Phd in Critical Big Data (aka Critical Race Theory for archiving) and undergrad in women studies. Had her funding cut by Trump because someone had the idea that tax-payer money shouldn't be funding "research" into how archiving has racism and oppression.
That's because the author in question is the one who had their funding cut.
Their research revolves around "Critical Data Theory" which sounds very stemmy at first, but looking deeper it has nothing to do with stem and is in the sociology department that focuses on oppression. Based on critical theory (remember critical race theory?), they study oppression in how people archive historical records.
Another professor pretending to be of a technical nature, yet in reality is just writing op-eds. No different than a NYT hit piece.
Go look at their undergrad degree and google their field. It tries everything in its power to attempt to look like a technical field, while just being another DEI course.
I work for a U.S. company that makes ergonomic 3D printed keyboards. We design specifically for the individual user's hand. Almost all the keyboard shells (the 3d files) are designed custom for the individual.
Labor is pretty cheap. It takes on average about 2 hours to build a keyboard. If there are no issues, it takes 1 hour. That costs about $25 total on average for labor.
The main cost is the 3d printed shells. We print PLA ourselves for cheap, but we outsource Nylon and Resin to China. These can cost anywhere from $150 to $200 for the entire thing.
The next highest cost are the PCBs. Our connectors, PCB columns for the switches, trackball PCBs, and the "brain" PCB, where all the logic processing happens, end up costing over $100-$150 total.
The total cost to build them ends up being anywhere from $250 (the absolute minimum barebones keyboard) to $400 for higher end boards.
When I hear or say K, T, or Ch, I hear a higher pitch frequency being used than B, M, L (which sounds like lower frequencies).
Humans have a psychoacoustic effect that makes higher pitch sounds perceived as being louder.
When somethting has a louder intial sound, but the transient sound is about the same, it makes it feel more snappy (like a snare, versus a kick). This is reminiscent of a jagged edge.
Good thing this doesn't apply to fair use, which allows you to have an offline copy for yourself (assuming it isn't for commercial purposes, and you can make your own offline copy).
Yes it's oddly not great in places. It seems to suffer from "YouTube syndrome" where it gets hooked onto something you searched for/saved once. Just because I once entered "Aldi" manually, now that always seems to have an extremely heavy positive weighting, even though I've only actually wanted it a very small number of times and "also" is far more likely as it is used at a 20:1 ratio, and I'm endlessly deleting "Aldi". Trivial Bayesian type things aside, even basic linguistic analysis, let alone an AI superpower, could estimate when "Aldi" and "also" are each appropriate in context from earlier words.
Another example: what was more likely after "20:1": "ratio" or "radio"? Get it tighter^Wtogether!
> Just because I once entered "Aldi" manually, now that always seems to have an extremely heavy positive weighting, even though I've only actually wanted it a very small number of times and "also" is far more likely as it is used at a 20:1 ratio, and I'm endlessly deleting "Aldi".
I'm using Google Pinyin Input, which is discontinued. (I use it anyway because the replacement input methods are worse. Don't ask me why they stripped useful functionality in order to replace it with nothing.)
It has swipe input, but as far as I can tell it isn't possible to add words to the swipe input dictionary. However, if that were possible, your problem wouldn't exist - the way the system works is that you swipe something, the system's first guess appears in the text input, and a bar of suggestions appears over the top of the keyboard. If the first guess was wrong, you can select from the suggestion bar, and the word in the text input will be changed to whatever you selected.
So I'm kind of bemused at the idea that you need to be deleting wrong guesses.
Ok, changing it then, bit^Wnot felting^Wdeleting (though since much of the time the wing^Wwrong guess isn't even there, but rather it's plurals and verb forms and si^Wso on, I do often need to refocus away from the import^Winput fitting^Wfield, pause, scan, conclude the right word isn't there, then delete anyway, so my muscle memory is to go for the delete key). It's still a suboptimal experience because the keys for the next weird^Wword like punctuation are at the bottom and the wing^Wwrong guesses mean you have to scan the list at the top.
These ^W marks are all organic mistakes that it really shouldn't be making so many of considering the word prevent^W placement[1] and statistics and thousand upon thousands of units^Wunless^Wit's^Winputs.
Maybe it's the never^Wnerve damage in my diggers^Wfingers making me sort^Wsuper clumsy, or being a lefty makes it wise^Wworse sommelier^Wsomehow, but I do remember it being better, far better, in the past. And it never, ever, send^Wseems to learn (I don't have Google services so maybe it needs to phone home to learn?)
It seems possible to add words: you type then^Wthem n^Win and choose then^Wthem from the bar m^W.
But thank you for so kindly telling me I'll^WI'm once-unimaginable^Wimagining[2] it.
[1] take this one for example: "considering the word prevent" isn't grammatical, but "considering the word prevent^Wprevent^Wplacement (argh again! Twice! And prevent^Wplacement want^Wwasn't in the list, it was prevention, preventing and prevents) is.
[2] "once-unimaginable" is one I put in by typing it once as it has little concept of compound Shane^Wadjectives. It seems to completely hallucinate the "once-un" to prioritise a previous manual unit^Winput. But I can't actually swipe to get it again, no matter how carefully I go. I get "once-imagined".
