Going for a run helped formulate so many of my best ideas and solved so many tricky problems I was facing. It was always one of three places: on a run, in the shower, or right before falling asleep.
I don't live in the US. I am familiar with Warby Parker and, to a lesser extent, with Gymshark and Liquid Death, but it needs to be proven that they became well known thanks to online advertising.
I have no idea who/what Casper and Olipop are, to be honest.
How can one "prove" it? I don't have access to their ad account, only what the founders and executives say publicly. Gymshark for example grew with influencer marketing on Instagram and TikTok and then having their own ads and media on said platforms. These companies are all well known case studies and have many sources online with a simple search.
It is trivial to find them online, just search the company name and then "ads". I assume you don't go on TikTok or Instagram or if you do you aren't part of the target market to be served these ads.
The paper says that influencer marketing was new in Gymshark's case. It doesn't claim that this works repeatedly. Was it lightning in a bottle, i.e. Gymshark got lucky because it was early, or is it a consistently smart strategy?
Their opinion is also behind on LibreOffice, too. I won't defend GIMP's monstrosity, but I finished a whole dissertation, do all my regular spreadsheet work (that isn't done via R), and have created plenty of visual mockups with LibreOffice. Plus, I don't have to deal with a spammy Windows environment.
Sure, we use Google Drive, too, but that's just for sharing documents across offices, not for everyday use. For that, the open source model is a clear winner in my book.
I've wondered this myself. The aftertaste on some of them is vile. The disappointing thing is that so many products use them when they reduce sugar, but sometimes I just want a reduced sugar product without any additional sweeteners. That seems hard to find these days.
I've been curious about the just-less-sugar idea myself. Like how would a Coca-Cola "dry" taste? Maybe the fact that nobody is offering this just means it doesn't taste good.
Some other countries have products with less sugar than the US's version. Fanta is a noticeable one. I just want a late afternoon beverage that isn't alcohol, doesn't have a crap ton of sugar, has no sugar substitutes, and isn't too heavy on the caffeine. Might go back to decaf.
Coca-Cola tried at least twice to market half-sugar Coke (C2 and Life). But instead of just doing half-sugar, they added aspartame and stevia respectively to compensate...
I've never experienced any compatibility issues with XLS(X) in LibreOffice Calc, and I've been Windows-free for over a decade. Sure, some spreadsheets might have unique functions in it, but I doubt that's the case for the majority over people using Excel.
I'd also argue that Excel is holding back businesses. Instead of storing information in CSVs (for R or Python processing) or SQL, people rely on it when they shouldn't. It's not just that developers dislike Excel, it's that using it frequently causes huge errors:
> Sure, some spreadsheets might have unique functions in it
Million and Billion dollar businesses run their whole companies off Excel. They're not really interested in the risk a software change would entail for their companies or individual careers.
> I'd also argue that Excel is holding back businesses.
> Million and Billion dollar businesses run their whole companies off Excel. They're not really interested in the risk a software change would entail for their companies or individual careers.
I have heard that but never really observed that.
What you usually really have is a number of execs spending their live micromanaging via excel and annoying in cascade all the hierarchical levels below them with excel reports but only a small fraction of them usually have any real business logic and it wouldn't be complicated to switch to something else.
It is simply the good old resistance to change.
In my first job in IT while waiting for my first unix sysadmin role I did some windows support + migrations, I've seen medical secretaries enter in proper rage because we had replaced word 95 for word 97 and the icons were slightly different. Keyboards were launched against monitors. Even accross variying versions of products of the same editor resistance to change applies.
The biggest challenge with replacing Microsoft is licenses come bundled. With office 365 comes online storage/sharing platform, email, chat platform. If you want to move out you need to find alternatives for all of them and all at the same time otherwise you are paying more for the same thing.
This is correct, and it's not limited to code. I can take the story of Cinderella, create something new out of it, copyright my new work, but Cinderella remains public domain for someone else to do something with.
If I use public domain code in a project under a license, the whole work remains under the license, but not the public domain code.
