<if>
<equals arg1="${foo}" arg2="bar" />
<then>
<echo message="The value of property foo is 'bar'" />
</then>
<elseif>
<equals arg1="${foo}" arg2="foo" />
<then>
<echo message="The value of property foo is 'foo'" />
</then>
</elseif>
<else>
<echo message="The value of property foo is not 'foo' or 'bar'" />
</else>
That looks so terrible, but they could have been so easily transformed into an S-expression language similar to Lisp:
(if (equals foo "bar")
(then (echo "The value of property foo is 'bar'"))
(elseif (equals foo "foo")
(then (echo "The value of property foo is 'bar'")))
(else (echo "The value of property foo is not 'foo' or 'bar'")))
That’s not a Lisp-like language I particularly like, but it’s not flat-out insane like Ant appears to be.
Advocates for the inappropriate use of XML (basically, anywhere it was used as anything other than a markup language) have lot to answer for.
Look at the first sentence of the first paragraph and the first sentence in the second paragraph. Two grammar errors which are a dead giveaway it's fraudulent.
> Thank you for your assistance and understanding during your recent support
call, regarding a ficticious request aimed at accessing your Google
account.
Comma doesn't belong there and "fictitious" is misspelled.
> To follow all guidelines of the internal review properly. Please keep a
secure note with the temporary password which your support representative
has provided to you.
Out of place period. Should be a comma.
Legit, canned emails like this (especially from [email protected]) would be proofread much better than this. It's fake.
The obesity trend has happened almost in lockstep with the proliferation of highly processed foods. Butter and animal fats being replaced with low quality, hydrogenated vegetable oils. Cane sugar being replaced with high fructose corn syrup and other highly processed sweeteners. Sodas and sugary juices replacing water. Food like substances with little to no nutritional value designed solely for taste and texture.
These things are calorically dense while containing nothing the body needs to thrive (though the calories will allow it to survive). They are easy to eat in large amounts and leave you feeling hungry. And unfortunately, these are the most affordable and readily available foods in the United States.
I don't think this is a conspiracy. It's just capitalism. These low quality ingredients are cheap and extremely shelf stable. In addition, the government subsidizes the production of this garbage.
So to say obesity has persisted through everything we've tried is a bit backwards. It would be more accurate to say "a percentage of the population has managed to avoid obesity despite all of the things we've tried."
- Make healthier food options more affordable and readily available
- Better nutrition education
- And if you really want to get the government involved, ban the use of some additives, oils, sweeteners, and dyes that allow the creation of many of these highly processed foods
I agree with every word of your analysis and I agree that we've tried basically nothing. But this is why I talked about political capital—every one of your suggestions has been available for the last twenty years and nothing has come of it and the problem continues to get worse. When you say something like, "healthy food should be more affordable and readily available" you'll get a lot of nods of agreement but when it comes time to turn that idea into actual policy everyone gets cold feet. Proposals like price caps for whole foods, subsidies for meals that meet some threshold of healthy, sin taxes for unhealthy foods, outright bans of certain ingredients the votes dry right up.
But people want Ozempic, they will actively seek it out, and in numbers that can actually make a dent in the problem. In a way that people don't seek out healthy alternatives or exercise. Because people don't want to be healthy, they want to be skinny. You can't control people, you can only respond to them and, ya know, whatever works man.
> healthy food should be more affordable and readily available
I think there's more than one way to achieve that. It doesn't have to be bans or subsidies. A lot of it has to do with education and competition. Unfortunately, they are kind of a circular dependency.
- There's so much cheap, highly processed food out there. The companies pay for prime real estate on the shelves and expensive marketing. It is chemically engineered to exploit your pleasure senses when you eat it. That is a hard beast to fight without proper education. And not just the food pyramid, but in depth explanations on why you should avoid it and what to eat instead. There are large groups of the population that have no idea that pop tart or cereal are not a healthy breakfast option.
- If there were more companies creating and promoting healthy, less-processed food options, the price would naturally comedown due to competition. But without the education, these products just do not sell as well. If I gave you some natural peanut butter or almond butter (just almonds or peanuts - 1 ingredient) and I gave you a jar of a more common peanut butter like JIF (sugar + hydrogenated oil for better consistency) and you had no other information at all, you're choosing JIF 10 out of 10 times. It's cheaper, it taste better, and you don't have to stir it. These megacorps prey on that lack of knowledge.
More education -> make better choices when buying -> more companies selling those choices -> cheaper prices on those choices.
Of the measures you suggested, the one I've seen has worked was taxing soda and a direct correlation on less consumption.
The thing with healthy food is not that they are expensive, because they aren't, raw veggies, whole grains, raw chicken, raw pork are not that expensive, especially if you buy in bulk. The problem is that it takes time to cook them, which people may not have, and in general (at least the USA), I feel like people suck at cooking, and don't really have a good food culture of enjoying cooking, like italians do for example.
