Related
I'm trying to run one of the gym environments, CarRacing, with the code from (https://gist.github.com/lmclupr/b35c89b2f8f81b443166e88b787b03ab) modified to work with the current versions of Keras etc.
And it works: that is, it starts training and, if I put a print in "action", I can see what actions it is taking at each moment.
However, the display is not as it should be (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTYOyl8To7g), but I get a big screen that is totally black, and a smaller one where the black bar moves as if it wanted to show something.
Do you know what it could be? Is this a typical problem of gym, or cv...?
PS: I don't know how it is usually done in Stack to share a more or less long code (approx. 250 lines). Tell me if necessary.
See link below
TDLR add env.render("human") to your code
https://github.com/openai/gym/issues/492
I've been trying different tiling WM's to see which one best fits my needs. Every time I try a new one, it looks good but I find other things that don't quite work the way I like. My requirements have evolved as I go. Initially, I didn't want to get into Awesome because having to learn Lua is not on my wish list but maybe I should give it a try IF it can do what I want better than the other tiling WM's out there.
I'm going to as specific as I can about what I want. I am running a 3440x1440 monitor. I want to use as much vertical space as possible (meaning, a full width, persistent but mostly empty status bar is not an option, but I do like the notification area and a date/time).
I understand it may not do everything exactly the way I want, which is oke. If it does more or less most of what I want I can weigh my options between Awesome and other tiling WM's (actually, only i3 which is what I'm using now but I'm open to better suggestions). I would very much appreciate it if people don't just say no to something it can't do, but say "no, but it can do ...". In other words, feel free to suggest alternatives that might be helpful as well.
Divide the screen in 3 columns, initially 30/45/25, with the right column split horizontally; Fully adjustable and resizable as needed during my work session;
Persistent layout; when closing the last application in a tile, I don't want that tile to disappear and the remaining tiles to resize. Just show an empty space and leave all tiles as they are.
tabbed tiles, so I see which applications are running in a tile (similar to i3).
Resizable tiles with the keyboard into 1 direction; When making the middle column/tile wider, I want that into a specific direction into another tile and leave the other side alone.
Certain applications I want to always launch into a specific tile. For instance, terminals always go into the right-most column top/bottom, browser/spotify always into the middle, atom/IDE always into the left. Some applications should always be floating. Obviously I want to be able to send them to a different tile after launch.
I don't want a 100% width status bar. It will be mostly empty which is a waste of screen estate. Preferably, I'd like a statusbar part of a tile, for example in the right-most tile, resizing with it. Otherwise I'd like it to be fixed to 30% and allow tiles which are not beneath it to use the full height of the screen. My reason for a statusbar is mute; I actually only want a notification area and a date time permanently visible. I don't need a "start menu", dmenu or similar is perfect, which I believe it has integrated.
Many thanks in advance!
The general answer is "Awesome configuration is code and it can do whatever you want". But there is a catch. Can Awesome be configured like you describe? Yes, totally. There is at least 2 distributions coming close enough (mine[1] and worron[2]) (at least for the tiling workflow, not the look).
The "catch" is that the workflow you describe isn't really the "Awesome way". Awesome is usually used as an automatic tiler. You have layouts that describe a workflow (code, web, internet) and manage the clients according to their programming. Manual tile management is rarely necessary once you have proper layouts. That doesn't mean you can't, I did, but it might be worth thinking outside the box and see if you can automate your workflow a bit further.
Also, the default layout system isn't very modern and makes it hard to implement the features you requested. My layout system (see link below) can be used as a module or as a branch and supports all features described above. Awesome is extremely configurable and it's components can be replaced by modules.
