renlo

Perhaps some billionaires will buy it, good for them.

Why do you guys contort yourselves into knots trying to find any and every conceivable problem with something that doesn't affect you ... get over it already. Go ahead and flag me.

Enjoyed the sarcasm, but does anyone actually believe these numbers? Is there a more reliable metric that isn't affected by Goodhart's law and can be trusted?

What actually would be goofy and backwards would be for this man to consider all of the world's cultures with whom he had never come in contact with, and try to create a system that worked for them. That would be very goofy and backwards, it would make him a crackpot.

The mere mention of this conciliatory statement for those "[pesky] leftists" (of which the author is one), the author is asserting that "Linnaeus was backwards and goofy but yet he made a good system!". Why does this even need to be said?

Do we call Confucius backwards and goofy for only writing his virtues in Chinese and only considering his Chinese peers? Why didn't he, or the Chinese (they had an empire and the means to do this), send envoys to the west so they could divine and predict what cultures would exist in a thousand years, allowing him to write his virtues in all of the languages and to consider all of the different mores of the world when writing his virtues? It's too Chinese! Or what about the Mayans, why didn't they in their backwards and goofy manner realize that a thousand years later their script would be indecipherable (for a while) to the European-language-speaking researchers of the future? If they had written in Latin we would be able to understand what they were trying to say! Very goofy and backwards of them. \s

The author's statement is what is backwards and goofy, and it's a cultural shibboleth that worked -- I stopped reading the moment I saw that, because to me it is a goofy and backwards thing to say.

edit: could loading a performance dashboard affect peoples ability to buy their product?

> if there is more than one rightsholder

Again, a publisher will have a whole catalog of books / titles, a non-negligible portion of that the publisher will own the copyright to (no one to split it with). There's all kinds of books outside of novels, there's media tie-ins, IP franchise books (ie Star Wars), childrens books, textbooks / reference materials, etc etc etc. Yes, with novels the author tends to own the copyright, but you're forgetting all of the other kinds of books out there.

> If there is a current publisher(s) (which still possesses an exclusive license), the author(s) will split the $3000 with the publisher. Any co-authors will share the author portion and, if there are multiple publishers (e.g., different publishers have exclusive rights to different formats), they will share the publisher portion. Assume that the co-authors and co-publishers will share the portion equally unless their contracts provide otherwise. The standard default split between publishers and authors of noneducational texts is 50/50, as described below. Authors who are the sole rightsholder in a work—such as self-published authors and authors whose rights have reverted or where the contracts have otherwise terminated—will receive the full award amount.

It is split between the publisher and the author, also publishers will have a large catalog of books they will submit, an author typically will only have a few -- the payout will be going to the lawyers and mostly to publishers.

I’m curious what the Lindy Effect would mean in this case

I also own a Tesla, and there is no indication shown to the user that FSD's vision is degraded. They need to add this in.

For example, numerous times I have been driving my Tesla with FSD activated with ostensibly a clean and clear windshield when suddenly the car will do the "clean the windshield in front of the camera routine" without any indication that the car's camera is degraded. If people haven't seen this "clean the windshield routine", the wiper fluid is dispensed and the wiper will vigorously wipe in front of the camera only -- the rest of the windshield only gets a cursory wipe.

This indicates to me that the camera has poor visibility and I am not informed or aware of this as a driver, which is concerning. I am often curious if there is a thin occluding film on the windshield in the camera box in front of the camera, or something that has degraded FSD's vision, but they do not give you the ability to view the camera feed, nor do they notify you that the vision is degraded. I think a "thin occluding film" may be in the camera box because my normal windshield outside of the camera box started to show a thin chemical film after a couple of months, which apparently (according to a Google search) happens when a new car off-gasses, adding a thin film of chemical byproduct to the windshield. This is my first new car so I've no idea if this is normal or not.

Unfortunately its name makes it hard to search for and find.

I think every time I swipe I need to do at least one correction like this, where I type one similarly spelled word with as minimum an edit distance as I can think of in the moment, then do a manual correction.

This is what people are missing. Even those "slow" apps are faster than their alternatives. People demand and seek out "fast", and I think the OP article misses this.

Even the "slow" applications are faster than their alternatives or have an edge in terms of speed for why people use them. In other words, people here say "well wait a second, I see people using slow apps all the time! People don't care about speed!", without realizing that the user has already optimized for speed for their use case. Maybe they use app A which is 50% as fast as app B, but app A is available on their toolbar right now, and to even know that app B exists and to install it and learn how to use it would require numerous hours of ramp up time. If the user was presented with app A and app B side by side, all things equal, they will choose B every time. There's proficiency and familiarity; if B is only 5% faster than A, but switching to B has an upfront cost in days to able to utilize that speed, well that is a hidden speed cost and why the user will choose A until B makes it worth it.

Speed is almost always the universal characteristic people select for, all things equal. Just because something faster exists, and it's niche, and hard to use (not equal for comparison to the common "slow" option people are familiar with), it doesn't mean that people reject speed, they just don't want to spend time learning the new thing, because it is _slower_ to learn how to use the new thing at first.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Life_of_Machines

    function x() {/* ... */}
    const x = function() {/* ... */}
    const x = function foo() {/* ... */}
    const x = (function() {/* ... */}).bind(this)
    const x = (function foo() {/* ... */}).bind(this)
    const x = () => {/* ... */}
    const x = () => /* ... */

That said, I really disagree with any precommit checks. Committing code should be thought of as just saving the code, checks should be run before merging code not saving code. It'd be like Clippy preventing you from saving a Word document because you have a spelling error. It's a frustrating experience.

I can make sure my code is good before I submit it for review, not when I'm just trying to make sure my work has been saved so I can continue working on it later (commit).

To me it is confusing that they've mixed the two, even though it is convention to do so.

> He lived and wrote in the late 200s and early 100s BCE

Shouldn't this instead be phrased as:

> He lived and wrote in the early 200s and late 100s BCE

He was born in 254 BCE and died in 184 BCE, he lived from the mid 200s BCE, started writing in the _early_ 200s BCE, and died in the _late_ 100s BCE.