“The game looks easy, that’s why it sells” - Elliott Smith
673 karma · joined August 29, 2009
If a dog doesn't make loud noises, physically agitates others, or excessively spread diseases (slobbering all over the place), it seems fine to let them be in the same place. If someone has allergies, an agreement can usually be worked out to create distance, but if it can't we should favor the human.
So in a sense, I agree with you: They should have licenses that can be revoked based on their behavior. I don't really care if they're for service reasons or otherwise, I just care they're fit to be in public. Some dogs are, some aren't. Basically, we should be comfortable with fascistic enforcement around dog's behaviorally. That seems like a healthy middle-ground.
The purpose of tokens is be able to have a single language-agnostic source of truth for the core bits of the design decisions.
Let's say you have a website, an iOS app, an Android app, Figma templates, and documentation. Let's also say your main brand color is currently a certain shade of green.
When your brand evolves to a different shade of green, you update one value in one place. All of the above surfaces are updated at the same time.
This was not a thing with Bootstrap, and it's not a thing with CSS variables and derived values. This is an organizational tool that increases in value as a multi-platform company grows.
It's true that most websites and apps probably don't work this way today. I've worked in a lot of them, and they were not pleasant developer experiences burning up way more developer time than necessary. They become unwieldy at any kind of scale, producing all kinds of visual bugs and incongruencies on every single engineer PR.
An interesting question would be: "how much does it matter that the visual language is consistent across a company's assets?". But the answer to the question of the utility of the design tokens is obvious if you do decide that design systems are important for a business.
There's a variety of other implementations out there to check out as well: - https://quilljs.com/ - https://lexical.dev/ - https://www.slatejs.org/ - https://draftjs.org/
If you're talking about liking the full experience with settings and previews, that I'm afraid is all custom built. I can't imagine an open source reusable one being out there, but I could be wrong!
I suppose this goes for all sports of this kind where the players actions don’t affect each other.
It pains me to see dev teams spending time on rebuilding solved problems. I understand brownfield constraints, but the greenfield situations are particularly painful.
1) Adding it to an existing codebase with lots of global scope. The techniques espoused in the documentation simply don't work well with existing leaky CSS with varying levels of specificity. Adding important to all TW classes and name-spacing all of them invites new problems.
2) Making your own components with lots of variants: the syntax required feels like you're doing contortions to make it work nicely. There's probably some special techniques but it's a lot easier to take advantage of the cascade in my experience.
3) Dev tooling: the OP I think is dead-on in the criticism that you break a lot of browser tooling when using Tailwind. The right hand side of the Elements tab is a complete disaster. The JIT that Tailwind provides to only include styles you need also makes things annoying: If I want to add some classes on the fly in the Elements tab (which is annoying anyway by having to edit HTML), it won't work if you need any classes not currently not used in the built code. You can mitigate this with modifying your JIT setting for dev to include a ton of classes but it just doesn't flow. The TW documentation is very cagey about how dev flows should work and for good reason.
I actually like utility classes as a concept and if I were starting greenfield projects I might consider Tailwind with an existing component library despite the dev tooling issues. I just think it doesn't layer onto existing codebases well.
I have read a lot of Freud and still remain skeptical of some of the overall thrusts. But reading it and get the full context makes you realize that the modern interpretations of his thought are wildly reductionistic.
About his behavior with those in his following: It is true that he had many moments of harshness/weakness, but he was also surprisingly modern in his liberalism and self-scrutiny. I've read that he was extremely concerned about being taken seriously in the face of the large amount of reaction from society to uncomfortable ideas. So his method was to be hyper organized and disciplined.
One thing I really like about Freud is his openness to changing his ideas in the face of new evidence and his commitment to making sure there were people working on treatment/solutions to suffering that was currently happening. He was open to the idea of biological interventions in the future replacing his own interventions, but he wanted to do something that would help people now in the meantime. I don't think we've adequately established that more modern therapies and interventions work better in all types of cases and think his work is still very relevant, especially in certain types of cases. Not to mention that most of the modern therapeutic practices are based on his work in a way you can't easily tease out and cast out as irrelevant.
It seems much more likely to me that the fate of Freud's ideas were not as much discounted as integrated. Most bits of discounting was more because of other developments in society, industry, and academia. One easy example is that it's quite difficult to perform Freudian therapy at multiple times a week given modern billing and scheduling.
Again, I remain cautious about the utility of many of the ideas, but I'd recommending reading a serious book like Revolution in Mind (Makari) to ground you in the actual history of psychoanalysis. Almost everything I've read on internet blogs, articles, and some otherwise-serious writers are missing woefully important context.
Lyme can be super awful in some cases, especially when you’ve had it for a while without knowing. Given my experiences in other care systems, I don’t have a lot of faith they would have tested for it with any rigor.
It's good that a cancelling party feels some shame. It keeps humans from letting their short-term avoidance always overcome the communal and long-term benefits of some kind of sacrifice.
https://techcrunch.com/2019/11/21/y-combinator-abruptly-shut...
I read this as a coded way for Paul Graham to express his distaste for those opposing the YC China expansion.
