just skimming).
Math is not like that. You need to read. And then re-read. And then do. And then do some more. And then go back and re-read again to see what you missed. And there's a lot of things that are between the lines, and if you're not following it, those things fall by the wayside.
I just need to learn how to learn math. I need to learn how to deconstruct notation and proofs to truly understand them. And there's no shortcut. It's grind and grind until it all becomes clear. That sort of thing is just difficult for me.
I feel what you're describing very viscerally. I have tried so many times as an adult to finally get linear algebra. Worked my way through Strang to eigenvalues and eigenvectors repeatedly. Still feel like I am failing to see something.
> It's that I hate calculus. Not the subject itself, just the grinding away at problem sets.
Most math majors I knew hated the standard calculus courses, for precisely this reason. It's taught this way because they're targeting engineers and some hard sciences (physics).
The reason is that for many of those majors (EE, physics), you will take courses where doing calculus is your daily bread and butter. You need to be as adept at it as algebra. Over 50% of HW problems in those courses will involve calculus. They really don't want students who understand circuits but can't do anything useful because they stumble on calculus.
They are the largest "customers" of the math department, so the department caters to them.
I swapped out from being an Engineering major (consistently in the top 5 scoring Engineering students out of a first year intake of 300) to being a math major for similar reasons - Engineering has a lot of rote learning grind exams, not so much exploration of deep fundementals.
The Math dept has numerours courses loosely covering similar material, Math 100 - first year math for math nerds, Math 110 - first math for engineering students, Math 120 - math for business majors, etc.
Math for math majors ( the 100 stream ) had 20 students in all (IIRC) most of whom now hold academic positions, Math 110 had the 300 engineering students, other streams had cross over students from business, medicine, law, et al.
Future mathematicians (and theoritical physicists, etc) are indeed the smallest group the Math Dept. catered for.
There are deep concepts behind multi variable cal. But if you just want to pass the course, memorizing problem shapes through practice will get you through calc 3.
Do all the homework problems check the answer in the back of the book. You’ll make it.
Such is life. We all have regrets, and being sloppy and indifferent with math in my youth is a big one for me. If I had done it then, I wouldn't have to try so hard now.
If by 3d-calc you mean vector calculus then yeah I never actually understood any of it, I just moved on to differential forms and the tensor calculus and Riemannian geometry and then wondered why anyone bothered with 3d-calculus in the first place.
Most of the time I've found that the deeper I plunge into abstraction in math I get rewarded with an extremely elegant formalism. Its like upgrading your weapon in dark souls, the early game enemies get one-shotted when you go back.
Maybe some schools do but it's baffling to me its not a universal requirement. It'd be dramatically more useful than Calc3 for most engineers.
Michigan doesn't seem to require it as the College of Engineering core classes or as part of the BSME (checked because they're who this course is through):
I did an EE/CS dual degree and there was a really interesting difference between the linear algebra courses offered in both departments.
For the EEs we were given a crash course in GE120, which all engineering students had to take. It covered how to use determinants, Gaussian elimination and matrix inversion, and those kinds of “basic” LA tools, plus some simple numerical methods stuff like Newton’s Method. In second year we had a short lab course that focused on how to use Matlab, and a circuits analysis course that pretty much forced us to learn how to represent large sets of equations in matrix form and invert them to solve all of the variables at once. Very very practical.
And then in third year I had to take a 200-level linear algebra course from the Math department to satisfy the requirements for the CS degree. I chose the honours version of it and… holy moly. I thought it was going to be a gimme class but it turned out to be very theory-heavy, of which I had learned almost none in engineering. The first month kicked my ass pretty hard. Once we got out of the low-level theory (which was truly amazing to take in) and into the more advanced things that I’d been using for 2 years but didn’t know “why”, everything changed. Many of my peers were struggling to understand why you’d want to do some of this stuff and I was just super excited to finally understand why the “just turn the crank” math I’d been doing actually worked.
Yes back in 2005 when I first went to undergrad as a mech engineering major, linear algebra was not a requirement. Our mechanics professors were highly irritated by this.
I don't think this has changed much (but absolutely should). I've watched in real time as Micron representatives reject mechanical engineers and prefer résumés from industrial engineers for design roles due to their superior grasp on linear algebra and statistics. I'm paraphrasing but "it's easier to teach an IE how to do FEA than it is to teach a mechanical engineer DOE and Weibull analysis".
