Even if you're not allowed to bring it to the exam. Writing things down helps. What you want is to cram the entire course on 1 or more pages that you can in the end tile in front of you and say with high degree of confidence "This is exactly everything I must know"
Reminds me of this comedy bit in an American sitcom from about 35 years ago where the dumb kid when asked how his history test said it went okay but admitted he cheated. He explained that he tried to write down everything on his arm, there was not enough room despite multiple attempts at it. Then he realized he was starting to remember some of the content after the several rewrites, and said "so I just did it that way! I hid it all in my head and it was great! The professor didn't even know that I was cheating because there was no evidence!"
Software is also pumped out now at a faster rate than ever, runs on commodity hardware, is delivered digitally, often run on platforms that can force near real-time user updates, with much higher complexity.
Eventually we will hit hard physical limits that require we really be "engineers" again, but throughput is still what matters. It's still comparatively great paying profession with low unemployment, and an engine of economic growth in the developed world.
"Previous studies have disagreed on whether or not weaker memories are stabilized, or made easier to recall, by attachment to a more prominent one."
So doesn't seem that obvious at all.
I remember random mundane events from tons of random days, unconnected to any prominent event (as near as I can determine anyway). And I also remember some random mundane stuff from days something prominent did happen. Whether there's a bias towards days with prominent events is entirely unclear to me.
I have no knowledge of what this Dutch effort was beyond the info in your link, but nothing suggests that the public outcry was go actually ban vehicles or disincentivize ownership and use with tactics such as with higher fees, reduced parking availability, which is what U.S. urban road safety advocates I see pushing for.
Alongside increased bike infrastructure funding, the Dutch effort certainly did involve disincentivizing car use by higher fees (both parking and ownership), reducing parking availability (and also non-parking car accessibility), and slowing down car speeds (speed bumps, cameras, narrowing roads, calming road design, reducing city speed limits to 19mph), and generally reducing car allocated space. It's typically done during scheduled road maintenance, where separated bike lakes are installed, often by converting the street parking space or turning a two way street into a one way (for cars) street or even banning car access.
I mean Amsterdam is kinda renown exactly for reducing parking availability, slow speed limits and generally human-first city planning nowadays.
Wasn't always like that either. In the 90s it was cars-first just like the OP likes nowadays.
It's definitely true that having only bicycle infrastructure doesn't really work for families though. It's a different story if you've got a cargo bike and public transport... But it's understandable that that's not even entering his mind considering the culture of the USA.
Agreed, I only know of a handfull families that manage with no nearby public transport using bicycle only. It is possible, I managed doing 50km for couple of months with a cargo bike and small kids, you adapt. I do not recommend that to anyone unless you really want to, it is just too cheap to own a couple of cars.
It's only cheap because they are heavily subsidized. And then we go back to a discussion about policy. If you remove all the subsidies or make car-owners pay for the externalities, things would quickly turn in favor for higher density, public transit, and AFAIK no game has put this into their game economics.
The forthcoming Car Park Capital[0] looks like an interesting reflection of your sentiment (but it's about planning cities to make them more car centric).
You are looking at the cost in your pocket, not the aggregate.
Add the cost of the gas needed to power all these cars, plus the cost of the land allocated solely for parking, plus the costs of the roads, plus the costs in healthcare associated with air pollution, plus the environmental cost of all the concrete and steel need to build and maintain the roads, etc.
It's not just "car ownership", it's "car-centric infrastructure" that is expensive.
Because car-based roads are so fucking noisy, we throw a ton of green space and front yards to mitigate it. Not to mention "sidewalks" are unnecessary when you can just walk in the centre of the street.
The size of a traditional road is about 6 metres wide or less (that's measured from the front wall of the building on one side, to the front wall of the building on the opposite side). In comparison, the same wall-to-wall measure of a car-centric suburban street comes out to, IIRC, 20-30 metres. That's 3-5x the cost in just land alone, let alone maintenance.
And yes, we will need some roads - about 20% or so, as arterial roads. But right now we're closer to 100%, and most of the throughput of arterial roads is tied up in one-occupant passenger vehicles rather than actually necessary cargo/tradie vehicles.
The public outcry was to ban cars - literally. They blocked streets, and did what they needed to to block drivers and vehicles. It's long enough ago that maybe the abrasiveness and confrontational nature of it is forgotten now - lots of big changes start out that way, but if successful the success almost drives the way the history is remembered more postively.
It looks to me like it was 100% a "think of the children" moment that often gets ridiculed. I can see the same inflection point in my country around the same time, when street and road design shifted to car orientated and car priority - Amsterdam being one of the notable exceptions but with a well documented fight.
