The type erasure. You get this nicely expressive type system that can encode all sorts of useful metadata, and then you have to recreate it all again by hand in 'Javascript' to access it at runtime.
Say I have `type Foo = 'bar' | 'baz'` and want to validate that an input string is within the set of Foo. Why can't I just enumerate the type to determine the valid values at runtime?
For me it's a great feature because it means that the code has purely javascript semantics not influenced by andy generic type magic that happens on compile time.
Occasionally I bump in the same things as you when I'd like to have some JS code generated on the basis of TS type information. I think there could be some preprocessing tools that could generate JS validators on the basis of TS code.
Now, trying Rust I strongly appreciate this separation. In Rust what your code DOES might depend on what you are going to do in the future with the result it returns. It's really shocking for me and makes finding errors really hard when the spot of the error messages jumps wildly across large chunk of your code as I change it.
I really prefer TS philosophy of "types are for you and your text editor and the actual code is for runtime".
It's not hard to use tailwind without knowing css. Google answers your question 90% of the time. The other 10% you read about the appropriate css and then translate that to tailwind.
I think everyone using tailwind probably 'knows css', they've used it, they can test stuff in chrome via inspect, and they know the basics. Most do not know flexbox inside and out, or every different ways to make grids, etc.
Personally, I usually just look through component sites for something like I want, then modify it to my needs. 95% that works, sometimes I go build it out myself.
I'm fullstack, but more backend and that's where I'm most comfortable so the less I worry about design the better it is for my sanity, except I do like dabbling w/ the js layer in vue, alpine, or react.
"Die" is a bad target. I don't want to be a quadriplegic if I don't have to be, and a car going 30 MPH (realistically 40, if the limit is 30) on a residential street is more than capable of doing that to me.
They absolutely can. People can and do die from falling over and hitting their head. A 30km/h impact is not trivial, it can be expected to break bones and cause internal bleeding that can be deadly. An impact to the spine or head can be very easily be life changing.
Also, residential roads in the US are usually 40km/h
I personally know someone who was hit at about 10-15hm/h and they were hospitalized and broke their spine.
My college girlfriend was hit by a car right next to me going those speeds during a turn. It seems slow, but meat on steel is pretty brutal at any travel speed. It was a four or five month recovery. Remember that the velocity of the vehicle is only a part of the picture — mass is the damage dealer here.
Mass is what contributes to inertia which allows the speed to be carried for longer... The acceleration, which is the difference in speeds, is the real damage dealer.
You should be able to turn on the "showdead" option in your user settings to see the text. But (like the other user) I'm not sure if there's a minimum karma amount for that toggle to show up.
After living in a mobile home park for most of my childhood, I don’t want those kind of neighbors.
The folks that think it’s wise to spend $70k+ on a trailer are often the same folks who think it’s ok to have multiple broken down cars in the yard and/or multiple unfixed and unrestrained dogs running around and/or the worst of all: people who don’t see the irony of waving a Gadsden flag right next to their thin blue line flag.
I can confirm, just down the street there are two mobile homes. (Within less than a few minutes walking distance, before they were evicted, one of these homes had several instances of domestic violence, repeated calls to the animal control who on entering the house found several dogs days into starvation eating their own feces from hunger (they also would growl and bark at anyone attempting to walk or bike down the road). They were close enough that every so often we could hear the angry yelling for hours on end as the woman and her partner(s?) would fight. The other one, while quieter has approximately 3 unused vehicles, assorted junk, and lots of other good stuff dangerously close to spilling on to the neighbor territory, I'm living in a very rural state and can assure you this is the norm
People generally like to have aesthetically pleasing views with their surroundings. Heaping piles of junk in a yard is considered unsightly by many, and often associated with other problems.
Shaming people because they don't want to live next to a scrap yard isn't helpful or appropriate.
Telling people what you find acceptable about the aesthetics of their home and property is the flip side of the same coin…
I don’t want to live next to a junkyard property, but I dislike restrictions on my property even less, so I choose to live in an area where I can do what I want, and my neighbors can do what they want.
If you have a dislike of “unsightly” properties, the solution is to live in a place where that is not allowed, not to try to impose your will on others who are living in a place where that is allowed.
One of the benefits of living in a rural area/area without HOA is that you can do many things that you wouldn’t be allowed to elsewhere.
One of the dangers is that your neighbors can do the same.
Is there any data/studies that proves that derelict properties actually drag down adjacent property values? My own anecdata and property valuation suggest otherwise, but I hear the property value line often enough that I would like to know if it’s true.
Let’s be honest: it varies widely. There are parks with age restrictions: they tend to be okay. There are parks that do enforce their bylaws, including visual appearances, and they’re pretty good. A well-managed small park of newer double-wides and larger pads can be a nice place to live.
As with all housing, there are good neighbourhoods and bad. Hell, my in-law is in a nice millionaires neighbourhood and his immediate next-door neighbour is a swinging cokehead wife abuser who throws ragers every few months. It’s hell, but the properties are all freehold: short of a lawsuit, ain’t nothing to be done.
