Development

Explaining main algorithm.

For a while I’ve been thinking of writing a scientific article. I wanted it to have certain utility.

Morse code is binary: it takes only two values – either dot (short) or hyphen (long). I figured out that short (s) can stand for two-eye blinking whilst long (l) can indicate left-eye blinking. Another question emerged: how to understand when does one-symbol recording stop?

Empty space between two symbols can be presented by right-eye blinking – r. If I input singly symbol of short (dot) and long (hyphen), I will blink my right eye once to indicate the space between two symbols.

To separate independent words, one has to blink her right eye twice and get rr.

Hence, I have collected an ordered set of symbols – r, l, s, - that can be converted into a full-fledged text. Once I accomplish the transformation, I get an answer.

This is a translated and adopted article I wrote for the Aha'22 (30 May 2022) conference. It describes an approach to a marketplace prices optimisation. Here I've outlined some important definitions and tried to define the scopes and roles of ML, algorithms, and humans in optimal pricing. Although the article covers rather basic things, still, you can find out some new formulas and ideas, because these basics are somewhat "well-known only in a very closed clubs", and besides, the real gem found here is the detailed recipe for ML engineers how to build optimal pricing systems.

Everything that follows from this point forward input prompts, followed by ChatCGP’s responses, complete with sample code in Swift.

> Hey ChatGPT, can you make a SwiftUI registration form with name, address and city fields?

This is a translation of my article in Russian

In this article, I want to write about my experience of interacting with the LeetCode platform, and describe my preparation for an interview in FAANG similar companies by breaking it down into levels.

The whole article is written based on my experience, the numbers are very rough, I do not pretend to be objective, perhaps there are best practices on how to solve LeetCode problems, it would be cool if you share your experience in the comments.

In this article, I want to describe my experience of paying off technical debt on our project in the form of a guide. In this guide, I will highlight some of the most common cases of technical debt and suggest methods for solving them. Since this is a rather extensive topic, I will recommend several books for study, because I do not see it possible to talk about everything within the framework of this article. Everything described applies to the BackEnd part, but it may be suitable for other developers. I would be glad if you share your experience on this topic in the comments.

— Glitchy couch! — Anton exclaimed, yet another time crushing down his fingers by heavy coach he and Sergey were pulling for 14 storeys already.
— ‘Glitchy’? — Sergey asked — have you been coder in the past too?
They’ve been working almost a week together, but Sergey would have never suspected he was coder in the past. Lean and muscular Anton did not look the part at all.
— I had to in my student years, — Anton answered, abashed.
— Relax! One of us. Layout, three years and JS for every browser out there, — Sergey perked up, pushed the couch and pressed it a bit forcefully on Anton.

In order not to buy a defective monitor, it is highly recommended to check it before buying. DE10-Lite is great for this because of a compact size and the presence of a VGA connector.

We are the first year students studying Computer Science in Innopolis University and we would like to share our experience in developing a Verilog program to create the greatest Memory Game (MemGame) that has ever existed on the FPGA board.

In this article, we decided to create a game for extending human memory. You will read the background theory and the incredible story of creation.

Design system creation and integration is a challenging and rather tedious task. It can simply the development process or make it even harder. Anton Polyakov, Project Management Director for Innotech’s Mobile Development Department shares his team’s experience to demonstrate the unforeseen challenges they encountered.

Software message brokers became the standard for creating complex systems. However not all IT specialists understand how these instruments work. Pavel Malygin, Lead System Analyst at Innotech, dives into the topic of message brokers and explains how they are used.

The sound of rock music, in particular of hard rock and heavy metal, is largely based on a specially distorted guitar sound, for which electronic “distortion” devices, tube amplifiers in “overloaded” mode, computers with appropriate software and digital processors are used. increasingly using neural network algorithms.

The distorted sound of electric guitars began to gain popularity around the 1960s. Since that time, the sound of overloaded tube amplifiers, connected to powerful dedicated guitar speakers with large dedicated speakers, has been considered the benchmark in rock music. But tube amplifiers were relatively expensive and inconvenient to operate. Therefore, semiconductor distortion devices were developed.

At that time, the electrical circuitry of distortion devices was relatively simple and the signal output from their output only vaguely resembled the sound of an overloaded tube amplifier. Nevertheless, it was still somewhat similar to the “sound of a lamp” and this provided a powerful incentive for designers of analog semiconductor distortion circuits to continue their research, complicate circuits and propose new circuit solutions. The heyday of analog solid-state distortion was around 1995-2010. The most popular were electrical circuit diagrams like those shown in the figure below.

The common combination of JUnit5, Selenide and Allure has proven to be stable and reliable for autotesting. The remaining issue, however, lies in test length increase up until the rise of overall test numbers. The resulting video files turn out to be over an hour. Alexander Kochergin, Lead engineer at Innotech, has found a way to simplify the process.

In this post, I describe how to use MemoryCache and track lifetime of entities in .NET applications.

