In 2004 or so, 1.00 was an intro to Java course. I took it very cynically to pad out my units; I was a course 6 senior at the time. I got side-eyed by TAs a lot.
Trees really aren't a good example of convergent evolution. The evidence tends more toward "all plants have woodiness genes, and sometimes those genes can be activated/deactivated".
Luxon author here. Obviously I (and many others!) put a lot into Luxon, but only because it seemed so useful. Now that it's hopefully becoming obsolete, I get to look at it fondly as a nice bridge to the future, and I appreciate all the love it's gotten. All things end.
“Training Wheels” are generally called “Stabilizers” outside the US. They exist and people use them.
Balance bikes also exist in the US and have for just as long as they have existed in Europe.
But this is not about either. A real bike without pedals is needed, because the transition from gliding to riding can take as little as 30 minutes. I mean, for sure, get your small child a balance bike and let them use it for fun. In my opinion, a razor scooter-type thing is even better. The key is to get the child to not worry about being slightly off-balance and instead of panicking they steer and/or lean to correct.
Years ago, I paid REI $50 for a learn-to-ride class for my oldest son. They did this remove-the-pedals thing for 100 kids in a group and had every single one of them riding in an hour with just 5 or 10 instructors. I watched the whole thing in amazement and did it on my own with each of my younger kids. It turns out that it is really easy to teach, and my youngest was riding a real bike at age 4.
> In my opinion, a razor scooter-type thing is even better.
I'm 44 and still can't ride a two-wheeled scooter. I don't know if it's harder or different from bicycles (which I have ridden regularly and enthusiastically since I was about 7), but it just won't click for me.
Not sure what I wrote that upset people so much. Do whatever works for you and/or your kids. I apologize for suggesting that there are multiple approaches to solving this problem.
Looking back, perhaps I was offensive for suggesting that Europe and America were pretty much the same on the topic of learning to ride a bicycle. If that was the issue, I do not apologize.
It isn't universal in the US. I had never heard of balance bikes until this thread. All my friends rode tricycles as toddlers then bikes with training wheels gradually adjusted higher until they were removed.
Putting aside all the sleazy parts for a moment, there is some good advice on actually writing a cold outreach email. But this part seems mistaken, or at least would be if I were your outreach target:
> My best rule for writing good subject lines is that they feel like they could be the subject lines of an internal email—this helps them feel natural in the inbox. For example, “Quick question”, or “Idea for better outbound” are two casual, natural-feeling subject lines.
I immediately delete any email with a subject line like “quick question”. It does not give me any reason to think I will get any value from it, and what are the chances I will care about answering whatever the question turns out to be? I’m not sitting around waiting to answer questions from strangers, so an email subject line has to tell me what I’m being offered for me to invest that time. In fact “quick question” is already asking me for something (“answer my question”) which just seems unreasonable from an unsolicited email.
I somehow ended up on the spam list for the last election (funny, having never set my feet in the US) and it was painfully obvious that the goal of those headlines were to make people click them, thinking that it was a work e-mail.
This is for startups who are looking for that one in a hundred person hungry for their solution. Enterprises who have already scaled use an entirely different cook book to get the attention of a VP like yourself. A well-targeted and personalized email has a much better response rate for enterprises with a proven solution and well known brand.
I don’t get it. The document setting out this fact is the license, which also tells them they’re allowed to use it at all. The MIT license is short and simple and very explicit about lack warranty.
If we were to say “no one reads the license; it’s just boilerplate!” and add it elsewhere — say the bottom of the readme or in another file like disclaimer.md — it would quickly just become other, different boilerplate that no one reads.
You can’t solve the problem of understanding norms by writing copy. I’m resigned to everyone learning the hard way.
Seems like it enables you do things like use git repos as per-customer or per-some-business-object storage, which you otherwise wouldn't even consider. Like imagine you were setting up a blogging site where each blog was backed by a repo
I notice this one a lot. My sense of time is attached to how much I’ve changed, and my rate of change—-at least for music consumption—-attenuates as I age, dilating time. A couple years can seem like an eon when you’re 14 and each new album transforms you. Now a decade of music feels static and irrelevant and I barely notice it go by.
Related: it sure seemed like the mid-90s were special for rock music; I was 13 when Dookie came out and I felt (still feel) like I was in a sort of alternative renaissance, just crammed with amazing new music. But I’m sure every generation feels that way about whatever happened to be popular when they were teenagers.
It’s loud enough you hear earlier repetitions as a vague buzz in the distance, then crescendoing to a blare on your block, then receding with agonizing slowness like some hellish echo. And the whole time you thinking, awake now and very annoyed, “I don’t even own a car.”