I've been thinking for a while now that we need people you go to help you find a proper therapist. Like a consultant/dispatcher/human load-balancer/Mental Health GP. Medical GP's have no idea what they're talking about in this department (save some outliers) and would probably admit to that if pressed.
The approaches as they stand now aren't ideal, so I feel your frustration:
1) Pick one that accepts your insurance located near you: Those lists that the insurance companies publish aren't up to date and Psychology Today is also dicey. And you're right, they all start to look the same (they are most definitely NOT in reality). Many mislead by saying they accept insurance but really mean out-of-network benefits, which typically aren't great especially if you're not working for a mega-corp. There's also a sizable body of therapists who will charge high rates (not in proportion to quality) because some rich clients won't care. It's a bit dirty to me, but a lot of the time they'll reduce their rate very quickly and dramatically once they know you're not rolling in hereditary wealth. For example, I've seen $350/hr off the bat reduced to $100/hr with one simple statement of "that's outside my budget".
2) Pick by approach: In theory is a good way to start, because some modalities probably aren't a good fit for certain classes of problems and personalities. However, it's a tough balancing act. A therapist who is too focused on one modality is probably a bit inexperienced, because they're in everything needs a hammer mode. However, listing too many modalities sometimes indicates a lack of rigor, focus, point of view.
3) Sites like Therapick are great in theory in that you get a video introduction to assess someone who might be a good fit. However, they tend to attract less experienced therapists (who could be good!) who are trying to build up their client-base. Just like rent-stabilized apartments in New York City, you're less likely to see the most experienced and popular therapists doing active recruitment like this because they're snatched up quickly and don't need to spend the time and effort.
4) I would highly discourage any of those phone/texting therapy services. Who knows, they may work for some, but they don't strike me as plausible solutions for most, if not all, people. If it's money that's a concern you're trying to solve for (which it usually is to some degree), there are other approaches to solving that. If time and convenience is a concern, you really need to get reevaluate what you think therapy is. To me, these services are bandaids, which I suppose have their utility.
5) Recommendation through another therapist: This can work, but you should be aware that therapists form milieus — talented ones tend to hang out and consult with talented ones, and vice versa. So if you have a bad therapist, it's likely their reference is as well. My personal, albeit possibly offensive, theory is that there's small pool of truly gifted therapists (less than 20%). I subscribe less to the notion that there's a perfect match therapist for everyone and that it's just a matter or style and personality.
On top of all this is what I called the Fundamental Therapy Problem in that it's quite possible you shouldn't be the one deciding what style would be best for your long-term interests. Don't think too hard about this one, because it'll drive you nuts :) But it helps to try to assess based on gut feelings of feeling secure and feeling challenged, rather than a heady, logical assessment.
At the end of the day, it's common knowledge (and backed by some studies) that it's really about the relationship between the people. If you feel intimidated, baffled, weirded out, or annoyed consistently — or if you don't truly respect your therapist — it simply won't work. Don't waste your time hoping to get used to it, it won't get better.
In your situation, I'd recommend a strategy of finding a good-enough therapist to start. But there'll be a point where it'd really help to find an excellent one. That will be easier once you've leveled out a bit.
In conclusion, references are the best from friends you trust (hard to get sometimes because of privacy concerns), and then a scattershot (guess and check) approach. Expect it to be a bit of an expenditure when you're interviewing around at the beginning. But have faith, things can get better rather quickly once you have a decent therapist situation established.
But to not put a polarizing, inexperienced politician like Trump away easily is what makes the commentators (and me) think there are larger trends at work.
She had all the cards.
I went two times. You only took one class for three weeks, but you spent A LOT of time in that class and in study sessions. It actually makes college look pretty lightweight to some extent.
Other than that, there were physical and social activities. It's fun just bonding with some other odd cats in college dorms. At times, I just wanted to hang out with the other kids instead of going to class. It was summer!
I took a cryptology class with a professor who worked at the NSA. We started with the easiest ciphers and progressed through to the German Enigma, which we solved as a final project.
The other class was probability and game theory. It didn't do that great of a job clearly, since I'm still terrible at probability. Sidenote: I confess I don't even really believe in probability as a strategy for making singular decisions. I later learned, thanks to the Internet, that this is a debated philosophical problem :)
Another year, instead of CTY, I did this lighter weight version of it where you take more classes but each is less time-intensive. I remember thinking it was really easy and not very worthwhile academically. The social life was definitely better.
I previously thought music was composed without any rules.
Certain goods have high status and markup but aren't high quality.
Can you think of a strategy of finding great quality items that don't have a luxury "tax" bumping up margins far than a typical good, due to the status they communicate to others.
In other words, how does one find high quality items without status included in price?
Let's say I'm buying a wallet and I would like to find a very high quality wallet (workmanship, materials, design). Let's also say I'm willing to spend a limitless amount for the wallet.
How would I find the sweetspot of a top quality wallet, but with the least amount of markup due to perceived luxury/social status?
There are some bugs here and there, but keep up the good work!
I'm not promoting classical music as superior to folk, but can we not reasonably say that a Bach fugue is more complex than Simon and Garfunkel? Using two Eurocentric examples to control for bias.