Yeah, stats is the other major deficiency in the course load. I think one course is required but its basically high school level "check out these normal distributions, 68-95-99.7, here's a Z-score, see you later".
Thankfully the companies I've worked for have done a really good job with advanced stats training.
IE == Industrial Engineering: broad, but generally "Engineering of Systems" instead of a physical product. Laying out factories, setting up supply chains, etc. It's morphed a little bit from the original field so the name isn't super accurate.
FEA == Finite Element Analysis: advanced method of predicting the strength of a product via numerical simulation.
DOE == Design of Experiments: evaluation of how the outputs of a system change as you vary the inputs. At a high level, you build model of the system, then vary all the inputs through their entire range and to build a response surface of the output.
> It's morphed a little bit from the original field so the name isn't super accurate.
I'm currently doing a masters in IMSE--Industrial and Management Systems Engineering--and yeah it's changed since the 70s or whenever it had its real heyday (they come in waves).
The updated curriculum for undergrad is essentially the same as a mechanical engineering for the first two years, but as they wander off into advanced mechanics and fluids, IMSE students are doing time studies, factory design (FLOW!), and lots of stats and algorithms.
I've actually had the pleasure of getting to gripe to our school's Industrial Advisory Board which seems mostly full of Boeing people. They want to know if the curriculum serves the students well and I preach to them that, actually, if you spend 6 or 9 extra credits on proper software engineering that you've created a monster... but they don't listen. Some even get kind of offended because they think that a career in project management is a fine way to go about life (why go to engineering school?)
Sorry programming blows your mind? Perhaps that's why we need to teach it? I've done a lot of ERP integrations in my career and I'm not sure who they think is most qualified to do those sorts of things.
Same... I didn't have to take Linear Algebra in ChemE undergrad. DiffEq had a little bit of LA... and ChemE had few classes where bits of pieces of LA where introduced and applied.
Graduate school definitely made up for lost time... LA was very front and center in the applied math courses.
The design spec is something like “95% probability of completing 5 flights” - that is, the minimum threshold to be successful.
That leaves a lot of extra margin to keep going well past it - 90% for 10 flights; 80% for 20; etc.
(made up numbers)
You also get the “bathtub curve” in most mechanical systems. Once you get past the early design defect failures, things tend to last a long time, until they start wearing out.
If its anything like our farmers market I'd bet they aren't actually locally grown.
It's really hard to unpack which of our vendors are truly local; and which just buy produce from wholesalers, slap a "Name's Family Farm" sign on the table, and pretend to be locally grown.
You'd be a lot better off going to the actual orchard, but those are often 1+ hours away.
I'm in Seattle. You would think I could reliably find good apples here.
I can not. Even at farmer's markets, it's obvious some of the offerings have been stored... which makes me question the stuff that isn't obvious. At least it's better than the supermarkets, which have been selling New Zealand apples... in Washington... in September... yeah no thanks!
They also sell apples on their website for local delivery in the Seattle area (in semi-large quantities only). Their honeycrisps are very good in my opinion, I usually buy 40 pounds a couple times a year. They also have other good fruit in season (e.g. peaches, nectarines; cherries are okay).
I think it's less about strict hardiness and more about suitability for mass growing in Washington. The Honey crisp has declined because it's getting grown in places it doesn't really do well. The Cosmic Crisp is bred for those very places.
So it may not be as good at peak (or it might, here in WA the peak of the Cosmic Crisp can be pretty high indeed) but it should stay strong over the years.
Same. People kept telling me it was a Pink Lady with a honeycrisp texture. I tried it a few times, it was neither. Not terrible or anything, but not the holy grail it was made out to be.
That's been my experience. They apparently have no "understanding" of single lane roads. ~2022 Toyota and a 2025 Ford.
Multiple times they attempted to steer me back into the oncoming vehicle because it thought I was too close to the edge. You can disable it but only for the current trip; so every time we got back in we had to go through a 2-3 minute checklist of disabling the murder settings.
Why is owning a modern car such a nightmare...?
I suspect there's also a weird overlaid anxiety when one feels like they are "co-piloting with an unpredictable partner" rather than just driving.
Might be manageable if you're purchasing in enormous quantities; but a 5% fee on $1000 hurts if you're in normal consumer purchase ranges.
reply