I believe something similar happened to cigarettes, they are super taxed as well as all the health campaigning around them.
Funnily enough, GLP1 might fix this food production issue as well.
Since urges for junk food and stuff are lowered as well, it would be interesting to map how GLP1 spreads through the population vs junk food consumption.
Matt Levine in his column actually addressed that GLP1 could cause the junk food/alcohol/other addictive stuff industries to lose a lot of money due to less consumption.
It's possible that junk food becomes a niche thing given enough time and GLP1.
I don't know if this is a good place for feature requests, but the only thing keeping me from switching to this at at the moment is download settings per podcast.
For example, some podcasts I don't want to miss an episode and I want them all downloaded. Other podcasts I only check in on occasionally and would only want the latest episode to be kept on device.
I subscribe to a lot of podcast and downloading and keeping every episode is going to eat up a lot of storage.
Besides that, love the simplicity of it. Well done!
Thanks! That makes a lot of sense. It actually only downloads at most 2 episodes per podcast at a time, but that's still not great for your use case. I do plan to add per-podcast settings in probably the release after next, so stay tuned for that!
I have the same requirements but started to think these use cases might be different enough to warrant different apps. So I’ve gradually shifted to those “don’t miss” ones in a dedicated podcast app and the occasional ones to Spotify. Could probably do with another app for the tiny daily ones too..
I've considered the multiple apps to manage content consumption but it's such an inelegant solution I've been unwilling to try it.
I want to be able to categorize content. I want a category of podcast to work to, work out to, go to sleep to, or to simply sit a learn. I want different categories of music. I want to be able to set a group of content on YouTube that I will watch everything on, and one that I can sort through and pick the few videos I want to watch.
Given the value of that data in just my sorting and prioritizing of content, I don't know why I don't have the tools so that data can be harvested and sold.
I don't see anything being demanded. I have several open source projects used by other people. I don't implement every requested feature, but requests are a great way to get ideas I might never have had on my own.
If a developer wants money for every feature, they're free to use a commercial license and accept the tradeoffs.
Demand or request – what gives somebody the right to make a request without offering anything in return? Most people here wouldn't walk around in the street asking strangers for a handout, or ask for free stuff in shops and restaurants. So why is it okay to make these requests without offering even token compensation?
I have made feature requests from open source project, and always with a monetary offer attached. If everybody who wants a feature pitches in a little, then the creator will be compensated fairly if he chooses to implement that feature.
I can recommend reading "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" if you're interested in learning more about the philosophical and economic underpinnings that existed in the early days of open source, which still largely hold true today.
Person 1: I have built this thing, maybe somebody finds it useful. Then you can have it for free.
Person 2: I'm not going to use it unless you do as I say with your thing, and I'm not going to offer anything for you.
Well okay, then don't use it? Or if you want a feature, offer something in return. Or make the request towards a paid service – their ears are very eager to hear what features potential customers would like to have.
You have a cynical view of what is a feature of Show HN posts: community feedback. This is where the rubber meets the road and where you find out if people would use your project. And part of that is people telling you why they wouldn't use it.
The best case scenario really is that the only thing keeping someone from using your project is a feature that you can implement that would make your project better for everyone. For the sake of launching, you tend to pick a subset of features that you consider necessary, and it's good feedback when all you need to do is extend the circle to include a few more.
I think your negative reaction is warranted for when people trash the project, especially under the weak guise of constructive criticism. But feature feedback is not that.
The OP himself liked the feature request which is perhaps a counterpoint to your interpretation. I don't think they would agree with you that it was inappropriate nor demanding, but rather useful feedback.
One of the problems with open source hobby projects as opposed to projects you do for a job is the lack of feedback. If I ever were motivated to do an open source project to scratch an itch, I would want feedback and feature requests to make it better
I feel this very deeply. At the same time, I feel shame for feeling this way. I have a very high paying job, excellent flexibility, and I work from home. It doesn't get much better. Except that when I sit down at the computer, the actual work and meetings to talk about the work are unbelievably draining.
The shame is because I know others would love to be in my position and there is an almost endless list of jobs that are worse than this, but it's brutal sometimes. I workout daily and spend the vast majority of my time away from the keyboard, outside.
The worst part is, it's not just a matter of embrace the suck and push on. In a physical labor job, you can just command the body to move and push through it. In this line of work, you don't really have that option. You can't just command the brain to solve difficult problems and design complex systems.
Yeah, I think there's this idea of programming as something you 1) know how to do and then 2) can just sit at a computer and do some typing, and it happens. It's hard for outsiders to understand just how dependent it is on being engaged and in a position to direct your full mental attention to abstract problems for long periods.
Working with ADO pipelines is painful.
- Make change locally
- Push change
- Run pipeline
- Wait forever because ADO is slow
- Debug the error caused by some syntax issue in their bastardized version of yaml
- Repeat