I shouldn't have specified "mobile home parks." In my personal experience, the people who buy plots of land and move mobile homes in are often worse than anything you'll find in a mobile home park.
The park I grew up in had some rules and regulations, but everything goes whenever you buy a plot of land out in the county.
Ah, yes, the infamous small acreage with an old, failing mobile home. I grew up in the wilds. Many of the people were not living in town for good reason. It was not an environment packed with high-functioning people. A lot of abusive families. A lot of hard-scrabble survival.
My family bought one of the very first lots in a new lake front property development way back in the 60s. After a very slow sale of these other lots in the development, the developer halved the size of the lots and opened them for mobile homes. The lots sold, the mobile homes moved in, and my family's property valued plummeted.
There were more than a few neighbors that fit the very stereotype you imagine, and they were the ones that lived there full time. Most of the direct neighbors were just weekenders (as were we).
sounds like a good outcome to me. more affordable housing and all it costs is a drop in the resale value of vacation homes, (that also comes with a drop in property taxes for those same vacation homes.)
It's attitudes like this that have caused my wife and I to build our forever home in the middle of a a huge plot of land. The house will not be visible from the road and I'll be able to fire a gun in any direction without worrying about hitting anything or anyone. We've both grown weary of allowing our comfort to be dictated by neighbors and however they decide to behave on a particular day.
We’ve already bought the land fortunately. I’m just building up another nest egg before I start construction while I clear out a home site and improve it with trees and a road and such in the interim. We don’t take on debt so it’s going a bit slower than one would expect.
Don't make any modifications to the land until you are ready to build. I don't know what the full definition of "unimproved lot" would be, but clearing land for construction site, adding roads, etc definitely sound to me as improvements. Those improvements will have a not friendly affect on your taxes. If your plot is big enough, add the minimum number of head of some sort of animal to possibly qualify for ag exemptions.
Lots of games to be played that you might be unaware of to keep from slowing the growth of that nest egg.
A Roth IRA is a long term retirement investment for when you are 60. “A Roth IRA is an Individual Retirement Account to which you contribute after-tax dollars. While there are no current-year tax benefits, your contributions and earnings can grow tax-free, and you can withdraw them tax- and penalty-free after age 59½”.
For many people, their home and their retirement funds are their two biggest assets. If most of your retirement fund is tied up in real estate next door to your home, then the risk profiles are interlocked. That could be worthwhile for other benefits (avoiding bad neighbours), or because you want to chase the rewards of swinging for the fences (concentration also has the chance to win big), but that needs to be weighed up against the financial downside risks of severely concentrating your asset portfolio (a big loss on both the home property asset and retirement assets would be horrid for many people).
i guess in the sense that we aren’t the only animals to enforce territory. on the other hand we probably are the only animals to have conceived of “rights”.
One version I've heard is the concern that land value will decline if neighboring property turns into a kind of holding grounds for run-down, ill-maintained old trailers.
It does seem like our vernacular in this space is ripe for change; perhaps "homes on wheels" is teasing open that door...
BookScan isn't a reliable source of information unfortunately. It only counts when a book's ISBN is physically scanned over a scanner (no ebook, audio book, libraries, specialty sales, etc) and also only covers 75% of retail in general. Generally, you can bet BookScan largely undercounts by a very wide margin.
The above numbers are from her response in the comments in the original article, it's worth reading that to understand how those numbers are made up, she explains in depth
Interesting enough to me, and pretty relevant to a claim like "book-writing is rarely commercially worthwhile". No "points scored" against the publishing industry, but point-scoring is for shallow people.
For publishing, I wonder how many copies of little-bought books are read, and how many are printed -- both probably quite different to the number sold. And I also wonder how the outcome distribution compares to venture capital outcomes, and what predictor variables are useful. "Harry Potter" is a famous case of prediction being difficult (or at least badly done?) but you can probably get some signal from author (writing history, other celebrity), genre.
what counts as a book? If a book thats not published is a book, what about a collec5uon of my notes and memoirs on my blog. It got read by loads of people, should it count to the statistics?
This ambiguity around what a book is seems like an artificial one. Go to a bookstore or view the catalog in Apple Books. Those are books, even the $0.99 micro stories one might find on, e.g., Kindle. Anything else might be a book, but probably not in a way that is useful or constructive to analyze in the context of sales.
> Because this is clearly a slice, and most likely provided by one of the parties to the suit, I decided to limit my data to the frontlist sales for the top 10 publishers by unit volume in the U.S. Trade market. My ISBN list is a little smaller than the one quoted in the DOJ, but the principals will be the same.
> The data below includes frontlist titles from Penguin Random House, Simon & Schuster, Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins, Scholastic, Disney, Macmillan, Abrams, Sourcebooks, and John Wiley. The figures below only include books published by these publishers themselves, not pubishers they distribute.
When you limit your data to those published by (fairly) large publishers, you've already skewed the data irreparably. Most of them won't even look at a book unless an agent brings it to them, and most agents won't represent most would-be authors.
