shrimp-chimp

I saw someone mention elm in a thread here on HN and decided to look into it, as I'm not familiar with the language beyond knowing it exists. I entered elmlang.org into my browser and found a page that not only provides me with the correct location, but also has a curated list of additional resources - not the least of which is a link to who's hiring using elm as part of their tech stack.

I'm grateful for the small, but valuable effort provided by whomever it is that runs elmlang.org. Thank you, mysterious stranger!

I live in a mostly rural part of Norway, and I have had a very similar experience with a volunteer group I cared deeply about. I created a Facebook account solely to access two groups they used to coordinate events. Initially it worked, but over time, Facebook’s algorithms stopped showing me new posts at the top. Since I was not an active user, I missed important messages and caused real frustration, both for others and for myself. Trying to explain why I was not seeing the content was more awkward than simply saying, “Sorry, I am not on Facebook.”

Eventually, I decided to step away. This was partly because I was not willing to engage more deeply just to make the platform work properly, and partly because of personal circumstances, such as having twins. After deleting my account, I noticed a significant reduction in stress.

These days, my children’s kindergarten uses a dedicated app to communicate with parents, and their sports club uses another (Spond, which seems fairly common in Norway). However, when I try to connect more informally with other parents, the conversation almost always leads back to Facebook, Messenger, or "insta". Even when people express understanding or sympathy for my choice to avoid those platforms, exchanging phone numbers or using alternatives rarely leads to real communication. It feels as if, socially, I cease to exist if I am not part of those groups.

So no, I would not suggest trying to push others onto Signal or similar platforms. I relate to your experience completely. Although we may have made different choices, the underlying challenge is the same: wanting to participate meaningfully, but finding that the tools we're expected to use often come with a cost we are not willing to pay.

Yeah, I thought of the same, a 3% year-on-year improvement must necessarily hit some ceiling at some point. The study didn't get into _how_ to achieve a 3% improvement, but from how I understand it, looked at the average year-on-year decline, stability, or improvement, over a period of 7 years.

My own take-away is that there's even more data that confirms "being fit" is about a continuous effort, and that putting in an effort (even quite minimal) to stay fit comes with a whole range of positive health benefits.

As in improving cardiorespiratory fitness. According to the article, a Swedish study suggests that, for men, an improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness of 3% annually may reduce risk of prostate cancer by as much as 35%. From how I understand the statements made in the article, they (the researchers) seem to emphasize regularity and intensity; that is, regularity is key, and higher intensity as substitute for duration. They also seem to primarily focus on lower-body activity (i.e. use your legs) while making it clear that activities that involve movement of both legs and arms are preferable.

I was sad to learn about this. My thoughts and prayers go out to Rainer and his family.

Edit: I found out that there's an earlier submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38070167

I apologize if it came across as I made the claim that they really do; I was making an attempt at summarizing my understanding of how the business model for bookdepository might carry some value adding proposition to customers that extended beyond "just" free international shipping. That understanding comes entirely from this quote from a Guardian article about Book Depository's demise:

> The Gloucester-based bookseller was founded in 2004 by Stuart Felton and Andrew Crawford, a former Amazon employee, with the mantra of “selling ‘less of more’ rather than ‘more of less’”. It aimed to sell 6m titles covering a wide variety of genres and topics, as opposed to focusing solely on bestsellers. [0]

Seeing as Book Depository later became a subsidiary of Amazon, it's fair to question whether that model held true. I don't have enough insight into Amazon's catalogue to say either way. Also, I can't remember to which degree Amazon relied on "other sellers" back in 2004 or if that came later ("other sellers" being a way to offer a wider selection than what one carries oneself in retail).

To answer your question for an example of a title Amazon doesn't have; I recently found myself recently looking for "Hur svårt kan det va'" by Eva Bodfäldt, which may admittedly be a contrived example, although Amazon does carry another title in Swedish by the same author [1] (though used and from a third party). As it happens, Book Depository has the title... alas, it's not available for delivery anymore.

[0] - https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/apr/04/amazon-to-clos... [1] - https://a.co/d/bIEwL9W [2] - https://www.bookdepository.com/Hur-svårt-kan-det-va-en-liten...

> I have not yet completely understood what made Book Depository special. Was it only the free international shipping? Or was there more to it?

My understanding is that their business model was to offer a really wide selection of titles, instead of the "top 10" type offering Amazon is mostly about. I think that's a significant part of it.