https://github.com/awesomeWM/awesome/pull/644
The layout "serialization" documentation is here:
https://elv13.github.io/libraries/awful.layout.html#awful.layout.suit.dynamic.manual
It is similar to i3 but has more layouts and containers. As for the "leaving blank space" part, it is configured using the fill_strategy:
https://awesomewm.org/doc/api/classes/wibox.layout.ratio.html#wibox.layout.ratio.inner_fill_strategy
As a word of conclusion, I would note that what you ask is "work exactly like i3". If you want such thing, well, use i3. Awesome is a window manager framework. Its goal and purpose is to create a customized desktop shell / WM. If it's what you want, then go ahead and learn it, nothing else can come close to the possibility and the level of control you can get out of it. However it takes time and effort to get to the point where you have "your own perfect desktop". Our users perfect desktops:
https://github.com/awesomeWM/awesome/issues/1395
[1] https://gfycat.com/SmallTerribleAdamsstaghornedbeetle
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yNALqST1-Y
The WM your are looking for is herbstluftwm (hlwm). Its a manual tiling window manager. The tiles which you are talking about are called frames in hlwm. Each frame can contain multiple windows. A frame can also be empty. Only if you kill a frame the other frames will automatically resize. You can add new frames vertically and horizontally and resize them. Each frame can also have a different layout to organize the windows inside. The layout you are looking for is max. This will stack the windows inside a frame on each other. It doesn't show you tabs like i3 however. hlwm allows you to create rules to open certain applications always in certain frames and workspaces. hlwm doesn't have a statusbar buildin. I personally like to use tint2. It can be used as a replacement for your requirement to see running applications as tabs.
EDIT: My code for this is actually open source, if anyone would be able to look and comment.
Things I can think of that might be an issue: using a custom font, using bright green, updating the label too fast?
The repo is: https://github.com/andrewljohnson/StopWatch-of-Gaia
The class for the time label: https://github.com/andrewljohnson/StopWatch-of-Gaia/blob/master/src/SWPTimeLabel.m
The class that runs the timer to update the label: https://github.com/andrewljohnson/StopWatch-of-Gaia/blob/master/src/SWPViewController.m
=============
My StopWatch app reportedly screen burns a number of iPads, for temporary periods. Does anyone have a suggestion about how I might prevent this screen persistence? Some known workaround to blank the pixels occasionally?
I get emails all the time about it, and you can see numerous reviews here: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/stopwatch+-timer-for-gym-kitchen/id518178439?mt=8
Apple can not advise me. I sent an email to appreview, and I was told to file a technical support request (DTS). When I filled the DTS, they told me it was not a code issue, and when I further asked for help from DTS, a "senior manager" told me that this was not an issue Apple knew about. He further advised me to file a bug with the Apple Radar bug tracker if I considered it to be a real issue.
I filed the Radar bug a few weeks ago, but it has not been acknowledged. Updated radar link for Apple employees, per commenter's notes rdar://12173447
It's not really a "burn in" on a non-CRT display, but there can be an image persistance/retention issue on some LCD display panel types.
One way to avoid both is to very slowly drift your image around, much more slowly than a screen saver. If you move your clock face around a small amount and very slowly (say several minutes to make a full circuit of only a few dozen pixels), the user may not even notice this happening. But this motion will blur all fine lines and sharp edges over time, so even if there is a persistance, the lack of sharp edges will make it harder to see.
Added:
There is also one (unconfirmed) report that flashing pixels at the full frame rate may increase the possibility of this problem. So any in-place text/numeric updates should happen at a more humanly readable pace (say 5 to 10 fps instead of 30 to 60 fps), if repeated for very long periods of time. The app can always update the ending number to a more accurate count if necessary.
"Burn in" is due to phosphor wearing in CRTs. LCDs cant have burn in since they dont use phosphor.
More likely it is image retention/Image Persistence. An image can remain 'stuck' on the screen for up to 48 hours. Usually it shouldnt last that long so it may be a defect in their hardware too. MacRumors has a thread about iPad image retention, it discusses this very issue. As for a solution, there is nothing you can do about the actual screen because its a just how LCD's work. What I would try if you are still concerned is using more subtle colors. Unless something is actively changing the pixels (think screen saver) you arent going to be able to completely eliminate the problem.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 9 years ago.
In the very near future my development setup will be upgraded and part of the deal will be dual monitors (yay!)
At least one of the monitors, possibly both, will be widescreen.
