Market forces will ensure this system isn’t utilized regardless of how good it is. Ruby is simply to similar to Python to consider training people solely in that.
It’s a hard reality because I’m sure Ruby is better according to some criteria, but be realistic their share of the market is going to shrink until it’s not really an option of most large companies.
I know people will disagree with me, but I wish I knew earlier in my Carr how little this sort of thing matters.
Thankfully, programming languages are subject to strong network effects but not massive ones, Ruby will continue to be a niche language that has active users and projects for many more years than you expect.
The best designed sites I use are those cookie-cutter illegal sports steaming sites because their design is so similar I can navigate them all the same way.
The example you gave is the exception, not the rule. Sharing UX among these streaming sites is expected because they're completely replaceable, and you expect to churn through them as they shut down and pop up again somewhere else. Why would any of them want to change anything up if it might disappear in a week?
People like unique designs because those designs (ideally) exist to cater to the ever-so-slightly different needs, different things that different websites are meant to convey or do. It's not just about being pretty or looking not like everyone else, though some users and designers can mistake it for that.
Even something like video streaming can have lots of variations because there's so many different types of video content to serve. Optimizing for these needs will require making design choices, which will eventually compound in a unique UX. I enjoy websites that are fine-tuned for serving their purpose, and that manage to do so in a simple and performant way. Generic boilerplate designs can work fine on most 'average' websites, but going further requires putting more thought into it.
It's not empty. Do you think I sat down and thought "let's write down a post that looks like something but is actually nothing"? I assumed you'd be able to infer some examples from what I gave you. Sorry it took me longer than a sentence.
Take video streaming, like what you mentioned. Say, you have livestreaming available. How do you let the user go back and watch back old recordings? Split up the stream by days? Hours? Separate events? Have a video player with infinite seek? Be able to type in the date of the recording? A sports streaming site would answer these differently from a gaming site or your indoor camera's website. What about offering episodic content? Should it play back-to-back? Do you want fancy lists with thumbnails or will "Episode 1", "Episode 2" do just fine? Okay, now what about ad types? Should there be recommendations? Do you want a way to expand the player and dim the rest of the UI? And thousands more questions like these.
You need to make design decisions, it's inherent in the job. Being "average" just means relegating these decisions to something someone else has done before. And this can be done well, but it can also be done out of laziness that leads to obtuse GUIs that bother themselves more with current trends or eye candy than thinking about what it's made for.
I mean the joke should be that this actually the best website design because this is basically where response design peaked.
Convince me a human can actually do better than this. It’s unclear what more is actually required from a website other than this. They point out things like not understanding authentication is bad, but at least the AI won’t develop a fundamentally incorrect idea about it like a human would.
Nobody ever got fired for checking ChatGPT for something that they didn’t know, but plenty of people without it have just made mistakes carefully read documentation and misinterpreting it.
What? This style of site uses 1/3 of the page to display 3 icons. It was definitely a trend, but sites used to contain better information density prior to this marketing style trash site.
Yes one page with 3 buttons the buttons should be 1/3 the size of the page seems obvious literally an advanced computer algorithm determined this, but seems extremely obvious to me.
It’s honestly becoming a national subculture. Being a “burnout”. In tech burnout means you’re exhausted on working on things. In America “a burnout” is someone so deeply in debt they don’t even try to really pay it off, they just ignore the debt and spend money on cheap thrills when they can. Obviously not something that you advertise about yourself, but go to any bar in rural south and they know what am talking about.
As bad as the debt situation is in the US there’s not much a collection agency can do to force you to pay relatively petty sums under 100,000 they will just harass you basically.
The Roman proverb goes “The begger laughs in the face of the bandit” so burnouts spread money before it can be taken from them, then turn around and beg for more. A person who’s established this mentality, the exact amount they owe is the least of there problems.
I’m really glad this article acknowledges that better access to antibiotics is probably the best solution to the problem. I’ve actually heard people argue the opposite.
Many people, even doctors will blame patients for creating antibiotics resistant strains. While it’s true that a resistant strain can develop and spread due to an individual’s actions, those strains will gradually lose their resistance once no longer exposed to antibiotics, so it’s probably better have antibiotics be accessible drugs everywhere to prevent any initial spread and just trust people won’t use them chronically for no reason. Though I’d argue lack of access to antibiotics contributes more to the spread of disease then careless patients stuffing down their mouths, it really depends on what type of bacteria it is. Patients with viruses often misdiagnose themselves as needing antibiotics and that’s another reason it’s not over the counter, that builds resistant bacteria, not inside the patient but in the external environment due to excretion in urine etc.
Doctors will often chide patients for not taking the whole bottle of antibiotics once they stop feeling symptoms as if this gives more opportunity for the resistant strain to spread. It’s true it’s probably safer to totally ensure you are free of disease before stopping a medication, but increasing the overall level of antibiotics in the environment boosts resistance in every case. As people on this thread have pointed out the mass use of antibiotics in cattle farming is going to contribute significantly to resistance because it permanently increases the amount of antibiotics in the environment. Other than stopping that not much can be done to prevent this
It’s kind of a non-issue on an individual level as resistant strains lose resistance over relatively short periods time, once no longer exposed to the antibiotic, people just assume if the bacteria evolved an advantageous trait it will never lose that trait even though it’s no longer advantageous once it’s environment returns to normal.
> those strains will gradually lose their resistance once no longer exposed to antibiotics,
I've never heard this. Can you cite an example or source for this? How could we be losing if medicine can afford to "wait out" a strain? MRSA's been around 80 years. Call me skeptical.
