It used to be a lot of them roaming in the residential area, out of necessity since household items were precious. Related is also the profession of a tinker to mend woks and pots and the scissor sharpener https://donwagner.dk/tinkers/tinkers-Zhongwen.html
Used to hear their shout in the street but largely disappeared in the 90s.
I did my CS undergrad in China but was already in the UK early 2000s. I was also abit surprised there's little mention of TCP/IP which is kinda considered classics if there's anything taught in CS at all. Java was definitly the new dominating force in industry and academia at that time.
However it depends on the resources the univ got. In some places there were other less Comp sci / software engineering focused degrees but got a little content overlap (I guess for financial benefits to enroll more students) such as e-commerce / digital degrees. They shared some courses with CS but not all.
It's difficult to remember clearly from 25 years ago, the OSI model was certainly covered, and I clearly remember datagram programming, but nothing in terms of say network routing protocols.
The engineering course covered token ring. Remember in 2000, and certainly a few years before (when I suspect half the courses were created as lecturers often go years between updating them), Ethernet and IP were not the only kid on the block. Netbios/ipx was still in widespread use, Token ring (which I do remember being covered, as I'd encountered ipx and ip over serial and ethernet, but never token ring) was still being developed. HTTP was only 9 years old.
> The art of Hendrix's playing, then, is partly in how he harnessed that sound and integrated it into his voice. And of course, he's a force of nature when he does so.
One thing for me to notice is his playing does not require a rhythm guitarist. I discovered that what worked well is Mitch Mitchell as a Jazz drummer his playing was heavily influenced by classics. In a way it complemented Jimi's guitar tone so well.
While I love Mitch's drumming and Noel's bass, can you imagine if Hendrix had worked with Ginger Baker and Jack Bruce - both much more confident and strident players than the Experience's rythym section.
That would have blown the doors off of everything.
I don't think there was another as "out there" guitar player as Jimi until EVH came along - a little more controlled, but just as confident and chaotic. EVH was quite the systems engineer himself (variac, Floyd Rose later on etc)
Miles always impressed me with his ability to pick the best to back him up, and /then/ let them take the front. Some tracks he barely plays on, waiting minutes for his entry.
Jimmy wanted the best to back him up. But I agree with you; I'm just pointing out why I think he didn't.
Agreed! Like Pharaoh's Dance on Bitch's Brew, Davis doesn't come in for like 4 minutes. Same with In A Silent Way. He just lets the band groove for a while, THEN takes the lead.
In Davis' autobiography, he mentions trying to work with Jimi. I don't think it would have worked really, but who knows. Jimi was completely self taught, while Miles went to Juliard, I don't see how they would have communicated musically, literally. Like, if Miles tells Jimi to try a diminished chord here, or some modal scale there, Miles would have ended up doing a LOT of teaching along the way. And I say this as a guitarist of 30+ years who loves both of them.
Considering that Miles was firmly in a modal music phase at that point, I don't see Jimi's lack of formal training as a hindrance at all. I think he'd be able to hang just fine with Mile's band. Even if Jimi couldn't read changes on a chart, I'm sure he'd have no problem working it out by ear.
I'd like to think that, I love this period from Davis, and love Hendrix, so it would have been great to see a collab.
In terms of communication, I am thinking of something like the musical equivalent to software design patterns, etc. I.e. imagine two devs are pair coding, one of whom has a CS degree from 2002 and one is skilled but self-taught. While working together, the first starts talking about observer or singleton patterns, which the 2nd has never heard of but has coded something 90% of the way there on intuition. There could be some friction as they establish a common language. (Yes, this is based on experience, with myself more or less on both sides of the exchange at one point or another).
It's a common source of confusion. The administrative definition of a 'city' is the equivalent of its metropolitan area + all satelite 'towns' and their suburbs (including farm lands).
My hometown has a population of 3.4 million (prefecture level city or 3rd tier as people call it). But it has an area about 6000 km^2, easily reaching the total size of London. At its core the central town has roughly a population of 700,000. And there are 4 more towns after the central one, each has smaller villages and suburbs under them. People living in these towns wouldn't consider they are living in the same city.
I got the area wrong. Greater London is apparently 1500 km^2 so the total area of my administrative city is 4 times the size of that (with a total population of 3.4 mil)
Well depending on your taste of TV shows and the general culture.
When I moved to the UK early 2000s I could understand but can't appreciate that type of humour. I think its rooted in culture. Luckily that was the golden era of British comedies and there were great diversities so you can pick and choose what flavour you like.
TBH there is a few standout really good British shows and the rest is forgotten about. A lot of humour in some of shows was really tied to the time of making and a lot of audiences won't get the joke.
If you watch Today Today or Brass Eye, unless you grew up at the time, it isn't funny. Most people under 30 won't know who any of celebrities are in the show.
Yes it's only relevant if you know the reference at that time. The day today and the other satire shows aimed to follow certain general formula though so even if it's not funny for some its archetypical characters still fit in that genre of comedies in my opinion.
I actually didn't see that era as a Golden era and actually much prefer the sketch shows in the 80s and 90s such has the Fast Show.
I don't like any Mitchell and Webb stuff and don't particularly find either of them very funny.
David Mitchell's (at least on panel shows) brand of comedy is just doing a stupid face and making sardonic/cynical remark which is often some thinly veiled political jab, that the target audience often already agrees with. That isn't comedy. It is activism. Once you can see it, you can't un-see it and I find nauseating.
Tumour evolution and progression is complex, being diagnosed early does not guarantee a linear growth. Even when it's biopsied at a timed interval you can't get a full picture of the cancer (invasive pattern etc) evolution trajectory. In some cases low grade tumours will be put on surveilance without radical treatment.
Diagnosis is complex too, you don't want the test to have low specificity. False positive is sometimes tolerated.
Cellular level computational simulation existed a very long time and it's more impressive by the day because of large collections of experimental datasets available.
However to infer or predict celular acitivities you need a ton of domain knowledge and experties about particular cell types, biological processes and specific environments. Typically the successful ones are human curated and validated (e.g large interaction networks based on literature).
In cancer it's even more unpredictable because of the lack of good (experimental) models, in-vivo or in-vitro, representing what actually happens the clinically and biologically underneath. Given the single cell resolution, its uncertainty will also amplify because of how heterogeneous inter- and intra- tumours are.
Having said that, a foundation model is definitely the future for futher development. But with all of these things, the bigger the model, the harder the validation process.
Not an expert in this field, but from their website https://www.hfnl.ustc.edu.cn/detail?id=23165
They seemed to have developed a vibration-based slicer scanner 'Blockface-VISoR' to scan 600μm 3d image but cut 400μm each time repeatly to reconstruct full 3d image. It says it's hydrogel treated sample.
In my hometown in China, same practice. However I find it not consistent for people from all over of China. When I get into a causal conversation about childhood with people from everywhere I had to do the conversion in my head (which school year what game came out e.g).
The common cancer treatment modalities: surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, targeted drugs and their combinations are very effective first line treatments. I agree the statistics are much better.
In the field of cancer research it has been focusing more on drug / treatment resistance, heterogeneous response to the same treatment and development of less invasive methods both in treatment and assessment (imaging and monitoring). We have made huge progress in terms of deeper understanding of cancer biology and human disease mechanism in general.
However we have a very long way to understand when things progress outside of our control how to respond. E.g the key cancer drivers have been identified long ago but how biology and evolution modulate its response to external treatment has so much unknowns. That requires large effort to push the whole foundation of science to elucidate the details of these processes in my opinion.
Used to hear their shout in the street but largely disappeared in the 90s.
reply