tenaciousDaniel

That's why I included "flexible column widths" since it's definitely doable if you use a fixed layout table.

The amounts could just be tied to the steps. So maybe step 2 is to add 3 tbsp of ingredientX, and step 5 is to add 1 tbsp of ingredientX. So programmatically, the ingredients list would be the cumulative amounts of all ingredients described in each step, which would be 4 tbsp ingredientX.

Agreed. I don’t know how this would work in practice, but it would be great if dev education/bootcamping explicitly incorporated these kind of tight-rope walks.

Most difficult things in life turn out to be balancing acts between two opposing forces, yet junior devs always seem surprised about that fact.

It’s more about accuracy. Most designers specify an explicit spacing between the edges of the characters and other elements on the screen. If the devs can’t access those edges, then they have to adjust in order to compensate. So having accurate dimensions would reduce time to delivery.

One thing I did not like about CubeJS (not sure if they've changed this), is that their integration is its own standalone server. Like, if you have an existing server, it didn't seem possible to just integrate it into what you already have. That was kind of a bummer, but it wasn't a deal breaker.

Nice! The space is pretty ripe for disruption because basically all of the tools are pretty old-school. Here are the things I really wanted:

1. Create dynamic schemas. Some of our clients had their own dimensions that they cared about.

2. Pick the level of integration. Imagine having an out-of-the-box integration available, but then offering fully customizable solutions for one-off scenarios.

Really it comes down to those two things, which basically means "flexibility". Like I said, we spent months evaluating products, and while we found several companies claim to offer the above, no one actually did.

I just want everything to be a TV show now. After so many years of quality TV shows, going back to movies feels very underwhelming. Like, I'm only going to spend the next 1-2 hours with this character - why do I care about them? I've spent dozens of hours and sometimes several years with other characters, so I just can't feel the same connection anymore.

I can't wait for studios to come up with the idea of releasing TV shows on the big screen, because I do love the theater experience.

I tried reading a Forbes article earlier today, and gave up within 5 seconds after the third popup prevented me from reading the article.

It's not an argument at all, it's just a good joke. I'm actually undecided on crypto. Yes we're a professional community and this isn't reddit, but we can have a bit of humor here and there.

I came across my favorite description of crypto just a few days ago on Twitter: "imagine letting your car run idle so it can create solved sudokus that you can trade for heroin".

Now that I'm re-reading it, there are a lot of little smug droplets throughout the article.

I think the author betrays their own political bias here, as journalism has become infused with over-the-top moral panics across the board. We've replaced single-issue moral panics with moral panics about nearly everything. We have a moral panic about racism, anti-racism, anti-anti-racism, transphobia, radical trans activists, the covid vaccine, the people who are skeptical of the covid vaccine, etc etc.

It's a bit parochial to talk about moral panic journalism and only hone in on one specific subset of it.

I recommend following Aella on Twitter. She does some really interesting (and some very controversial) twitter polls: https://twitter.com/aella_girl

I agree that ultimately, people should be allowed to self experiment. But looking at his situation from a pragmatic perspective in the 70's and 80's, would it not have been wiser to be just a bit more careful with his advocacy? Publishing a book that details how to craft hundreds of untested psychedelic drugs is not quite what I would call subtle.

The ability to use subtle psychological tricks to influence the citizenry of a foreign adversary is perhaps the most surprising new feature of a world connected by the internet. I have no idea how a nation as large, diverse, and fragmented the USA (where I live) is going to combat it.

Agreed. I think Alexander Shulgin deserves some blame as well, though maybe not to the same extent.

I didn't realize Pinterest had fallen victim as well. Never really liked the platform but always liked their logo. Sad.

Can you recommend any good alternatives?

I just went through this video earlier this week, and while it assumes a bit of knowledge, the modeling is as simple as possible and I found it to be a very good introduction:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBdGm_d_8XE

If more activists took your approach, I'd be far less skeptical of them.

edit: I should add why I tend to be skeptical of them. It's not just about idealogical purity, it's that in order to truly make progress, you have to reduce the total number of problems in the world. It's very easy to spot a problem - anyone can do that. It's less easy, but still fairly easy, to recommend a fix for the problem. But what's very challenging is to find a fix that does not cause more problems than it solves. It's entirely possible to make things worse, and the best way to make sure that doesn't happen is to be dispassionate. But right now the trend is to lean into passion, and specifically, anger. As you said, anger can prompt action. But the problem with anger is that it's a fire that you can't control, especially when you're talking about millions of people.