“We previously reconstructed a 1,000-year-old remedy containing onion, garlic, wine, and bile salts, known as ‘Bald’s eyesalve’, and showed it had promising antibacterial activity. In this current paper, we have found this bactericidal activity extends to a range of Gram-negative and Gram-positive wound pathogens in planktonic culture and, crucially, that this activity is maintained against Acinetobacter baumannii, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis and Streptococcus pyogenes in a soft-tissue wound biofilm model” [1].
> How could we be losing if medicine can afford to "wait out" a strain?
In general, “mutations that confer larger” resistance “are more costly” in terms of fitness [2].
Absent the selection pressure of a particular antibiotic, the bugs without that resistance generally outcompete the ones weaving chainmail against Tomahawks.
To prove the claim we need to see that the salve is useful and that it used to be less useful because of resistance. Is that proven somewhere? This just looks like a "new" antibiotic.
And the more important part is losing resistance in a meaningful timeframe, much smaller than 1000 years. Also the relevant genes can't be easy to reactivate.
Salves are antibiotic in the sense that they are antimicrobial. Bald's is effective in the same way that bleach, chlorhexidine, iodine, etc are. They are for external and external wound use and have no function against an existing deep or systemic infection.
I don't have a source or example and I don't have the time to properly search, but I can provide a quick explanation:
The vast majority of resistance mechanisms are detrimental to the cell that has them.
1. The bacteria consumes energy to be resistant by pumping out the antibiotic, blocking it with a protein or breaking it down with an enzyme.
2. Alters it's billion-years-optimized metabolism or structure to be resistant and this affects it's efficiency.
3. Forgoes on a source of energy because it can't use it anymore.
> those strains will gradually lose their resistance once no longer exposed to antibiotics
No, they do not. Bacteria eventually optimize and streamline genes that confer resistance, and they stay around basically forever in a small reservoir of bacteria. So once you start using the antibiotics again, these streamlined genes almost immediately reappear.
Another problem is that there is scarcely any place left in the world where disease-causing bacteria can survive for long without being exposed to some amount of antibiotics. Modern farms and hospitals are contaminating the entire environment with antibiotics. So there's always a bit of selection pressure that favors those with resistance genes.
A few years ago, a North Korean soldier was shot several times as he dashed across the border in plain sight of other soldiers. After he arrived in the South, the surgeon who treated his wounds reported an unusually high effectiveness of antibiotics administered to him. The bacteria on his skin and in his guts had been exposed to little to no antibiotics before.
The soldier is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh_Chong-song but the Western media doesn't seem to talk about antibiotic resistance. It might have been an informal mention in the domestic media, not part of the official report. (The surgeon who treated him is a kind of celebrity in Korea, so whatever he says in lectures and interviews tends to get repeated in the news.)
Is it still the case? I mean sure, it was going on on such scale that the joke was "chicken soup is best for sickness as it already contains antibiotics" but surely it was already banned in most countries?
Sure in North America and Europe but it’s s to ok intensive in India, Australia, China, Thailand and many other countries. Sadly viruses have no border.
> better access to antibiotics is probably the best solution
This is an incredibly poor read. New antibiotics are a necessity of greater resistance but this magic conveyor belt of novel antibiotics isn't the best solution; preserving the efficacy of our existing drugs is.
Honestly not sure how to reply to the rest of this. Antibiotics being over-the-counter does not create higher resistance. Bacteria can't pass in urine as they are [far] too big. Inappropriate farm antibiotics are a real problem but it's the same problem with the same solution. And bacteria only lose resistance if the resistance causes a disadvantage in low-antibiotic environments. Many resistances do not, and so persist.
Your doctors aren't making this up. Take full courses, don't use antibiotics when they're not needed. Yes, it's just kicking the ball down the field, but it's essential.
My dog has been getting UTIs her whole life, ever since she was a pup. The vet kept prescribing the same antibiotic over and over again. We would do the full 10 days of treatment, the symptoms would be alleviated for a couple weeks, and then they gradually showed up again over the course of a few weeks to a month.
They kept insisting asking if we did give it twice a day, are we sure we did the full course, did we respect the 12h interval, etc. The vets told us this (we saw about 6 different vets at the clinic), the person manning the phone berated us, the nurse welcoming us again repeated the same thing.
Eventually I asked to see the test results (the cultures). It was clear that another antibiotic was effective, and that the one they were giving us wasn’t (it was about 25% better than the control). I asked why we couldn’t get the other one, and it turned out it was difficult to get in our country because it was only approved for humans.
We had to get a dispensation from the health ministry to import it from a neighbouring country. It was a mess of a process that took weeks.
Blaming patients is so ingrained that we were being gaslit into giving our pet an ineffective treatment and made to feel like we were doing something wrong all along.
Sorry, I’m not at all into biology so I didn’t know how to express it.
I just meant that over the course of 72 hours, the speed at which the Petri dish with the less-effective antibiotic was filling up seemed to lag behind the control by about 24 hours. At 72 hours both were “full” regardless.
Except that’s not at all how the economy works. The government will simply double or triple the debt again and the economy will continue to grow in size as the nominal value of currency goes down giving the illusion that prices are going up.
Literally the exact same thing that’s been happening since Andrew Jackson was president. There’s no magical collection agency that will force people to start plowing the fields to pay taxes. There’s no magical resource that we will run out of the government will just pay people to build infrastructure that will prop up businesses run by idiotic MBAs like it’s always been.
Yeah sounds like you get your medical advice from the Kremlin. There no conspiracy to hide the medical benefits of leaching, can you imagine if that actually worked? Every doctor in the world would have to be a complete moron not to notice.
I don't know why they decided to use the term "blood letting" but I'm pretty sure some of the benefits being talked about in the response also come from donating blood (which is essentially the same thing)? You calling it "leaching" doesn't seem good faith
