JS Add-ins are way limited than VSTO Add-ins. With the former you are limited to a side panel and add buttons to a specific section in the ribbon while with the VSTO you can even customize views with region forms.
A colony in Mars opens the door to improving space travelling which at the same time opens the door to explore other planets. In a distant future humanity may be able to visit other solar systems and who knows, maybe find other species out there.
Colonizing mars doesn’t particularly help colonize space just mars because space is mostly empty not cold inhospitable planets.
A useful asteroid mining base might eventually let you expand into the Oort cloud and then colonize the rest of the galaxy assuming they could be 100% self sufficient and didn’t need solar power. But even here the hard bits are 99% technology we could develop on earth for other things like fusion power.
That's cute. I'm in the middle of a migration of a vb6 app, no separation of concerns, database access from the app, no tests, no documentation, no code homogenisation, tons of function calls that end up in an empty string and with MS threatening to end vb6 support just around the corner.
At work we created a vscode extension to use VB6. It's not a language server because it would need to interpret the syntax and all that but helps handling multiple projects, automatically cleaning registrations, checking vbp references and dependencies, etc.
- 1 on 1 calls not always share the screen and I need to hang up, refresh the browser and call again
- translation stopped working both ways. Once a text is translated it doesn't go back to its original language
- it's a mess if you make a lot of group calls with different people. You end up having trillions of opened chat. I ended up pinning the main ones to keep them at the top and ignore the rest.
- code snippets are just awful. They are a box inside of a box and you always need to click on expand to see the code.
- music when you are on hold can't be stopped which can make you crazy. I always hang up or mute the tab
- group video calls don't have an option to see everybody in the same screen. Now it's like divided in pages
And I could go on and on. Discord is thousands of times better than this.
You forgot the worst one! When you copy a message in Teams, it "helpfully" adds a header so you end up pasting "[Tuesday 12:54] John Doe" into random form fields / your terminal / your browser location bar ten times a day
...I would seriously consider bytecode manipulation to remove this "feature" from the executable. And I haven't touched even assembly in almost 20 years.
Same feeling here. There was a time in which it was pleasant to read an article in medium but not anymore and they made the experience so awful that I'm not willing to give them any more chances to improve. And reading the CEO here it seems they aren't even aware what the real problems are.
The problem is not dating, the problem is visibility. If you have tons of dates with tons of people you'll end up with someone who aligns with you (also will help you to learn what you really like) but these apps, as funny as it sounds, make you invisible by oversaturation. The amount of people is so huge that you spend less than a few seconds to decide if you want to match or not with someone and you never know about this person ever again.
I struggle to see how this is different than the real world of strangers. If you go out anywhere you are around people. Some you find attractive some that may find you attractive. Yet, you probably never even speak to each other so visibility isn't really the problem.
The fact it’s a dating app, just means you have some expectations. You expect you may get a date. But you may not. You expect those other people are real profiles. They may not be. You expect those people that you do match with actual intend to have a conversation/go on a date. They may not have that intention.
If I’ve learned anything from the younger-than-me generations, they like having Likes. It’s attention. It’s meaningless by most measures but gives them some endorphins or something. I’ll probably never get it fully but I can completely see how people would have a Tinder profile for no reason other than to get a confidence boost when they got a Like/Match. I realize that’s a broad stoke but I continue to observe it over and over.
Likes and such are distracting as they are attract the wrong people (attention seekers) or give off the wrong impression (false flags). The former is very prominent against men, the latter is very prominent against women.
Volume exasperates both this problem and the problem of choice. There are so many choices for so little effort, people are drowning in it and not investing enough to feel attached to their choices. Where before you had to invest more time into an individual person and your other options where far more limited, now you have far more choice for less effort when you're on the winning side of the market.
Some poster posted a few sources one time on a similar topic regarding the importance of investment and how people will generally stick together when invested. It's the initial investment which is missing. The fact ghosting as a concept didn't just come into existence, but is so omnipresent among both sexes, speaks for itself.
I believe this is correct. The vast majority of my modern "swipe era" dating experiences fall into either 1) Woman makes up excuse to bail within ~2 hours of planned date 2) Woman ghosts/un-matches just as conversation begins to gain momentum 3) Woman tells me she is "overwhelmed" by the attention she's getting from the app and is going to delete it, leaving behind her cell number. The effort/attention ratio for women on dating apps is literally unnatural. This ratio is tempered in the real world because it takes circumstance and balls to approach a woman.
ghosting occurs because despite that people complain about it, they would resent even more being told that they don't make the cut. ghosting is a little disappointment each day, and it fades as the days accumulate.
and if you still don't like it, just accept that the other person does like it, and it's a kindness you could extend to them.
