91–100 of 116 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, GP should take a spin at turning into an app. Could be worthwhile to have Claude take a first stab at a MVP. If pursued, good luck!
If this is something you are interested in, I did make a mobile friendly SPA similar to this: https://curvefit.app
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, those features are awesome! Sadly support for them is quite lacking in applications... Tabular numbers are awesome!
I feel like there should be a GUI tool to bake in any alternates into the font itself.
I have a weightlifting spreadsheet with weight on the vertical axis and reps on the horizontal axis. The value of each cell is the estimated 1 rep max if I accomplish that lift. In theory if my e1RM is 100kg then I can lift any permutation of (weight,reps) that have the same e1RM. This is akin to knowing Pareto Frontier of my current strength. I use conditional formatting to color cells according to the probability t…
I wrote this app as a SPA! It uses a curve formulation similar to Brzycki, except I added a “shape” parameter (an exponent gamma between 0 and 1) that slopes the 1rm downwards at the right side. My main finding for “pick whatever weight you want today” was that picking a lot of different weights made the curve less identifiable, so my latest iteration encourages you to pick a ladder for a few sentinel exercises per m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wrote this app as a SPA! It uses a curve formulation similar to Brzycki, except I added a “shape” parameter (an exponent gamma between 0 and 1) that slopes the 1rm downwards at the right side. My main finding for “pick whatever weight you want today” was that picking a lot of different weights made the curve less identifiable, so my latest iteration encourages you to pick a ladder for a few sentinel exercises per m…
This is phenomenal, I'm definitely going to try this. Any chance this is OSS or plans to publish in the future?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you please share this spreadsheet? I would really love to have my own version of this.
Just copy-paste that description to Claude and have it create the spreadsheet.
I'm not one to believe in all the one-shot hype, but this was pretty good.
I have a weightlifting spreadsheet with weight on the vertical axis and reps on the horizontal axis. The value of each cell is the estimated 1 rep max if I accomplish that lift. In theory if my e1RM is 100kg then I can lift any permutation of (weight,reps) that have the same e1RM. This is akin to knowing Pareto Frontier of my current strength. I use conditional formatting to color cells according to the probability t…
Respectfully, it’s nothing new. Weightlifting industry has known this concept forever, it’s often just expressed as charts rather than graphs, as it is easier to interpret. But they go even a step further, they extend into 3 dimensions to also add body weight as a variable. So your graph would really have to be a 3D volume. Because different levels of body weight have different capabilities.
I’m sadly twitchy when I hear “Pareto” - having endured numerous middle managers suggesting they can deliver 80% of the scope in 20% of the time (unrelated to the frontier topic here). Do that at each level of an org and the nonsense multiples rapidly. The 80/20 “rule,” as far as I know, is meant to be descriptive after the fact. It can’t be used as a planning assumption. To be fair to those managers, they don’t real…
I am training for a marathon, and, as I increase both by distance and pace, I am always excited when I have a "Pareto run": a run along the Pareto frontier of me trying to maximize distance and speed. When explaining it to some coworkers, I stumbled on a fairly intuitive explanation: "I've run farther before, and I've run faster before, but I've never run _this_ far, _this fast." There was some pushback about why not…
A point is Pareto so long as it is non-dominated—that is, you're not looking for dominating points, you're looking for points that are "no worse" than all others, in all criteria, when you consider that point as a reference.
So your Pareto Runs are indeed Pareto points. However, your run with your fastest possible speed, even if your distance was really bad, is also still a Pareto efficient point.
(Taking >= as more efficient here) By definition, the point A is Pareto if there is no point B such that in all criteria, B >= A, and for at least one criteria B > A. Take the run with the best speed. It is Pareto because we cannot find a single point B that satisfies both of these conditions. Your "Pareto Run" doesn't satisfy this set of conditions because it is worse in terms of speed, even if it has better distance than the max speed point.
The only way your Pareto runs would be the only Pareto points in your record is if they simultaneously hit maxima for distance and speed when compared to all other points. So, for them to be the sole Pareto point, the clause ""I've run farther before, and I've run faster before..." would have to be false! The point would have to break both your all time records to be the solitary Pareto point. With running, because of how speed and distance are related this will basically never happen.
The definition of Pareto efficiency is essentially negative in nature--it's not about finding specific dominating points, it's about finding points that are not dominated by any others on any criterion, period. All criteria are weighted equally in the search for Pareto points. It doesn't build in any weighting like considering maximum across criteria as "better" than points that only maximize one criteria. For a "biobjective" problem like your runs, the Pareto set will always contain the points (MAX, -) and (-, MAX)--they may not be unique over the criteria but there will always be at least one representative for each, I believe.
https://github.com/PatMyron/cloud#compute--memory-unit-price...