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.
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".
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.
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:
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.