The difference is precisely what you mentioned, people there expect to have dates and find a partner. There could be other people trying to get something else (heck there are even scammers) but it's not your expectation to start a convo expecting to get somewhere, it's the goal of the app. This doesn't happen in real life, in fact, if you try the same approach, you'll be seen as creepy depending on the context. Dating apps should skip this initial uncertainty and technically make it easier to get to the point.
I guess dating for me always just was an activity without expectation. Or perhaps better said, without surprise. Meaning anything could happen. I might have fallen in love with someone on the night we met, the universe seemed aligned, we already got in some small talk face to face, maybe even got physical then - only to find out the next day they gave me the phone number for Pizza Hut and I’d never see or hear from them again. I couldn’t even Google them or DM them, it didn’t exist. Everyone was a ghost by default.
The apps to me seem exactly like what you all are saying. If I were young I'd probably turn to the same tactics I employed before the apps; meeting people in the real world. Probably easier said than done, but that's always been true.
Basically is a combination of bad posture + overcompensating the lack of strength/flexibility of some muscles. For checking specific exercises, Athlean-X usually gives good explanations while proposing specific exercises https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWmGArQBtFI
Is it really necessary all this verbosity to convey ideas? I feel like all this sugarcoat is just to excesively protect people's feelings, a tendency that is spreading everywhere lately.
To just convey ideas? Of course it's not necessary.
To convince someone to change their world view? This is nowhere near _enough_, just a small start.
They were not talking about couching every fact or snippet taught in physics class getting couched in all this extra "sugarcoating". They were talking about the kind of conversations that almost never go well at all - they're trying to improve the odds of an interaction convincing someone to change their polarized viewpoint from 0.01% to 0.03%.
For that use-case, obviously there's value in exploring different techniques, given the typical technique (scream at them and then block them) doesn't work well at all at actually changing their mind.
No matter how soft and gentle your touch is, when you are trying to change someone else's values, if they are not up to accept other point of views, it will go bad. All this sugarcoat could be interpreted as you trying to patronize them, seeing them as intelectually inferior or who knows what other negative connotation they can infer.
Agreed that patting someone on the head and telling them they're a good boy despite their nazi views isn't the right move, though that's pretty clearly a strawman of what's being suggested here.
Often, I see people arguing straw or steel with either their limited view of the oponents position or with the basic asumption that their oponent is an idiot or malicious.
I think a big part of this topic discussion is that there's a LOT of value in those- that many disagreements are simply down to having a different understanding about context and facts, and that giving the other person the benefit of the doubt can help people navigate those. It actually seems like one of the most relevant cases to me.
And agreed about the nature of many disagreements coming down to context and facts. My comment is aimed at people who seem to insist that other posters don't understand their context or have all the facts, when they actually do and yet continue to disagree.
Economics, sociology and psychology all tend to say very little with very many words to the extent that the message gets lost and people don't even know what they are discussing.
You see it to a lesser extent in software and math too though - just look at any mathematical article on wikipedia. The "dynamic programming" article is a good one for this.
I agree your premise in a limited context: non fiction books.
Non fiction books often pad out very little info into an entire tome simply because that’s one of the few ways you can make money from your idea.
But this doesn’t apply just to economics. The most egregious of this are books about programming languages and architecture if you ask me.
In philosophy and elsewhere, a good author might write a lot but still be concise. That’s just because they have a lot to say. Or they need more examples.
This article wasn’t even that verbose. I don’t see how what he said related to star man though, but that’s a different topic.
I don't know much about sociology and psychology, but I can say that I'm surprised by this characterization of economics. I'm sure you know what you're talking about, but it's my impression that economics is a subject with a lot of depth, and also tries to communicate its ideas to laypeople with concise approximations like "P=MC"
Sometimes, when discussing controversial or polarizing ideas, you do need extra signaling to convey that you're taking them seriously. It would be nice to live in a world wherein this could be taken for granted, and someday perhaps we will. Alas, not in these times.
By the lingo, I assume the author is at least tangentially associated with the online rationalism thing, Slate Star Codex and Yudkowsky and effective altruism and all that.
