This is why I built wpm.silver.dev.

Theres no tolerance for typos on code and way more special characters than MonkeyType.

120 on monkeytype can be 50 on wpm

I like it but it's not really a comparable/usable result. My IDE auto suggests a lot of things and a lot of "words" could be reduced to a single tab key press.

For example, in golang, I have not typed a full if err != nil {} in years. "err.nn"+tab auto completes to the if, and "err.re" auto completes to the if + return err. To be able to compare what speed I really code at, I should be able to use these to speed things up.

Same as calling functions, I rarely type the full name and instead use tab auto complete. Same for for ranges, "nums.forr" autocompletes to the for i,n := range nums {} form.

Yes, but at the same time in a technical interview you don't control the IDE and you need to type it out. I.e. google interviews on a google doc.

Nice. Writing code is very different. People mostly seem to train English word-lists to increase wpm. But for code you constantly have to deal with new words, prefixes and special characters. Awkwardly placed special characters on the keyboard can ruin the flow. Dvorak, Colemak don't have any improvements over Qwerty - so they're most likely pretty useless.

Layouts with nicely placed special characters are all very non-standard. Building a custom keyboard nowadays is quite easy, but it takes some courage to train something that is seriously less standard than Dvorak ever was.

By far the biggest two things screwing me up here are problems with the app itself: The single-quote opens up the browser's quick-search, leaving the app and screwing up the flow, and the automatic yellow text that moves at a constant speed is extremely distracting if it ever gets ahead of me because of how much more visible it is compared to where the cursor actually is. And it's almost guaranteed to happen on the ones that use single quotes because of the first problem.

Use practice mode so you don't have the competing cursor!

Will look into the singlequotes issue!

I think the problem with this approach is that when I type, I don't type formatting because prettier can do that for me.

There's something about some of the 80's and 90's games that showed exceptional love and art from the game makers.

I bought my 5-yo daughter an arcade for her birthday and we have been playing Bobble Bubble non-stop for months, finally beating the game with a single credit!

As we played the game, we discovered new patterns, tricks and pathways to beat impossibly-looking levels safely, and we discovered portals, bonuses and secrets galore. We also got to know each other better, as we play together better than we would play with other people.

The game pushes you constantly between competing to get power-ups and extra-lifes to collaborating to beat asymmetric levels.

There is one power-up that turns the level into a bonus where you have a score board and whoever gets the most bonus items wins extra points. But if you do even scoring, you both get the max bonus. The game is testing you!

It is when you beat the game at the end that the secret of the universe is revealed: Love & Friendship.

Those are consulting companies, not tech companies.

Go long argentina :)

The one redeeming quality of crypto is that you can only lose your holdings if you give them to someone else.

Sure, or if your wallet gets stolen, or you forget your password.

But even if you can keep your holdings forever, they won't be worth anything if there isn't a market for them. All it takes is enough people freaking out and dumping their investments to make yours worthless too. You'll still own everything you bought but it could be worth zero.

Zero is vanishingly unlikely given that there’s at least a sizeable minority of people, myself included that believe that a form of digital money/value storage that cannot be taken from me without my cooperation and is outside the control of any state (and, ideally, private) is not only a right but unbelievably important.

If the VC backed token projects all fail, the gambling sites shut down, and the only way to trade it for real money is to swap cash in person (this is also how it started), it’s still important like Tor, strong encryption, open source.

The business case for crypto is an interesting aside, as it was/is for Linux, PGP, etc. The long run human and social case for the underlying tech (ignoring what happens to be flavour of the month for scammers) is what’s interesting.

And yet people shared your opinion when bitcoin was under a dollar, so that alone isn't enough to get to the valuations we have today.

>All it takes is enough people freaking out and dumping their investments to make yours worthless too. You'll still own everything you bought but it could be worth zero

Every speculative asset ever

> It's got nothing on Turning Red [1], though. $20M on a $175M budget. Whoof.

Turning Red was surely a hit on Disney+. Hard to see from the consumer side what the impact was, but disney+ is a money machine and the can easily double the price.

> ...but disney+ is a money machine and the can easily double the price.

The very same Disney Plus that lost 2.4M subscribers in Q1[0]?

That doesn't seem like "You could easily double the price" sort of performance. They still have plenty of subscribers, but they're not going "up and to the right" on the subscriber graph anymore.

It's hard to make the case that Disney is doing anything but "dropping flops on a public that doesn't want to see them."

[0]: https://techcrunch.com/2023/02/08/disney-q1-2023-earnings/

If you dig into those numbers, they lost 3.8 million subscribers in India due to losing streaming rights for cricket matches.

I don't think that's a reasonable lens to be looking at how Disney's cartoon movies are doing.

I do think it might be worthwhile if you wanted to decide if Disney should have decided to keep the streaming rights, and whether the economics of that decision make sense.

"Disney’s Direct-to-Consumer revenue for the quarter rose 13%, to $5.3 billion, while its operating loss increased 78% to $1.05 billion"

...

"due to higher content and technology costs at Disney+ (with higher average costs per hour of programming, which included an increased mix of originals) as well as higher content costs and lower ad revenue at Hulu"

Not exactly the money machine I was envisioning!

Nope.

For comparison, a recent movie that performed well at the box office was Top Gun Maverick.

$1500M box office on a $170M budget - that involved flying and filming an awful lot of hours in "rather expensive to run jets."

That’s a movie that performed in the top 5 all time domestically, so probably better not to use it as a target.

I think the GP's point is to compare the costs. At least, that the most interesting point there.

Well, for it to be a replacement for the theaters, it would have to be quite expensive and wouldn't ever become mainstream.

If they are going for a mainstream service, Netflix style, it won't be able to replace theaters.

Disney seems to want both, so they targeted their service at neither.

Crucially, Turning Red was _not_ released in theatres in most countries due to COVID-19. It may or may not have been a money loser, but there's very little reason to believe executives think it's anything about the movie that made it that way.

Yes, Turning Red's low revenue was primarily a cause of the film not being in theatres, rather than the quality of its story.

I personally liked the story of Turning Red very much (though I'm biased to like it because it's set in Toronto), but more objectively, the film is a step above Strange World and Lightyear in terms of ratings.

Turning Red's ratings: 95% on the Tomatometer of Rotten Tomatoes (RT), 7.0/10 on IMDb, and 3.7/5 on Letterboxd

Lightyear's ratings: 74% on RT, 6.1/10 on IMDb, 3.0/5 on Letterboxd

Strange World's ratings: 72% on RT, 5.6/10 on IMDb, 3.0/5 on Letterboxd

I'm neither Canadian nor an immigrant, but I absolutely loved Turning Red. I felt it was 10x better than Encanto. But the latter has catchy meme-worthy tunes, so here we are.

According to Wikipedia it did pretty well: ...the most-ever for a Disney+ original title... the most watched program across all streaming services in the U.S. ... continued to hold the top position ... the second most-watched movie on U.S. streaming services in 2022.

I don't know how it could've cost $175MM, but it's a quality movie and deserves kudos for giving us some diversity in protagonists.

If anything it increases company profits, why would companies give the rent money back to employees?

I understand Zelle / irreversible payment situations. But the bank knows who this is, its not an untraceable scam.

Why does it survive?

Because it could just as easily be a scam in the other direction. Get paid for a legitimate service, have the payment reversed. The bank doesn't want to get involved - easier to treat Zelle payments as if you handed over cash.

I need to up my rate :D