Good. Building up is the way to go. Here in Melbourne, >30-story apartment towers have become the norm, and it's succeeded in slowing the rise of housing prices in the inner city quite a bit. I also think it's helping to delay our transportation crisis.
Melbourne's possibly a bad example. Instead of keeping housing prices down Melbourne has some of the highest housing costs in the world. The new apartments are poorly made and often don't even meet building regulations. The lack of social infrastructure such as shops etc. is so bad that it's cited worldwide as an example of how to do it wrong. And half of the apartments are empty, sold to overseas investors who bought them for capital increase and who have left them unoccupied.
Basically it's a complete planning disaster. Let's hope the Mountain View development is better planned than that.
Many are bought without inspection and are not lived in. Some of the large apartment buildings in the north of the CBD and Docklands are largely empty while being completely sold.
This is ridiculous, air travel is expensive because planes are giant expensive machines, consume a significant amount of rare fossil fuel to fly, and can only be safely flown by highly trained experts. No kind of app is going to solve any of those problems.
I use ad blockers for distracting image and popup ads, but I fairly frequently click on Google text ads in search results. When there's a product category that's very crowded, if a company is willing to pony up some money to get my attention, that's often one indicator that a particular product might be worth my time to investigate.
These are about the only ads I deliberately use, and yet, it happens again and again that I am interested in buying XYZ, search for XYZ, click an ad that explicitly mentions XYZ — and find that the advertiser doesn't offer XYZ. What is it about marketeers that has them ceaselessly shitting upstream from where people drink?
Seems like this article makes quite a leap from the study results to their suggestion that everyone reads paper books. Study results:
1. People reading on a screen are more likely to skim
2. Skimming reduces comprehension of the material
3. Reading on paper correlates with better reconstruction of plot
It seems like 1 and 2 taken together are as good an explanation as any for 3. Given that, I feel like it would be at least worth an experiment to see if making a conscious effort to avoid skimming would be just as effective as switching to reading on paper. If so, I think that would be a cheaper and easier solution to the issue.
When I was younger and reading on the web, (the days of 28k modems) I didn't skim as much as a do now. I would put this to my inexperience of reading then (thinking that everything needed to be read). And that now there is a lot of crap on the internet. Its hard to sort out the good stuff that deserves attention. So i skim a lot.
But paper books are king. I tend to move slower through the text and have a more enjoyable time of it.
The funny thing about talking of tabs for piano, is that sheet music is already that. By representing music on a diatonic staff, with a key signature, it's shown in a perfect format to translate it to keys on the piano, at the expense of some other kinds of instruments, vocals, and general understanding of the music, where it would be more helpful to see the music on a chromatic staff.
"Fly is a build system for Node based in ES6 generators and promises that aims to be simple and elegant to write and extend"
If an objective is for it to be simple to write and extend, why use two shiny new features that most programmers will be unfamiliar or inexperienced with?
The theory is that those shiny new features are simple to write and extend, regardless of most programmers' familiarity or experience with them. I don't necessarily agree with that theory in this case, but familiarity is too often conflated with simplicity, when in reality there is a more nuanced interaction between the two.
