I played American football for 8 years and I have lifted weights for 20+ years. I preach deadlifts to any male hacker and/or office worker who will listen. To the women, I preach kettlebell swings.
Why don’t you preach the same thing to both genders? If kettle bells work for women and deadlifts work for men, why not preach both to both genders based on current capacity?
Muscles are different between genders, on average.
A woman's 1RM is a lower percentage of her body weight than a man's (on any exercise, on average), but she will usually be able to do more reps at e.g. 70% of 1RM.
So it makes sense to exercise that higher endurance, and kettlebells are very nice for their mix of strength/endurance work.
(I'm male and love both the barbell and the kettlebell).
You probably know this, but that’s not what that table means.
> Table 3 shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death.
I'm really struggling to see where you're coming from here. You made a claim about what the CDC "admitted" (which is technically correct in the sense that they said it, but it wasn't some sort of "admission"), but misinterpreted it. I called you out on that, and you accused me of accusing you of being a white supremacist. Obviously I did nothing of the sort. I'm just curious why you're pushing the narrative you are.
Disagree. This puts pressure on the app developer to release versions with new features whether it makes sense for the app or not.
I balk at yearly subscriptions to software too for the exact reason you state. But, I also realize that one time purchases don't keep the doors open indefinitely. I wish I had a magic solution for this conundrum, but I don't.
The subscribe-for-continous-updates, and stuck at last-paid update (as long as you pay, you update; if you stop paying, you keep the app, with no further updates) seems like a pretty good model, as far as incentives go
I know I've seen it a couple times, but can't find the search terms to find them now; jetbrains model is a bit wonkier though (key term: perpetual fallback license) -- you subscribe annually, and if you stop the subscription, you roll back to the version available at the time you last paid. So you're basically buying the software as it is today, and then getting a 12-month trial of the updates happening from there.
This doesn't seem to be any better incentive-wise than the model I described (stopping payment stop further updates, so you keep whatever you have today), but comes with the user-backlash of losing what they thought they had (no one feels good about rolling back)
Ah, thank you! It looks like Agenda[0] does use that model. Here's a blog post with details[1] in which they mention that Sketch[2] also uses the same business model (with some minor variations).
tl;dr: you buy the app and 1 year of updates. You keep what you pay for.
I wonder if it would be viable for an app like photoshop to have a feature marketplace. You start with a very basic version of the app and you buy the features you want piecemeal. You then have a separate service contract for ongoing support (ie: bug fixes).
Oracle is famous for this, and it basically amounts to anything you want to do leads you to another sales rep with an upsell -- everything useful becomes feature-gated.
It might work better with consumers, where such a strategy isn't cost-effective, but I also imagine its a difficult system to tech support -- you get a combinatorial explosion of possible "features" that may be in play. Anyways, it incentivizes bad behavior even consumer side, encouraging results like 200 $1 features and communities/tutorials/discussion becomes strangled
I hate the infinite canvas in Sketch. It sounds great when you're creating things, but you have no idea where anything is when you go back to read it later.
Totally get what you are saying - A solution to navigation in an infinite canvas could be a concept of “zones” Which I’d envision as similar to the art boards feature in illustrator, so that you can click on a menu to take you to sections you have defined.
Another factor here is employability. Employers go with the latest fad framework because they think it'll improve their ability to hire engineers in the short term. Unfortunately, this means that web developers need to always know the latest fad framework, whether they like it or not, or they won't get interviews let alone job offers.
Jtsummers' explanation is correct, but I wanted to weigh in with an easy rule of thumb, which you may find easier to remember:
1. A law gives you a relationship with no mechanism. It almost always appears as a mathematical formula. You know how the pieces change with respect to another, but not why.
2. A theory gives you a mechanism. It tells you why. On rare occasions, it will not provide quantifiable predictions, in which case it is a qualitative theory.
Well, I'm not interested in explaining this to a five-year old, but I'll treat you as an adult and use words over two syllables.
> Laws are proved. Theories are unproven.
This is not what is used to identify something as either a law or a theory in scientific discourse.
First, "laws" may be disproven, or falsified: Newton's Law of Gravity could actually be considered disproven as it is not accurate at all scales, but it's accurate enough within its scope to continue using it. It's considered a law in the sense that it matches empirical, observed data (within certain bounds). See [0] for details on that. So that, right there, is a flaw in your understanding.
Second, laws do not attempt to offer an explanation of the phenomenon they describe, they offer predictive value like "a ball dropped from 50 meters will, at time t, have velocity ...". Again, Newton's Laws do not explain why gravity works, only offering a model to calculate the effect of it. This brings us to theories.
Theories are, again, falsifiable via empirical evidence (like laws), but they offer an attempt at explanation. A Theory of Gravity would try to explain why objects are attracted to each other and why the mass effects the amount of attraction. The theory can be shown as false, but like a law it can only be shown to match empirical data. This is not the same as proven.
TLDR: The distinguishing characteristic is that both attempt to predict, but theories attempt to explain. Both are falsifiable, and neither are considered proven only to match empirical data (possibly within some constraints).
I'm completely ignorant on this topic, so I apologize for asking what must be an extremely stupid question to you, but: what makes stability a static quality whereas resilience is a dynamic quality? Are these statistical definitions that I can look up somewhere?
Not OP, but my take is that stability is usually defined as a base-state that will continue onto perpetuity unless some outside force disrupts it. Resiliency is more closely defined as the ability to recover from disruptions back to the base-state quickly.
Since the context here is that efficiency can remove layers of redundancy therefore allowing disruptions to wreck more havoc - I believe that's what OP was getting at.