There's another comment in this thread who attended a college talk by the authors of the article. They describe how the faculty attempted to direct the conversation towards discussing equity from the standpoint of redistribution, and the authors kept bringing the conversation back to the pragmatic points that were in the article.

So to me it seems we have a definitional issue with the word. Your interpretation of equity makes sense, and is not something I would be opposed to personally. But then there's the other interpretation (redistribution), which is shared by enough people that it's what I think of when I hear the term.

I don't think there's a right or wrong answer to "what equity means", and it's not a very interesting question anyways. What is interesting is how these two very different ideas became conflated, and how to move forward with the good idea and discard the bad idea.

Bridging the gap between our perspectives would take more time and effort than I'm willing to commit, but I do appreciate being able to converse like this without descending into a heated argument, so thanks for that.

That's a good point

Sure thing, I don't like heated conversations either.

To explain it succinctly, I've become wary of a certain group of people attempting to use subtle language choices to slip in their controversial ideas without being noticed. Equity sounds very much like equality, and therefore people are more likely to sign up for it without understanding the difference. It's a weasel word.

I didn't read the whole thing but I had the same impression. I have no idea how it ties into equity, apart from "more accurate scores might help anyone who would otherwise be disadvantaged by the scoring system", which is several leaps removed from "equity".

I admit I didn't read the entire conversation so I can't give an absolute opinion on it, but the following passage stuck out to me:

The problem with that, is that for the student who does well from the very beginning and gets A's on everything, their performance is fine, their average is an A, but for the student who struggles at the beginning and gets very low grades, D's and C's and even F's as they are in the process of learning, and even on early quizzes when they demonstrate mastery on the test and let's say they get an A on the test, because they have those earlier grades that ostensibly were for assignments and assessments that were on the path to learning, that they were supposed to learn from, and that they weren't even supposed to have learned everything yet, when we include those early scores, it pulls down the final grades, so it actually misrepresents the level of mastery that a student has ultimately demonstrated.

I tend to be skeptical of the term "equity" since I strongly disagree with a lot of the thinking that goes along with it, but I can empathize with the above statement. Anyone who works with data knows that using an average can product highly misleading numbers, so he's correct on that point. But also the idea that a student is supposed to be learning and improving, and that expecting A's across the board defeats that purpose, seems totally reasonable.

I've been building a "programming" language for UI designers, and I had no idea how hard it would be to make a language feel simple. I have no experience in this area, so I'm just trying to make it feel as if it could follow naturally from verbal speech:

  style box
    fill: red
    width: when $size
      is small: 10px
      is medium: 20px
      is large: 30px
    height: when $size
      is small: 10px
      is medium: 20px
      is large: 30px

Again, I am not saying that instinct is better than research, I'm saying that just because something has been "researched" does not mean that it's true.

If there were research showing that putting certain plastics in the microwave were shown not to be harmful to humans, it wouldn't make a difference to me, because I still don't feel comfortable putting any kind of plastic in the microwave.

I don't think your comment addresses what I actually said. I wrote that I don't think there's a single correct answer to the question of "trust the experts or my own instinct" that applies to all situations. Your example about seatbelts is simply an example of a scenario in which you would likely want to defer to expert opinion.

edit: Also, the case of seatbelts vs no-seatbelts is a fairly easy example, because the evidence is readily available through life experience. I think most people know someone who was injured or killed by not wearing one (I knew a few). So you don't even need to refer to an expert opinion to make that call.

You don't need to dig into philosophy and start talking about Karl Popper in order to explain the problem with "trusting the science".

Science is and will always be our best shot at being correct about the universe, but it's performed by imperfect humans. There's very little we can know for certain, so we have to pick our poison - either trust strangers who claim to have done their research, or trust our own fallible instincts.

I don't think there's a single correct answer to that question, but don't pretend like you're not choosing a poison. These "I believe in science" mantras are no more scientific than any other attitude.