Random changes can be useful. Human minds are not good at being creative and exploring solution space. They can't give "random" numbers, and will tend to round ideas they have towards the nearest cached pattern. The occasional jolt of randomness can lead to unexplored sections of solution space.
It's been stuck, but I haven't barely been putting effort into it. I've been working much more on minimizing mouse usage - vim for text editing, firefox with pentadactyl for web browsing, and bash for many computing and programming tasks.
The low-hanging fruit is definitely not in getting better at stenographic typing - since I've started working as a professional software developer, there's been much more computer-operation than English text entry. I'd have to figure out a really solid way of switching seamlessly between Vim's normal-mode and stenographic typing in insert mode. And configuration and exploratory learning that I'm nowhere near capable of to adjust stenographic typing to writing code in addition to English. It's likely still my best option for getting super solid at writing English text, but it's simply lower priority at the moment than other tools.
Daydreaming is nice.
Because I can't talk about what makes it awesome without spoiling it, and I forgot that rot13 is a thing.
Warning: massive spoilers below
Fpvba, gur ynfg yvivat tbqyvxr nyvra erfcbafvoyr sbe cnenuhzna cbjref, vf svtugvat Rvqbyba naq Tynvfgnt Hynvar. Rvqbyba vf bar bs gur zbfg cbjreshy pncrf, n uvtu yriry Gehzc - uvf cbjre tvirf uvz gur guerr cbjref gung ur arrqf. Uvf cbjre jnf jrnxravat bire gvzr, naq ur erpragyl svkrq vg, naq vf gnxvat gur bssrafvir gb Fpvba.
Sbe onpxtebhaq, gurer unir orra n frevrf bs pvgl-qrfgeblvat zbafgref pnyyrq "Raqoevatref". Gurl fubjrq hc nsgre Rvqbyba chg Tynvfgnt Hynvar vagb gur Oveqpntr, n fhcrecevfba sbe cnenuhznaf. Gurl'ir xvyyrq pbhagyrff pncrf naq jerpxrq n... (read more)
There's a four-word chapter in worm. If you read one chapter's comment pages, read that one's.
Deciding to play slot machines is not a choice people make because they think it will net them money, it's a choice they make because they think it will be fun.
Update: I'm at pretty much the same place now as I was then. Dropped the keto diet since I was happy with where I was. Still fairly active but not hardcore about it.
They'd be better off using a shared algorithm if involved in a situation with cars reasoning in a similar fashion.
Plover is another option. I spent a month or so learning it and got to about 50 WPM, while those with a lot more practice can get 200 WPM. It's on hold indefinitely, though.
Let me preface this with an acknowledgement that Deontology has blind spots and that I'm not a Deontologist. Much like Logical Positivism, however, Deontology has good things to learn from that many Consequentialist decision algorithms miss.
Social Considerations
Your decision has consequences outside of the direct results. More specifically, if you decide to tell a lie, people are more likely to view you as a liar. This portion of consequences are easy to neglect when making a decision. So while Deontology over-corrects for this (for example, if you put a gun to my head and demand that I profess belief X, I'm going to say that I believe X, which a Deontological prohibition against... (read 514 more words →)
Having it publicly available definitely has huge costs and tradeoffs. This is particularly true when you're worried about the processes you want to encourage getting stuck as a fixed doctrine - this is essentially why John Boyd preferred presentations over manuals when running his reform movement in the US military.