I've heard of developers using a second monitor, especially a widescreen monitor, in portrait mode. It allows for many more lines on the screen (albeit narrower) and runs a bit like having a long page of code.
Does anyone out there use this and think it's more effective?
I actually have 3 widescreen monitors in portrait mode and yes, it's a fantastic way to work. There's so much less scrolling around and you can fit all your debug / output / reference windows on screen at once.
The problem with using two monitors is that you'll generally be working on one main one and have output (or whatever on another). If you do have two, set it up so that your primary monitor is directly in front of you and the other (less frequently used) one is off to one side. I find that to be the best way to use a dual-monitor set up as it reduces RSI from being permanently twisted to look at a particular screen.
Additionally, there are some programs available to provide virtual screen splits which I've fund very useful for large/widescreen monitor setups.
[edit] ..and yes, you should write functions short enough to fit on a single page, but being able to see more functions at any one time can often make development easier in my experience :-)
[edit2] Running Visual-Studio-esque IDEs in portrait on a widescreen monitor is fantastic when it comes to debugging compile errors as you have more useable space to see code and errors at the same time. I suppose you could argue that if you compile regularly enough though, you shouldn't see that many errors at one time? ...but who codes like that? ;-)
Since you shouldn't write functions that are longer than a screen, making the screen much longer is a little bit of cheating, isn't it? ;)
Anyway, I found portrait mode not really better when coding, and only with my old 17" widescreen in portrait mode was viewing / editing documents better. With two large screens in landscape mode, You can put two pages on a screen when viewing documents, and have many tool windows open at both sides of the IDE's text editor. So no, portrait mode is not better, unless you have four of them to make up a really large screen (there was a photo of such a setup on a Microsoft blog, but I don't remember where).
There are some applications where portrait is still better, though, e.g. if you have to show a document in large resolution, or if you have some monitor (as in network monitor) running and want to see more lines at once.
I can't imagine how that would speed up productivity. In my opinion, it is always easier to scroll up/down than left/right.
It depends on which IDE you use, if any.
Microsoft Visual Studio likes to take up a lot of the width of the monitor with its “Toolbox” and “Solution Explorer”, so I find it works better on a landscape monitor. As it will not let you undock an editor window, you could not even drag a code editor to a second monitor that was in portrait mode.
Also consider how your customers are most likely to have their monitors set up. You may wish to write any UI code with the same setup, so you get a feel for what the application will be like to use.
Depends how big your monitor is. We have 1 28" monitor in landscape and 2 24" monitors in portrait which flank the big monitor.
Works great for pair-programming!
At work, I run my primary monitor (secondary is the laptop screen), in portrait mode. I really like it. I've become spoiled to seeing more code at once. I don't find that it encourages longer methods at all. Occasionally, I run across code that is a bit too wide since the IDE sidebars cramp it a bit, but I largely use Eclipse (Rational Application Developer, but Eclipse-based), so s quick double-click maximizes the code window, and it's very useful. Another double-click and I have my sidebars back.
I also find it a very useful orientation for my email.
I recommend it highly.
Portrait mode widescreen monitors work very nicely for edting code, thank you. However, some monitors have poor viewing angles on one dimension, which would usually be vertical but becomes horizontal in portrait mode. This can make the colours bad or unusable if everything isn't aligned correctly.
I have never given it a try but I would imagine it would work pretty well. I personally like to keep my lines fairly short, and wide screens tend to give me fewer lines of code, so I would give it a try.
It all comes down to personal preference however, what ever allows you to be the most productive and works best for you is the way to go.
For me it's not effective at all. I use IDEs, so in landscape mode I have sidebars to navigate code, navigate project etc.
It's not silly but a matter of opinion. A widescreen in portrait is very nice for writing code, code width has never really been an issue, and being able to see more line of code on the screen is always nice.
The other reason to put a widescreen in portrait is so it matches the height of your other monitor, for example a 30" widescreen next to a 22" widescreen in portrait have close to the same height.
It all comes down to your preference.
I just have one big monitor at my home office.
