cdbyr

I found myself looking for vimtutor-like text-based tutorials, and threw this together to make them easy to make, with or without the benefit of source material. I don’t think the prompt instructions are totally final yet - feel free to reach out if you run into issues or have suggestions.

There is a whole hierarchy of right of way on the water, but a better rule of thumb is that the less maneuverable boat generally has priority.

https://www.whoi.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Abbreviated-...

I agree with you, the earlier post says people only do things out of self-interest, and I was surprised that nobody else had disagreed or mentioned it’s an unfortunate way to see the world.

You don’t think people ever do the right thing just because it’s the right thing?

One nice thing about designers is their tie-breaking ability for non-designers. Design, being something we all think we’re right about, is easy to lose lots of time going back and forth on with non-specialists, while it’s much faster to send to a pro.

But I generally agree with you, I think the world would be better if everyone was more thoughtful about this sort of thing.

This seems like short-run thinking winning. I don’t want to have to think about if companies I interact with are going to slowly diminish the product. This sort of thing undermines that - it’s a rare good thing for companies to be trustable, and a bummer when it doesn’t hold.

There are all sorts of games brands/retailers play with these. It also wouldn’t surprise me at all if Walmart avoided language that went as far as collusion, but did make clear they needed a certain margin and were willing to pay a higher price.

It’s pretty common for there to be a ‘minimum advertised price’ (MAP) where a brand can cut retailers off if they advertise a price below it - this is why so many stores will have the exact same price on a given product and why you’ll sometimes see the ‘lower price in cart’ message.

It sounds like the issue here is that Walmart managed to get Energizer to have a higher MAP price, but I’m not sure how much more collusion-y that is than MAP prices in general.

It’s a fun/NP-hard problem, this take on it ended up being useful: https://github.com/stephaniemhutson/BoxPackingAPI/blob/maste...

https://medium.com/the-chain/solving-the-box-selection-algor...

The article mentions that memories are maintained - I didn’t see a source, but here is an article about it: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13412-butterflies-rem...

I’m not an expert, but it was about the size + hairiness that I associate with bees.

A question for any bee experts: there have been a few times I’ve been eating a sandwich or sushi in a nearby park in NY, and a bee has flown over, found the meat in whatever I’m eating, spent some time cutting a piece off, and flown off with it. Would anyone know what sort of bee this could have been, or any other info on what was going on?

There was a line from Jeff Bezos, ""One of the early examples of this is customer reviews. Someone wrote to me and said, 'You don't understand your business. You make money when you sell things. Why do you allow these negative customer reviews?' "And when I read that letter, I thought, we don't make money when we sell things. We make money when we help customers make purchase decisions."

The incentives are different at different levels of the business. There could be someone with a shorter-term outlook making these decisions, or (more likely imo) it was a very quick misapplication of the policy based on skimming the review. Acting as a first reviewer actually seems like a great application of LLMs, where attention won't flag + they can hopefully be tuned to only focus on the policy-relevant pieces.

It's an interesting question.

If the fraud were evenly spread out, and if all advertisers had the same goal, the equilibrium bid just adjusts for less valuable clicks/interaction/etc (in line with what the earlier commenter mentioned), and the advertisers pay the same amount as in a world without fraud. Fraud isn't evenly spread out though, and advertisers are sometimes unaware, so it probably does hurt them.

The other loss is from honest publishers (think newspaper websites, etc.) - they're having to split payments with fraudsters, even though they're providing all the value to the advertiser. Downstream effects mean the publisher is probably producing less, showing more ads, or using other ways to replace ad income.

I hope not - for projects with any complexity, knowing I’ve got a checkpoint means I don’t need to think hard about doing risky things. I wonder if Microsoft keeps stats on how many Office users use auto save.

Thanks for being so responsive - I'm on Safari version 15.3 (17612.4.9.1.8), on Mac OS 12.2.1 (21D62)

Agreed with your comments on muscle memory and very cool project overall.

