It's still tabs, but marginally better because you're making your own tabs. Work on hearing the key and chord progression and you won't need tabs. You'll be able to jam with anyone, anytime. It'll take a couple months to get there, but you'll no longer rely on tabs - which I think is the goal.
When you are transcribing a guitar part you have to think about the key, the chords, and how to play the part efficiently. It's a great way to get a better understanding of the neck since there is usually more than one way to play a part.
Had a lot of fun contributing tabs to Ultimate Guitar, esp. when folks would write notes of appreciation. The harder the better - not cheating to slow down the track to understand rapid lick in solos (the Steely Dan ones were a gas) either. You lose a little bit of the magic (little is off limits with some practice) but the fact that you can figure out your favorite tracks and imagine yourself up on stage is fun.
This is why you need a phrase that you've never shared in a text or on social media that you can use so your family knows it's you. Especially to protect them from scammers pretending to be you.
For what its worth, I’ve tried this with my family when I was in my teens, some 20+ years ago. The idea wasn’t to test it’s really them, rather that they are not forced to say things.
Then came the time when I wanted to use it. They didn’t remember. Not the phrase. Nor that we ever talked about this in the first place.
I bet that a confident scammer is prepared to deal with things like that. They want to put you in a state where you are under time and emotional pressure and your "relative" will have a well practiced response why they can't answer your weird questions.
Imagine your crying grandson who caused a traffic accident in Mexico and the police planted drugs in his car and now he needs money to pay them off. He is in pain and probably has a concussion (explanation why he can't remember what you are asking), the police is hassling him to get off the phone (time pressure, explanation why the quality of the call is terrible). Will you get hung up on some code word he asked you to memorise years ago and you can't even know where it is anymore? And if you bring it up he just starts crying and tells you that you are his last chance to turn his life around. And you remember when he was a wee little kid and he fell and scraped his knee and you comforted him. Just the thought of pressing him on the code makes you feel like a terrible person. Or not. And then the scammer just finds someone more gullible. Theirs is a number game after all.
Or just find a shared memory/moment not available on the internet when in doubt. I don't think people will be that eager to remember another passphrase.
Being sufficiently paranoid, the second you use such a phrase you've shared it. Someone will be listening in, and it's only a question of time until criminals get their mitts on that data in the next breach.
> The solution the world's leading experts have landed on is one your grandparents could have come up with: codewords. You, your family, business partners and anyone else you communicate with about important subjects need to come up with a secret phrase that no-one else knows you can use in an emergency to verify each other's identities. Think of it like a convoluted form of the multi-factor authentication we all use to login online.
> "My wife and I have a codeword that we use if we ever get an unusual call," Farid says. "We haven't needed to use it yet, but sometimes I ask just to test her to make sure we don't forget it."
I regard the MVC pattern much like the OSI 7-layer network model: it’s a way to think about the problem space. That doesn't mean your implementation will necessarily implement every single layer of the pattern or the model: it explicitly defines the conceptual model and your implementation can choose to optimize as needed. In that light, Apple's MV pattern is an optimized variant of MVC where some of the responsibilities typically assigned to the controller are absorbed elsewhere.
Republicans have been the ones arguing that businesses don't have to do business with anyone for any reason. Are you saying they don't believe that standard should apply to Trump? If so, that sounds like hypocrisy to me.
I think this is an OK standard for small privately owned businesses... like a bakery, a mechanics shop, etc. Obviously the rules would be different for services that are required and necessary. Ie. a telephone company, national ISP's, hospitals, banks, etc. Especially banks that received government bail-out funds. So, it's different to me.
Conservatives have argued that healthcare providers shouldn't have to provide healthcare to people with whom they differ ideologically. I say they should be careful what the wish for.
Not quite. Conservatives argue they shouldn’t have to provide medical practices like abortion that violate their personal ideologies. They don’t selectively grant them for a subset of the population.
Michael Abrash - there's a name I haven't heard in a while! I remember his book back in the 90s Zen of Code Optimization completely changed how I looked at assembly language programming. I can easily imagine him doubling the Quake framerate!
I immediately remembered myself writing birthday congrats with LLMs and myself pushing every email through Claude, putting linguistic perfection over authenticity.
Being charitable, one could argue that you spent extra time because you cared - which, hopefully, is what your friends are doing. Some people send sympathy cards from Hallmark for the same reason - to express what they find difficult to express. Is it really any different? Something to think about in this age of LLMs.
I'm old enough to remember when this wasn't the case. Compilers back in the 80s and even early 90s had bugs. Heck, even Intel processors had bugs!
The bigger problem though with treating LLMs as a compiler is they're non-deterministic. The same prompt can generate two different outputs at two different times. One may be correct, the other may have subtle bugs. In the end, we should be focusing on what we should have been focusing on all along: what evidence do I have that this code is correct?
reply