I tried it once. I didn't like it. I usually have an IDE and IDEs are perfect for widescreen. It's faster to jump around if you can see your function list on the right, file list on the left, etc.
Also, I try to keep my functions small so this usually isn't a problem (I have dual 24"). If your functions are reasonably small, and you have widescreen, you can show two files side by side which is often more useful. Some editors allow you to split the window and scroll to two different parts of the same file. This is also very useful is far better than having 100+ lines on the screen. With my settings, I have 60 lines per screen on an editor. If I split the editor, I can see 120. If I do it again on the other monitor, I can see 240. That's quite a bit of code and generally only useful for very different parts of it.
If you're working mostly with text (as most programmers or other technical folks do), or even documents, then portait mode is much more valuable. In fact, the general trend in displays is all the wrong direction: aspect ratios are squishing landscape displays to a mail slot to better fit the format of movies. Personally, I have never watched a movie on my computers (laptop or desktop), and I'm not about to start now - that's what I have a TV for!
In reality, vertical pixels are the most valuable asset in computing - do whatever you can to get more of them - you won't be sorry you spent the money! I won't even buy a laptop with less than 1024-1080 vertical pixels, since that's the minumum required to display a full page PDF at a readable resolution, and (much) more is better. (Since PDFs make up a large portion of today's online documentation/manuals, that's a very big concern.) You should only think about width after you've got enough vertical pixels.
What I really want is a 15.4" or 16" laptop with a portrait screen - these should still be wide enough to package a full-size keyboard into the base - a FlyBook-style pivot arm would be nice, but isn't required.
I found understanding the intent of related functions are easier when you print them first on paper than understanding them directly from screen, never fails, why? Because you can easily review many lines of code at one glance, no need for incessant scrolling.
The same thing with monitor oriented in portrait mode, you can easily understand the intent of multiple related functions, re-factored or otherwise. But don't let having portrait screen be an excuse to write a function with many lines.
Writing this on stackoverflow using portrait screen :-)
I can easily see many posts at one glance :-)
If you are working with print material, yes, as for source, why not full screen your IDE and close the task panes you do not need?
I find portrait is only useful to me if I'm working on a web site, being able to see the entire page at once helps.
I would say if the monitor is large enough you don't need portrait mode (24" and higher) for writing code.
If the monitor is smaller than that, then portrait mode is preferable.
Ideally what you would have is a single 30" (2560 x 1600) as widescreen to work on your code along with utilities comfortably open nearby and a second smaller monitor nearby to preview the results (I am speaking about web coding specifically here but it would probably apply to most other coding as well - a screen the size of your target audience's screens).
The 30" screens have really come down in price now so it's probably worth the jump up. A 24" screen does have the advantage of significantly larger text at default font sizes. The text on 30" monitors can get to be a bit of grind unless you move up to 14pt.
Good luck.
I have 2 19" monitors currently. One I keep in landscape and one I keep in portrait mode. I find that working on documentation or reading long web pages is easier on the portrait screen. I have used this setup for coding also and find that it does help, however it was a learned habit. lol
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
If you stare at a monitor for 8-12 hours a day looking at code, I have a couple questions for those that may have researched the health factors of this or have tried a few options.
To be easy on the eyes, can a monitor be "too big"?
Is there a particular type of display technology over another that reduces eye fatigue?
How bright should your display be in relation to your environment? Is it less fatigue to have a bright environment and a bright monitor over a darker environment?
If you're worried about eye-strain, don't forget the low-tech solution: every 30 minutes, lean back, close your eyes, and rest them for 10 seconds. Or, if you don't want to look like you're napping, gaze out a window or across the room. You should do this regardless of whether you're staring at a monitor, a book, or a sheet of music. Staring at anything for hours at a time is going to strain your eyes.
I use a free timer program to tell me when 30 minutes is up. Whenever I forget to do this, my eyes always feel itchy and tired by the end of the day.
I know this doesn't answer the precise question you asked, but I think you're looking in the wrong place for a solution. Rather than investing in a new monitor, just rest your eyes on a regular basis. There. I just saved you a few hundred bucks.
