I'm definitely leaning toward this one. It's also recommended on the Audubon website so the positive feedback on this one is likely going to be the one I go with.
My biggest fear for the short term is that tools like ChatGPT would allow spamming most of the internet with the equivalent of a Gish Gallop -- so much plausible-looking bullshit spewed out in a short time that it would be a lost cause to attempt to sort through it.
If content known to be of human origin could be archived and frozen
now in late 2022 it may become valuable in a few years. Some kind of
verifiably timestamped encryption might be useful.
I could type out a long essay that could potentially have relevance to a few points at play here, but let me try something else.
While your attempts to create direction/meaning/etc. for yourself have largely, by your account failed, it seems that you're sufficiently responsible to maintain employment doing software development. As you say, it gives you something to do, and for whatever reason, it makes enough sense to your mind as a motivator to keep at it for the long term.
What if you were to get a dev job that's 100% in-office? Yes, it's forced interaction, but unless you're ultimately a sociopath or something, you'll create enough context with people to potentially form some friendships that can extend beyond work hours. Don't be like a sad puppy following everyone around and don't be an aloof hermit hiding in your cubicle or whatever setup there would be -- both of those things would halt any progress. Observe the social environment and look for opportunities to get involved in the ways that you may be interested in without forcing yourself to be the opposite of who you think you are. If you don't know what you're interested in, then observe until you start getting some ideas. You have the ability in you -- being a software dev requires some level of imagination.
Maybe there's a delivery team monthly bar meetup -- go to that. Maybe there's a department-wide softball match every quarter -- go to that. Go and give it a try, and if it doesn't work out, at least you'd have the satisfaction of having tried.
People have a problem with it because it's a string of words without meaning. Better to leave it out than to sully modern language further with meaningless gibberish that looks like language.
Deaths, divorces, moves, bankruptcies, etc. still happen, so there's still a market. The average peasant didn't suddenly begin to make 2x more per month, so for the same fixed monthly payment, the house price needs to go way down. Cash buyers may be less sensitive to rates, but even they have significantly slowed purchases since the low rate frenzy.
Honestly, your work seems like it's a huge part of your life, and it's not anywhere near that for the vast majority of other devs, working remotely or not. People generally spend their "absolute love" points on their kids, spouses, pets, friends, etc. and leave work to be a transaction involving time and money. And why shouldn't they? If someone absolutely loves Wells Fargo, GE, Microsoft, Amazon, or whatever, that company is not going to "love" them back.
Nah, you're wrong there. I actually only work 4 days / week for most of the year. It's not that I am requiring my working time to fill my life with meaning, it's more that I feel the almost third of my life I spent working has significantly lost in fun and meaning for me personally. The whole point of the post was to see how others felt about it and get some insights into different (and similar) perspectives.
Even so, this meaning was never really there at the scale you might be thinking of. I understand its significance for you, but not many people are shedding tears over not having to commute 1 hour or more 5 days per week to be around people they don't really like in an environment filled with distractions, later coming home to a house they can barely afford on 2 full time salaries. To understand the change that has happened, you have to consider the greater context.
If you're a hotshot, you should honestly consider gathering some like-minded people in your area and launching a startup.
This privilege (which is really just code for $$$) you mention existed in the same exact way prior to mass WFH, except that it resulted in more air pollution, more wasteful traffic, etc. Individuals rationally take a small scale solution to a direct problem instead of potentially solving a huge problem in 50+ years. The post in general is like ranting about not collectively curing cancer when someone asks for a bandage for a small wound.
What I'm getting from that is that you want some func that takes in a []T where the T is constrained to some set of types, and you want to call the func without having to specify the type that you're passing in using square brackets every time.
If that's correct, then is this what you need? https://go.dev/play/p/_e-Uipgo5OQ It seems quite straightforward so I think I'm missing some context, but this can be a start.
I made an example of what Im trying to do. One thing I didnt specify is the function used is a receiver function. For some reason this means the type had to be instantiated on the receiver itself Spotter in this case.
https://goplay.tools/snippet/Vj7uVMi0mWn
Basically have two different types that implement an interface, pass them into a receiver function in a composite type (array,slice).
Part of the issue is that you cant have the receiver function without defining instantiating the type on the receiver Spotter in this case.
If I'm, again, understanding what's happening, as the example above doesn't compile in its current state, then you'll probably run into this limitation:
I believe the most simple fix would be to have a separate function which is generic that takes in the struct along with the slice of T with the constraints that apply to it.
Yep, I confirm that is my experience as well. Google is starting to inch towards the television industry. In all honesty Im not watching any TV these days but i imagine its some advertising and snippets of content. Youtube without membership or ad blockers is just like that if not worse. From how if started to what is has become it’s a long way…
Yup. I now pretty much use YouTube search only to call up a video where I have the YT ID. Everything else is a waste of time, and I just use DDG search if I want to find something without the ID in hand.
How management thinks it is a good idea to make their products useless by letting a bunch of self-aggrandizing "analysts" or marketers or whatever attempt to manipulate their customers/viewers is beyond me. The fact that they are all paid to fork it up so badly is just mindboggling.
Myspace was the place to be until one day it wasn’t. YouTube is a behemoth but it too could fall one day. For now the amount of information it has is just too valuable but it is becoming less enjoyable to use the site all the time. On iOS I don’t have an Adblock and am forced to watch countless ads and then When I watch the ad the video fails to load. So I refresh and sometimes that works sometimes I need to do it several times before the video will play. It is a shame they have gone so downhill over the years for us old enough to remember the beginnings.
As a regular user, my expectation is that the very first results from a search would be from matching the title string (possibly after trying to match the unique video id seen in the url), only afterwards would results from keyword matching and other such metadata show up.
Maybe I'm out of touch but I don't think this is an unreasonable expectation.
It's not unreasonable, and it's exactly how it used to work until Google started messing around with inserting ads into every aspect of the site (they very much want you to you click on the ad-laden videos you were NOT looking for). They changed the default and relegated it to be a search modifier.
