I live near there and remember going to see the train in the town’s center when it happened. I remember seeing the wheel’s tracks in the asphalt, as they drove the loco directly on it, and was impressed at how shallow they were. I would have thought the train would tear the asphalt apart, but it was not the case, at least not when going in straight line.
First link tells me "this item is not available for purchase". From that page I search for the book's title and find the same thing (same product page, with same reviews, etc.) But with a 13.53$ price tag. Infuriating to realise that the price you get is based on who you are somehow.
Very very hard for me to imagine. I know good designers who'd be willing to work for $40/hr. CAD. Developpers are a bit pricier, maybe 60-70... Can't find mediocre ones for 300? Maybe we don't have the same definition of mediocre. And btw, one year full time at $500/hr is in the vicinity of one million. Where do I sign?
Fun fact: astronomers (and Nasa) use the Julian calendar for events (for example eclipses) before october 1582. You'd think they use UT, but they don't, so you can match historical dates with celestial events. Also worth noting, astronomical year numbering has a year 0, whereas BC/AD system does not, so that year 0 is 1 BC.
You have to make time corrections when you program something related to astronomy. In most things we program, UT is an absolute on which we can rely, but when we go very far away in the past it's not that clear anymore.
French has a governing body (l'Académie française) but, at least in some parts of the world, spoken french is very different from what is prescribed by the Académie. Plus the accents are so diverse, here in Québec we are 7 million people (and not all of them french speakers) and we have as much difference in the way we speak depending on the region as you have in the U.S. for example. Funny thing, when we visit France, the french sometimes answer us in english, because our accent is so thick that they think french is not our native language.
When I read articles about job interviews, I always wonder what is the correlation coefficient between "being good at interviews" and "being good at doing your actual job".
I also meant that either way, I would not grant a end user the possibility to modify the data structure, be it through the modification of the schema, or through the addition of an EAV definition.
Granted one is more dangerous than the other, but to me it's no reason to give them access. It's still a headache.
If only the developers have access to modify the structure, the way it is done is not important (it can be done through a webform that alters a database, though the addition of a json definition, through coding, etc.) After all, you can modify the schema through PHPMyAdmin. It's some kind of admin interface. You just don't grant your users the right to do it. Just as you don't grant them the right to add custom fields, unless they know what they are doing, which is seldom the case :)
I think that EAV gives a false sense of security, in that it does not "break" much if done by a non-knowledgable user. But still, if it is done badly, good luck reconciling the data.
One does not imply the other. Whether the schema itself is modified or just the EAV definition does not mean that everybody has the permission to do it. EAV is just the way it is stored/described.
I've been programming professionally for 15 years, I have been doing serious React/Redux for the past 6 months. I am far from considering me an expert "Reactor", or even an expert programmer for that matter. I wouldn't honestly be able to "express how much better I am than everyone else", because that is simply not true. And if anyone told me how better they are than anybody else, I'd probably see this as a big red flag.
Now, this guy began learning code 6 months ago and is better than anyone else? Wow. Either a) he is much more intelligent and talented than I am (this is not sarcastic, it is entirely possible) or b) we have a case of the Dunning–Kruger effect.
A test that assesses the future success of West Point candidates might not be valid in assessing the future success of, say, a programmer or a lawyer. It does not necessarily takes the same thing to succeed in the military than to succeed in other spheres. I know of a lot of people who don't have that "grit", and would therefore probably fail at West Point, but they did not in that particular thing that they're doing.
One of our clients is a fog machine manufacturer, and working with them made me realize the importance fog has in the entertainment industry. You don't realize it, because fog is rarely supposed to be the star of the show but rather a support for other effects.
I also did not know that there are different qualities of fog... I thought fog is fog, but it seems that some fog machines are really better than others. One of the aspects of fog quality is being able to breathe even when there's lot of it. One one occasion, we fogged a studio so much that I could not see my own hand 6inches from my eyes, and I was still breathing normally as if the air war pure. I couldn't say if it has long-terms effects if you breathe too much of it though, but I can say that not coughing with so much fog is quite impressive.
Also, don't get caught speaking of "smoke" to these people, who take a lot of pride in their product :) It's fog and haze... not smoke!
I don't work in the videogame industry, but I can totally relate. I work in a small website dev studio, and we interact with a lot of companies, both large (though not huge) and small.
As soon as you get people working on a project that are too specialized, no matter the size of the team, you inevitably get conflicting concerns. I think it's very important for managers to understand what those concerns are to be able to take the right decision.
I also think that even specialized people should have some knowledge of other specializations (e.g. designers that understand programming, and vice versa). On very large projects, this is impossible as there are just too many fields, but still I value very much "general knowledge" for that reason.
I hesitated when posting the article. Maybe I should have posted the technical one. I wrote them all in one piece, but split them afterwards for different crowds. The one I posted is the least technical one of all, but it's the entry point. My bad.
The best scenario to see eclipses is the Inner Solar System, and put the scale to 1. Eclipses are very difficult to simulate, as the distances are so huge, you need to have incredibly precise positions to observe one. But it is still possible to see them, for example at http://mgvez.github.io/jsorrery/?scenario=InnerSolarSystem&d...