EDIT: References have been requested, so here they are. There's a decent scientific article on the value of microbreaks here and a review of the literature here.
I've always used the analogy between monitor size (resolution) and desktop size - larger screen, more space to spread out and work.
More important than the physical size is how you set it up - most people have their monitors set way way too bright.
I typically start with maximum contrast and minimum brightness, and work from there. The black on your screen should be real black, not dark gray; the white on your screen should be no brighter than a piece of paper held up next to it.
That said, I do have good screens. At work, dual 22" 1680x1050 LCD; at home, dual 19" 1200x1024 CRT; and my laptop is 1920x1200 17". I've trialled a single 24" LCD - was really nice, not as wide as either dual monitor setup.
Updated 1 Mar: The suggestion from rtpearson to look away from the monitor regularly is good advice.
I was told (years ago) that it is important for your eyes to change focal length regularly.
If you have a seat next to a window, glancing outside while you think is a good way to achieve this. "Walking an email" to a colleague on the same floor can help as well. Using a timer (such as this one I wrote) to remind you to take breaks and rest your eyes is also useful.
I'm not sure it matters. I've worked in investment banks where multiple high-res screens were the norm and am currently doing development work at home on a 9-year old Sony laptop with a 1024 x 768 screen. I haven't noticed any difference in my productivity or my eyestrain in those very different envirobments.
In terms of brightness, what works for me is to adjust the brightness of the display to match the ambient light in the room. At the moment I am running a 24" Samsung Syncmaster and I have to say that I consider leaving it on the brightest setting to be a health hazard.
There are lots of websites to help you calibrate your monitor brightness/contrast. This is just one http://www.displaycalibration.com/brightness_contrast.html
I have a 24" Dell at home, but I doubt many companies would consider that for a development machine.
22" Wide with a resolution of 1680 x 1050 is good, and the price of those monitors are relatively cheap now.
Currently I am working on a 17" 1280 x 1024, as the laptop I got to dev on only got a meager 1280 x 800 screen, which is pretty much useless for coding.
IMO 2 x 17" or 19", or 1 x 22" or larger.
Note: most cheap LCD's have terrible color, example the orange on SO, looks a pale yellow, and thats the best I can get it. The Dell at 5 times the price of a cheap 24" does not have these issues, but you pay for it :( (I still think it was a damn good investment)!
24 inch is minimum for me, and 1680x1050 is too few dots for effective coding. I prefer dual monitors at 1920 x 1200 or better .. i'd really like a pair of 30 inch Samsungs but I need to get richer. Brightness and all that other stuff has never much affected me .. since i'm always coding at night anyway not much of an issue
If you use a CRT screen, make sure you set the refresh rate nice and high. 85Hz is a good value. The default rate on Windows of 60Hz is too low. The flickering makes me feel nauseous. The refresh rate on LCD screens doesn't matter due to high "persistence".
Most people don't know this and leave their screens at 60Hz. Strangely, however, from personal experience, if you tell them directly, "Your refresh rate is wrong", many of them will get defensive—about their refresh rate!—which they probably don't even know what it is. People are strange. I'm glad LCDs are replacing CRTs.
Firstly, yes, there is a limitation of the screen size. I think a monitor is better not bigger than 30 inches. That's also the reason most brands only released monitors with screen size from 19 to 27 inches. Although you can also find a monitor with 100 inches screen size, it's not common. I guess the manufactories did research and find out the most acceptable range of screen size.
Secondly, there are some technologies already. For instance, BenQ has a technology called Flicker-free. “The Flicker-free technology eliminates flickering at all brightness levels and effectively reducing eye fatigue. ” There are also other specifications, too. I also heard about some labs are working on e-ink monitors.
Thirdly, it's difficult to give an exact number of brightness. It depends on the environment light. On the other hand, somebody is sensitive to the brightness, others are not. It's better to try different values and find the best way for yourself.
The app f.lux can really help at night if you're coding on a bright background. It reduces the blue in the screen and thus eye strain. Change the setting to 1hr instead of the default 20 seconds and you won't even notice it.
https://justgetflux.com/