Wouldn’t that be an unforced error?
1,183 karma · joined December 19, 2016
> Within the writing community, the practice was more complicated. In theory, sensitivity readers were a way to write outside your identity without causing offense by "getting it wrong." But the emerging consensus, especially in Y.A., was that it was even more wrong to stray outside your lane in the first place. In a particularly revealing 2018 feature on the culture website Vulture, a sought-after sensitivity reader expressed profound contempt for the authors whose manuscripts she was paid to vet.
Based on your comment, I have to assume we live in different areas. I live in the city, and generally it is better and faster to bike because one can bike almost as fast as a car due to not needing to wait for traffic and there's no need to find parking at the destination. From my POV, the motorists I have to share the road with are driving on low throughput streets and generally don't belong on the streets I am traveling down.
Do you live out in the country with 2 lane roads? A small town?
I’d argue that rather than resisting change you should embrace it - future-proofing oneself means adopting new technologies proactively and staying ahead of the curve to avoid being left behind, not finding the magical set of tools than won’t ever become obsolete.
2005 your average box served some php and static assets, connecting to some generic relational database. Reading logs means grepping files over ssh.
2022 your architecture runs in the cloud, has multiple flavors of databases, queues, caches, and so on. You have at least two orders of magnitude more complexity because you aren’t just serving a web page anymore - you handle payments, integrate with other services, queue tasks for later, and so on. Your automation may be an order of magnitude more complex than 2005, but it enables two orders of magnitude more functionality.
But, after living in San Francisco for a couple of years and becoming used to riding my bike everywhere, I had a realization that while on paper Santa Barbara should be much more inviting than SF for bikes, in practice it's weirdly almost less inviting because drivers do not seem interested in sharing the road at all and there are very, very few bike lanes. Most of the main one-way "through streets" that run north-south in Santa Barbara like De La Vina, Santa Barbara, Anacapa, etc. are decidedly bike hostile because people drive very fast on them and there is no bike lane.
One way to solve this is to make State St, Bath St, and Garden St dedicated north-south bike thoroughfares, and give all of the east-west streets that cross State St. bike lanes. Biking through Santa Barbara would then be a matter of biking north or south on a dedicated, safe thoroughfare before turning off east or west until you arrive where you need.
As it stands, not really very inviting to bike in, _especially_ if you don't know the city by heart..
It's hemmed in by steep hills and the Pacific ocean and a lot of the available area has already been developed. https://www.google.com/maps/@34.4127513,-119.7096148,12z/dat...
On the other hand, despite great zoning in the core parts of Santa Barbara that outlaws the typical strip mall construction pattern, leaving a relatively dense-feeling downtown, it's extremely car centric. There's noticeable traffic both on the 101 and downtown, especially on weekends.
Spending time in Santa Barbara, you can't help but feel that a) there isn't a lot more room to spread out for more development, but b) there is definitely a lot more "room" for Santa Barbara to improve in terms of sustainably improving density. Santa Barbara makes a lot of concessions to cars, which is not going to scale at all if the population grows. If you take car dependence as a given, Santa Barbara probably cannot afford to grow much more.
On the other hand, Santa Barbara is famed for its nearly perfect weather year-round. Good weather and and its small size means that almost all trips within Santa Barbara proper can be made easily via E-bike, if only there were more bike lanes, but there are too many 2 lane roads with cars that move too quickly driven by drivers who are not used to sharing the road. But I suspect that Santa Barbara may be too dependent on famously car-centric Los Angeles to ever consider de-prioritizing cars..
It's all moot point, though, because I think most people who actually own homes in Santa Barbara are older and quite wealthy and do not really care too much about abstract things like "sustainable growth" and would quite prefer if Santa Barbara could just stay "the same" for the next 20 years until they die.
Your query gets routed to different backend services based on “intent”, and I’ve noticed that sometimes I have to append “on Spotify” to get my request routed to what I imagine to be the Spotify-interfacing backend rather than the Amazon music one.
If you get routed to the Amazon music one, it just checks if the song is eligible for free tier play but doesn’t check Spotify at all. That’s my theory at least, and it kind of maps with the state of Alexa when I left it a couple of years ago. The service that routes based on intent should probably call both music services when the user has not specified a preference and pick the most useful response to send to the customer, and probably does, but for whatever reason I notice this behavior sometimes from Alexa.
Tl;dr say “on Spotify” to fix the issue. literally 5 years after I joined Alexa the same bugs and bad ux still happens and is apparently not being prioritized to be fixed despite Alexa being basically useless for anything besides timers, weather, music, and maybe the occasional fact lookup..
No - it probably wouldn't be worth it. But it could absolutely be worth it (weighing bad outcomes against amount of effort needed to prevent those outcomes) for the biggest sites with billions of users.
Shorting things you disagree with morally is also a terrible idea, unless you also think they are bad business. I disagree with a lot of “money printing” tech on moral grounds, if I shorted those I’d be bankrupt.
You're misconstruing the objection here. No one thinks an app is too hard. The problem I don't want my email to end up in some database because I wanted to dim my lights. I imagine it would also be able to collect info on what bluetooth devices I have in my kitchen, etc.
1) According to MRC Data, old songs now represent 70% of the market share
2) The 200 most popular tracks now account for less than 5% of total streams.
3) The current list of most downloaded tracks on iTunes includes CCR and The Police etc.
Not going to touch 1), because I don't feel like going hunting for that data. But a single data point is useless. Let's see the trend, please.
2) has nothing to do with old versus new. The average music consumer today has so many music discovery avenues open to them on a level that is completely unprecedented. Should we really be surprised that people are listening less and less to the top 200 songs when the sheer catalog of music accessible to (and actually discoverable by) them has grown by orders of magnitude in the last 10 years? This data point tells us nothing about old versus new, because there's so much new music that is never going to hit top 200 that people can find and easily listen to now.
3) I mean, really, are you surprised? You're looking at music people bought on iTunes. _Of course_ that would biased towards people old enough to actually pay money for tracks. This is equivalent to trying to figure out the most popular porn categories by looking at DVD rental data, ignoring the fact that 99.99% of porn consumption has moved to online streaming platforms..
Every recipe I can find on Google that isn't from a super-site with already strong SEO includes some sort of life anecdote. I find it hard to believe that:
1) This purported copyright trick even works, and
2) Everyone who publishes recipes online got the copyright trick memo, and
3) Everyone who publishes recipes online is interested in copyrighting their recipes as opposed to just having good ad revenue
I find it much easier to believe one of the following:
1) The life story section significantly improves SEO somehow, even if incidental. I'm not saying Google rewards life stories, but somehow there is a mechanism there that improves SEO, and people have cottoned on. Every recipe you're going find on Google has strong SEO, and hence every recipe you find has an SEO-improving life story attached to it.
2) Food bloggers include the stories for differentiation, to "build a stronger connection with their audience", and once a couple big ones started doing it, the rest followed.
3) Some sort of combination of 1 and 2.