In the previous articles, we have covered query execution stages, statistics, sequential and index scan, and two of the three join methods: nested loop and hash join.

This last article of the series will cover the merge algorithm and sorting. I will also demonstrate how the three join methods compare against each other.

In this post there are a lot of references to the previous one – it is essential that you read it before getting down to this.

In my previous posts (see the list below below) I tried to express my doubts whether there is a real physical substrate to the Lorentz transforms. The assumptions about the constancy of the speed of light, the homogeneity of space-time, and the principle of relativity do not and cannot lead to the deduction of the Lorentz transforms – Einstein himself, for one, gets quite different transforms, and from those he goes over directly to the Lorentz transforms obviously missing a logical link (see Einstein p. 7, and also Part 1 of this discussion). As for the light-like interval being equal to zero, we saw that it can be attached to such assumptions only in error and cannot in itself be a foundation of a theory. I have to conclude that all that fine, intricately latticed construction of scientifictitious, physics-like arguments with the air of being profound is nothing but a smokescreen creating the appearance of a physical foundation while there is none.

What is then the real foundation of the Lorentz transforms? Let’s start from the rear end, the Minkowski mathematics. Historically, this appeared later than special relativity as a non-contradictory model of the Lorentz mathematical world; previously mentioned Varićak was among those who took part in its creation. Notwithstanding its coming later in history, it can be used as the starting point for derivation of the Lorentz transforms.

I thought my previous post rather funny, and was surprised seeing it initially receive so few views. I thought the entertainment flopped, but fortunately I was wrong. I therefore feel it my duty before my readers to address the subject of the Landau & Lifschitz proof of the invariance of the interval.

You can find the summary of it in Wikipedia. Making their starting point the light-like interval always being equal to zero, Landau & Lifschitz seem to make a great fuss about it. The Wikipedia article even says: ‘This is the immediate mathematical consequence of the invariance of the speed of light.’ No, it is not.

I beg everyone’s pardon, but the light-like interval always being equal to zero is nothing else but the following statement: ‘The length of a ray of light will always be equal to the length of this ray of light’. Sounds like a cool story, bros and sis, but I cannot see what further inferences can be drawn from it. The ‘proof’ of this truism cannot fail under any circumstances whatever – whether you keep the speed of light invariant, or keep or change the metric of space or time or both – or make both metric and speed of light change – the light-like interval will remain equal to zero. I am okay with anyone wanting to prove it if they feel like it, but you cannot make it an ‘immediate mathematical consequence of the invariance of the speed of light’. Neither is it possible to make the constancy of the speed of light a consequence of the invariance of the light-like interval for the reason already mentioned: this is a truism. It does not prove anything, nor can it be a consequence of anything. When Landau & Lifschitz insist that this is a consequence of the constancy of the speed of light, that is either an error or a downright subterfuge, a means employed to create a spectre of logical connection between two unconnected notions, and charge this ghostly connection with pretended significance. And, since the following proof of invariance of an arbitrary interval hangs on the invariance of the light-like interval, we can altogether dismiss it: the necessity of introduction of such a measure as interval cannot be derived from the statement that a length of something will be equal to itself in whatever frame of reference it is measured.

The previous discussion done, we have surmounted the difficult waters and are now sailing into something much more pleasure-like and hopefully even entertaining.

As I promised, we will be discussing the invariance of the interval, that is to say, the following relation:

This question comes up for a lot of us as we trying to advance our career and reach new heights. At the moment when I was challenged by it, I came across a wonderful book by Edmond Lau "Effective Engineer".

As always going through the book, I write new thoughts down. And today I want to share the compilation of things that I have found useful from the book. This is by no means an ad for the book, but I think it has some really interesting approaches for us to explore together.

Even as I am posting this, I can see that my previous post received a hundred and twenty plus views, but no comments yet. I am saying again that my pursuit is not to give an answer, but to ask a question. I only wonder if there is in fact no answer to the questions I am asking – but anyway, I will continue asking them. If you know how to deal with the problems I am setting – or happen to understand they are not problems at all, I will be most grateful for a constructive input in the comments section. I am sorry to say I was unable to make this post sound as light and unpretentious as the previous one. This one deals with harder questions, is a little wordy, and requires at least elementary knowledge of calculus to be read properly.

In my previous post we discussed the ‘Galilean’ velocity composition used for introduction or substantiation of relative simultaneity. It is not the only point where Einstein resorts to sums c + v or c – v: he does that actually to deduce the Lorentz transforms, notwithstanding the fact that a corollary of the Lorentz transforms is a different velocity composition which makes the above sums null and void. It looks like the conclusions of this deduction negate its premises – but this is not the only strange thing about Einstein’s deduction of the Lorentz transforms undertaken by him in his famous 1905 article.

In Paragraph 3 of that paper Einstein is considering the linear function τ (the time of the reference frame in motion) of the four variables x′ = x – vt, y, z, and t (the three spatial coordinates and time of the frame of reference at rest) and eventually derives a relation between the coefficients of this linear function.

Recipe for improving your productivity