An issue keeping me from wanting to use this: holding down the directional keys doesn't move the cursor multiple times - it's one keypress per movement. In the desktop environment, one can hold 'j' to go down, and since there is so much vertical movement, it's important that that's replicated.

Glad it was interesting! I’d realized the part referenced was a while in, so wasn’t sure if anyone would want to read that far to get to it.

I think this is overall very accurate and owning one’s own onboarding is a productive framing. For the content of the introductory meetings, beyond a beginner’s mindset, I’ve found the idea of ‘generating pull’ useful. If you’re looking for specific places where mutual wins can happen (and have some flexibility on what you’re working on), your new colleagues will be a lot more invested in working together, and you’ll probably get up at speed a lot faster.

Sorry to break this, Roku is about as bad for ad data sharing / tracking: https://advertising.roku.com/advertiser-solutions/oneview - any time you hear things like ‘full funnel attribution’, there is a good amount of adtech in the background.

As far as I know, Apple TV doesn’t do this, and Kodi + Raspberry Pi seems clear of it too.

Thank you, hope all goes well! My dad has had a easy enough time of it, I mainly hear about how it’s time-consuming to photograph everything.

Squarespace is fairly good for this - I made a website for my parents' pottery that you can see here: https://thebyersstudio.com.

It's nice in that it's made for non-technical users and integrates well with ShipStation, which saves a ton on shipping.

A lot of craft shows went online during the pandemic, linking to individual artist's websites, so you can see examples aggregated on sites like https://www.pmacraftshow.org/artists or https://www.minnesotapotters.com/online-shops-directory.

You might find development class sailing interesting. For example, the Moth started off as a fairly normal dinghy and is now a really fast foiling boat: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moth_(dinghy)

I’m not sure if there are similar things in other sports, but with Moths and foiling boats, there are plenty of people who say this isn’t real sailing. Fun to watch, though.

I found this course to be a nice intro: https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction

Unlike a lot of Coursera courses, the course is a series of interactive (mostly text) pages and some multiple-choice questions. In something like this, where sometimes you can breeze through, and sometimes you need to take a few minutes, I really like that.

I can’t recommend How Finance Works by Mihir Desai enough.

There are a few cool things about it:

1. You get the feeling that the author has developed a deep sense of how learning works, and is using the same teaching methods in the book that have been honed over a lot of in-person classes. For example, having you puzzle out which balance sheet belongs to which company early on in the book, and it being surprisingly doable.

2. There are different levels of abstraction discussed in close proximity - the math, then the account from a cfo.

3. It’s concise. That lets it cover a pretty wide range without feeling like a textbook, and I think that helps a lot for developing an early understanding.

I think this misses the point and lets legislators off too easy. Economics tends to be concerned with maximizing the size of the pie, not distribution of benefits. That’s generally seen as government’s domain, with the idea that (with proper distribution) growth can genuinely make everyone better off. As it happens, legislators (and their appointees) seem to be willing to implement the growth-oriented ideas, but not the programs that retrain/etc people who lost out.

Tangentially, there are some nice lists out there of things economists do agree on - here is one of them: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/02/news-flash-economists...

While we’re talking about metaphors: this reminds me of the distinction between craft and art. Where one is the creation or something elegant and functional (craft, lisp), the other treats more important the ideas being put into practice (art, fortran).

I think the article’s artificially limiting its point to mathematics - there are plenty of other disciplines where we can find well-tread useful metaphors, etc.

I wouldn't be surprised if this came of amazon lowballing because they want to get (more) into Fedex's game.

The cost of shipping for Amazon isn't just the shipping cost - it's the opportunity cost of not scaling their own shipping business. I bet that's priced into their bid.

Similar goes for FedEx. If you're FexEx, you don't want more Amazon competition. You also like the scale/efficiencies from the Amazon business. So that puts their value of the deal at $$$_from_amazon + scale_efficiencies + amazon_not_in_your_game.

(I don't know what the marginal benefits of scale look like at that level - anyone know more on this?)

I could see FedEx better off taking a loss to keep the deal going. I bet either Amazon just tried to make that happen, or it's been happening for a while and there was just a change-over at Fedex.