yes structured way is not the best way, it actually is the only way to get to good level at something. Jumping here and there will only make you a generalist with just breadth and no depth. Learn from my mistake :)

In another news, I started hitting gym this month... let's see the progress :)

I'm a skinny (57kgs guy)

if one man can pin you down , two can rape you

The real motivation💀🤣

Appreciate it❤️

Good night, we'll continue tomorrow if there are more questions :)

Just start, that is all it takes to be a tg creator, share everything possible without overthinking whether or not you have enough subs, if your content is good, more people will come organically.

The ML book by Aurelien Geron is a great first shot you can make. You can learn the underlying math in parallel with the book.

Like when you learn about PCA (understand the code and concepts from the book but go and do your own reading about PCA from math books and different sources)

There are much more math intensive books (theoretical) like Bishop but not really recommended without at least knowing the basics ( neural nets, regression, SVMs...)

Resources To Learn Rust

-The official documentation (i'll also drop the pdf version if you like offline).
-Rustlings (exercises curated for you to do in parallel with the book), cloning is all you need to get started.
-Rust by practice - A lot of comprehensive exercises with some notes.
-Rust by exercise - Resembles rust by practice but it works more like a reference.
-Let's get rusty - Basically the whole book in video.

The book

You can do this after the official documentation (it helps in writing idiomatic rust code as i heard)

Prolly the biggest mistake you are making is expecting the advanced stuffs to go as smoothly as the basics. But in reality the curve as you move forward gets steeper. In the beginning you spend less time and know a lottt of things but as you push forward you spend most of your time learning small details and edge cases which can be frustrating.

I thought most of you knew what i look like (from my pfp)

Should I do face reveal?

Yess, since like grade 4. I used read a lot of science books (being a physicist is what i have always wanted to be) but as i grow older (around grade 9) i started to get immersed in philosophical stuff.

Yeah, HStellar is my username, im low rated, i play it casually

i dont really mind answering that question, because honestly, Ive got a lot of stories to tell about my love life down the road. And no, it’s not something that interferes with me chasing my goals.

Ive been in a relationship for about two and a half years now, and i would say thats given me more than enough experience to actually understand how love and personal growth coexist. The biggest thing I’ve learned is that everything in life needs a boundary. Work is work. Love is love. Family is family.

Things only start to fall apart when one starts bleeding into the other. When you mix them up, you lose focus, direction, and even yourself at some point. But when you keep each part in its place, give your time, your love, and your energy to the right thing at the right moment, life becomes way smoother, and honestly, a lot more peaceful.

Actually, the right partner will encourage and push you harder for you to achieve your goals. That is generally my take on how it works...

I have been down that road for sometime btw :)

Just took a lot of lesson from it tho.

short answer, no. Long answer:

i think the simulation theory is more of a philosophical lens than an actual explanation of reality. Its an interesting thought experiment, that maybe some higher intelligence coded our universe, but there’s zero tangible evidence. Everything we observe follows consistent physical laws, not arbitrary computational limits.

People gravitate toward the idea because it gives meaning to uncertainty, its comforting to think there’s a designer behind all this randomness. But complexity doesn’t automatically imply simulation. It could just mean the universe is what it is: vast, chaotic, self organizing, and beyond what our current models can fully explain.

So no, I don’t think we’re living in a simulation. We’re just part of a system so complex it feels simulated but that’s more about our limited perception than about reality being fake

Sad reality: we will never know.

Imagine the designer setting all those physical constants we know in science. Randomness of the numbers indicate perhaps all of this came into existence through endless random iteration over billions of years. Or maybe there is a grand designer, really.

An orthodox christian nominally. But deep down an agnostic. I was doing my own research the past few months and i'd say i never even scratched the surface of it. For the time being im an agnostic, in the future, i will go to one end, definitely.

The thing is, as you study deeper and ask questions, in a way religion has more room for doubt than faith. The very act of believing in something unseen means doubt will always sit beside it.

Like i can raise hundreds of questions from logic point of view that renders most things in religion just look less persuasive/genuine.