On the other hand, some technical books don't require agents, and O'Reilly has to be a very large publisher in terms of books sold.
Some other categories don't, either -- I know someone who publishes "cozy mysteries" through a real publisher (not a giant one), and she doesn't have an agent.
> On the other hand, some technical books don't require agents, and O'Reilly has to be a very large publisher in terms of books sold.
I think you are drastically over-estimating the share of developers that read software development related books.
Out of the 150+ software engineers I worked with on a daily basis throughout my career so far, I can guarantee you not even 5% have ever read programming books (and I work at a FAANG, not your average mom and pop shop).
Really? I can't think of any dev I've worked with who didn't at least have some reference books handy. Though to be fair, it's been 10 years or so since I've worked in-person with people on a daily basis, so maybe my impression is just way out of date.
I still buy the occasional programming book, but nothing like I used to now that we have all the online resources.
Looking at a random list [1] of O'Reilly books, I can see 3 categories:
- The ones for beginners, like "Learning Python" or "JavaScript: The Definitive Guide",
- The ones that will be outdated even before reaching the shelves of a library, such as "Kubernetes in Action" or "Hands-On Machine Learning with Scikit-Learn, Keras, and TensorFlow",
- The ones that are more about concepts such as "Clean Code".
I can't see any of those being used as a reference book. The Internet and official documentations is the reference book.
At least half the people at my current job buy technical books because we get a monthly book allowance. Whether they finish reading them is another story.
In my experience this is pretty common. Almost everywhere I’ve worked has had some kind of training budget, and most places have had fairly well attended book clubs.
Thinking over my last few programming book purchases, they're really more or less textbooks. I get them for the structure they provide to in-depth learning, which usually doesn't work so well with online materials.
well, you have a different 150 than I do, I'm afraid, and I was also at a FAANG. A really high percentage of people I know have O'Reilly books on their shelves.
It used to be that Addison-Wesley was the unrivaled king of CS publishing. If you saw the AW logo on the cover, you knew it was gonna be a rock solid book. Sadly, at some point they seem to have slacked off on their standards a bit, and now it looks like they play second fiddle to O'Reilly. (I don't know if at present there's much of an advantage in quality either way.)
Before you try to try to interpret these numbers, you should be aware:
- the numbers are a for a 12 month period of sales, not for books published in a particular 12 month period (see below for why this matters)
- some of those books were published near the start of the 12 month period, so the count represents their first 52 weeks of sales
- some of the books were published in the last week or the 12 month period, so the count represents their first couple of weeks of sales
- some of the books were published almost a year before the start of the period, in which case the count represents the number of sales within the last couple of weeks of their first year of sales (sales >12 months after publishing don't count as 'frontlist' so aren't included in these numbers)
tl;dr the % figures towards the bottom of the list are probably too pessimistic
McLean's comments are spot-on, if you read them carefully. She describes herself as a "numbers gal" and she is.
Limiting it to the top publishers immediately leaves out lots of books. But OK, these are major players who are putting their own resources on the line for some books, so that's a valid slice.
For that 14.7% that sold under 12 copies: as a self-published author, I have to say, "Why not my book instead of that crap?"
The problem, of course, is that they didn't expect it to sell that few copies when they printed it. They didn't say, "Hey, this one looks like 10 copies or so. Let's go with it!"
What does "book" and "sell" mean here, following the article's excellent explanation on how those terms vary wildly. Are those figures per year or lifetime for the books?
To be fair to JP, he's not always right but in this instance, he does have a point.
I believe in physics but I also believe that the map is not the territory. Go back a few centuries and the model of the atom was that of the Christmas pudding. We now know better but our own models are most certainly not correct. Thus I'm believing in something I know to be faulty on some level.
Similarly with God, each religion's conception is different. If you believe in a pagan religion you believe in lots of different gods. If you believe in a monotheistic religion you believe in one God.
It's very difficult to have a conversation free of misunderstanding on abstract matters unless you have a good grasp of the underlying concepts your conversational partner embodies in a word and vice versa. With a subject as touchy as religion, it's prudent to define terms early.
Likewise, I think asking for definitions of 'book' and 'sold' are perfectly valid questions.
Not quite what I meant. Basically you fill in some cells, and then expand the region and Excel will autofill. For example if you have
Full Name | Nickname
Smith, John | Johnny
Ayers, Danielle | Dani
McDougle, Jack | Jack
Jason, Charles |
James, Trent |
Myers, Jessica |
David, Katherine |
And if you select the first 4 entries on the right and drag down, it will fill in the last 4.
No, these functions use an aggregation function (like SUM). If you don't use an aggregation function the value of the cell is the top left element of the array. The parent suggests a cell which value is an array object, which can then be queried by another formula.
It's been a while, but I think these functions must be map-reduce expressions. You cannot return an array and pull out it's elements elsewhere. You cannot do operations with the resulting array. Like a merge or whatever.