Thank you for saying this. The American Christian Right's staunch pro-Israel voting bloc is way underappreciated by most critics of the lobby money. These people are legion, and would not vote against Israel if you paid them: it's part of their Christian messianic religion that the Jews be in the Holy Land.
If the American Christian Right were purchasing TikTok, then it might be relevant to a discussion about the purchase of TikTok. Instead we have... this whole subthread of pointless crap and justifications for the pointless crap.
The original complaint here is that American Zionists are purchasing TikTok. The point being discussed in this subthread is that American Zionism is more in line with the American Right than American Jews. Therefore the relevant trait of the purchasers being criticized is their right wing ideology and not their religion.
React piles concepts into your mental backpack: rendering models, hooks, state libraries, routing, and a build pipeline. ... The simple alternative is just around the corner: sprinkle vanilla JavaScript where it’s needed and don’t build your identity around a framework
Yeah, except that a sprinkle becomes a dusting, and then a dusting becomes a coating, and then a coating becomes a clog of dust bunnies, and it's often hard to tell when you need to stop and do it a better way when the business side is pressuring you with deadlines for changes on "what already works".
The whole reason frameworks exist is to _reduce_ the mental backpack by using something that has solved the same problems in the same orderly way.
I'd argue the whole point of React is to enable the modularization of components written in Javascript.
I realized as soon as 1997 that if I wrote some component in Javascript I wanted to stick into a web page I might want to stick two or three of those into a web page and to do that I have to keep the state for those separate, be able to reference the form elements (didn't have access to DOM elements!) with a unique name, etc.
React goes past that and lets you nest components into other components. In some point that's "managing complexity" and not "introducing complexity", except for the fact that when you can easily incorporate 35 third party components into your application that is 35 components each of which introduces its own complexity of one kind or another -- some of the complexity of "modern Javascript" is the complexity of the build system and the framework, but the build system and framework system let you build bigger systems that have bigger problems.
That's not really an accurate statement of Jeavon's Paradox. In this case, it would be "when everyone has better tools, people expect better websites."
> Yeah, except that a sprinkle becomes a dusting, and then a dusting becomes a coating, and then a coating becomes a clog of dust bunnies, and it's often hard to tell when you need to stop and do it a better way when the business side is pressuring you with deadlines for changes on "what already works".
The ultimate step into irony is reaching a point where, to justify their approach, they claim that it's ok to spend all this time reinventing JavaScript wheels because all this "sprinkle-on" JavaScript can be packaged and reused in other projects.
I'm glad they at least had the bravery to provide a concrete example of what they mean by "complexity". Clearly their example of "React = complex" vs "JavaScript = simple" is actually a fairly controversial take. Does "simple" mean "better", if not, I think we should be chasing the latter.
I'm not even sure it's a controversial take, more of react devs (don't worry, myself included) feeling called out and getting defensive instead of trying to understand something simple.
IIRC, their society depended on it. During peacetime, it was a major economic engine paid for from the royal treasury, with the work starting as soon as a new pharaoh ascended the throne, and the labor provided steady work when agricultural activity stopped due to Nile flooding. Of course, it's only in hindsight with our modern understanding of economics that we can see how such an activity at face value not important to any basic survival need was in fact a key piece of the economic fabric.
> The Roman writer Pliny the Elder, writing in the first century AD, argued that the Great Pyramid had been raised, either "to prevent the lower classes from remaining unoccupied", or as a measure to prevent the pharaoh's riches from falling into the hands of his rivals or successors.
It was a Keynesian anti-cyclic wealth distribution program.
The jobs did come and go as necessary to maintain stability. It was reasonably well paid, from money collected taxing the luckiest farmers at the good times, stored as a community project.
It's really impressive how the Egyptians created this kind of organization and maintained it for thousands of years, when no government seems to be able to maintain something similar for a decade today.
Much as I criticize CBT, this is one of the few kinds of problems it seems suited for: there is so much data surrounding and so many inputs for a single negative event that it can be very easy to find a pattern breaker, re-frame, or alternate hypothesis without looking too hard. You just need to train it.
Reminds me of this comedy bit in an American sitcom from about 35 years ago where the dumb kid when asked how his history test said it went okay but admitted he cheated. He explained that he tried to write down everything on his arm, there was not enough room despite multiple attempts at it. Then he realized he was starting to remember some of the content after the several rewrites, and said "so I just did it that way! I hid it all in my head and it was great! The professor didn't even know that I was cheating because there was no evidence!"
reply