If someone else uses your exact same prompt to generate the exact same code, can you claim copyright infringement against them? If the output is possible to copyright, then you could claim their prompt is infringement (just like if it reproduced Harry Potter). If it isn’t copyrightable, then the kernel would not have legal standing to enforce the GPL on those lines of code against any future AI reproduction of them. The developers might need to show that the code is licensed under GPL and only GPL, otherwise there is the possibility the same original contributor (eg the AI) did permit the copy. The GPL is an imposed restriction on what the kernel can legally do with any code contributions. That seems legally complicated for some projects—probably not the kernel with the large amount of pre-AI code, but maybe it spells trouble for smaller newer projects if they want to sue over infringement. IANAL.
> If someone else uses your exact same prompt to generate the exact same code, can you claim copyright infringement against them?
No, because they've independently obtained it from the same source that you did, so their copy is "upstream" of your imposing of a new license.
Realistically, adding a license to public domain work is only really meaningful when you've used it as a starting point for something else, and want to apply your license to the derivative work.
It's a rigged game. If there's a bet that player X will foul player Y, without proper safeguards, player X can bet on himself and then intentionally player player Y. The actual harm is that by the rules of the betting, no one should know the outcome who could also bet on the game, so the losers are being robbed of their money.
In this particular context, it's also possible that there are illicit transfers of money without being immediately noticeable. Bribery could happen at the highest levels with it being very difficult to trace and prosecute.
> Traditional Chinese relies on context: “Rain heavy, not go”, “雨大，不去了”.
> Modern Chinese demands explicit logic: “Because the rain is heavy, therefore I will not go.””因为雨下得很大，所以我决定不去了。”
Two observations. One, I see this in Thai, too, which might yet preserve that earlier syntax. ไม่เผ็ด ไม่กิน ("No spicy, no eat") is perfectly fine in Thai, though it is possible (and very unidiomatic) to create a formal conditional using เพราะ ("because").
Two, it's also true that ancient languages in general have a different logic to their syntax than their modern descendants. I've always felt it was easier to read and understand academic French than ancient Latin, despite having much less training in the former than the latter. There is probably a shift that happens, that isn't always deliberate, when speakers of a language encounter a radically different world than one they were born into. And add contact to that: the author write of creolization, though it's not only about vocabulary and syntax. That's the just the visible. It's often about changing how we perceive things. To return to Thai, squid, octopus, and cuttlefish are all ปลาหมึก. For English speakers, those are similar things, but all clearly distinct. But for Thai speakers, they're all ปลาหมึก, just different types.
"to Thai, squid, octopus, and cuttlefish are all ปลาหมึก. For English speakers, those are similar things, but all clearly distinct. But for Thai speakers, they're all ปลาหมึก, just different types."
Then, ปลาหมึก = coleoidea? If so, the squid, octopus, and cuttlefish are (in English and many other languages) all just types of coleoidea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coleoidea
Coleoidea is a technical word, though, and ปลาหมึก isn't. Ordinary people use ปลาหมึก to refer to all of them, but they might not use that same word to describe e.g. nautiloids. It doesn't map neatly on our technical language.
Tai languages are a completely different language family to Chinese, written using Indian abugidas and largely prisoner to a confluence of religious affectation, court ritual and the popular language of the peasantry as popular literacy never occurred. By contrast, Chinese has an uninterrupted written history spanning thousands of years with world leading poetry, philosophy and science. In terms of historical and linguistic nuance, comparing the two on the basis of an excluded adverb is like eating a banana and declaring it tree-rice.
(Re: child as can't post reply - Assam was always effectively surrounded by larger empires (Tibet, Myanmar, Bengal/Pala/northern India) and a disease-ridden tropical backwater so I guess its cultural and political fate was always to be dominated by larger outside influences.
Actually IIRC there's some linguistic history in the Taic languages that Ahom influence moved eastward through Myanmar. If you look at the geography (much wider spaces) it makes sense that you'd shift focus to richer climes. Perhaps much as the south Indian seafarers who contributed so critically to Cambodia saw it as a vast and wealthy land with geographic echoes of home.)
> written using Indian abugidas and largely prisoner to a confluence of religious affectation, court ritual and the popular language of the peasantry as popular literacy never occurred
I agree that Thai is in a completely different language family than Chinese, but I don't see what this quoted bit has to do with anything. (And surely it would apply just as well to their neighbors to the west, who do speak a Sino-Tibetan language)
I wasn't saying that Thai and Chinese are in the same family, but that it was doing the same thing as ancient Chinese, perhaps due to contact. I think the consensus is that Kra-Tai speakers were living in China and moved into central Thailand only about a thousand years ago.
reply