People have a mental cap on what text should cost. If someone creates instructional content that provides thousands of dollars in value, they can sell videos for $200+, but a book version is hard to sell over $50, even if both provide the same value. Even for free content it is easier to monetize YouTube than it is to monetize a blog.
If we want people to create more text-based material, it needs to have similar financial incentives.
I think part of this is how society consumes information.
In the 80s, you mostly had books. Sure, there were some video courses, but a majority of the learning was through books.
Now, people consume most of their information in video formats. Think about the rise of Vine, Youtube, TikTok, and the 100s of others out there just like them.
They are growing like weeds, because that's apparently how the public now likes to consume media, info, etc.
I assume most of this video bias comes from the ease of monetization (for content creators) on Youtube. That might in turn come from some mental cap held by viewers on the value of text vs. video, but I suspect it has more to do with the number and value of ads that can be shown by the platform. Some random blog platform is going to maybe have inline image ads, while Youtube has unskippable video ads which I assume are valued more by advertisers.
I have no data to back this up but just taking a stab in the dark - a possible reason might be because people generally tend to prefer learning from someone talking about the subject matter?
I know most all of us here are techies and very used to cracking open books and documentation and text tutorials to teach ourselves stuff, but many people are not like that and especially if you're new to a subject, sometimes books just don't help things to click as well for some reason.
There's probably something to do with the way material is structured and presented differently between talking about it and writing about it, but I wouldn't know what to say about it.
I dunno, just a guess because it's an interesting observation to think about.
When people sign up for Gophercises, the first two emails I send them are about the course asking how the course is going, if they had issues with the player, etc.
After that they get Go related emails. Eg https://ckarchive.com/b/0vuwh9hvx32q Again, not really irrelevant given the interest in learning Go, and 99% of the people I talk to love those emails.
Maybe 3-4x per year I'll have a sale on my other paid courses. During those times people who have been on my mailing list for a set period of time (I think it is at least 10 days and have received at least 2 previous emails from me without unsubscribing, but I'd need to double check) will get a notice about the sale. I try to avoid being super annoying with those, so they will often contain useful lessons about coding with Go even if you aren't interested in the sale.
I make my living selling Go courses. I was only able to create and offer Gophercises as a free course because of this, so yes, I require an email address and I use Gophercises as a marketing tool. I try to make it a decent experience, but no matter what I do someone will always complain. I find my time is better spent helping the people who enjoy and appreciate what I am doing.
Many employment contracts prohibit doing additional contract dev work. I agree the spirit of contract to hire is great, but worth noting it won't work for everyone.
I'd double check that you don't have multiple orgs. You used to share a cess to your account with people, then they made some org change a while back that essentially moved that shared access setup to an org and gave you a new personal account iirc. Easy to not realize you have both.
I recently tried to buy an electric skateboard ($1000+) and couldn’t get to the add to cart button because of the chat interface. A competitor had a similarly rated/speced board so I bought theirs.
That was actually my line of thinking. I was on mobile and it didn’t work. I jumped onto my laptop and still didn’t work. I felt I had put in enough effort at that point. If I didn’t have what I felt was a fairly perfect substitute in the competitors product maybe I would have tried harder.
That requires multiple clicks to 'fix' someone else's website. There should be a more automated (but still suboptimal) solution where you can add Intercom to your ad blocker though.
Was this a timed take home project or something with a flexible timeline? That is, was it "You have to respond within 3 hours of receiving this email with your solution" or something more flexible?
I mostly understand why some companies do the x hours routine, and when I've done interviews this way I've historically performed well, but it just felt like it added unnecessary stress. For instance, anyone on the job doesn't have to worry about issues like, "What if I couldn't get the app up and running because I had the wrong version of X installed?" longer than maybe their first day on the job. And if you plan on hiring an engineer for a few years, one day is irrelevant. At best this felt like it favored contractors who were more experienced at jumping into new projects frequently.
I don't think plausible deniability works on one-of-a-kind artwork. Even if you assume your dealer is legit, any cursory research will tell you it was stolen. It would be like buying the secret formula for Coca-Cola and claiming you didn't know it was stolen because it went through multiple middlemen.
These aren't paintings that are on display to the public after they're stolen. They're kept in houses and families for generations, and by then, time has laundered their provenance. If you read art news, it's not uncommon for museums to have paintings donated to them by the grandchildren of the person who bought the painting, only to learn half a century later that the painting was stolen.
And if someone doesn't like their stolen painting after a while, there are plenty of dealers who will hook you up with a similarly amoral buyer. The fee is higher, to go with the risk.
There's an entire class of rich people who sometimes go by the label "globalist" who believe they are above national laws, and nations, themselves. They see themselves as "citizens of the world" and sometimes even think they shouldn't need passports to travel because their egos tell them they're so fabulous, and have the money to back it up.
I read a magazine or newspaper article about it last year. Many of them attend that big meeting of super-rich people and the politicians they've bought in Davos each year.
But I'm not sure it's entirely outlandish. The buyer just spins a story to the judge: "the dealer said he could acquire a van Gogh from someone's private collection, I loved its appearance, so I paid them to do that." The buyer could insist the dealer said the painting was unnamed, that they would have had no way of ever knowing it was the same one stolen from a museum, etc. (That they certainly never bothered to take a photo and upload it to Google Image Search because why would they?)
To complicate things even further, you can even say you assumed it was a different original version. Just Google "multiple versions of van gogh" and you'll see that the artist would make multiple versions of the same painting.
Obviously the buyer in this case does know what going on -- they initiated the whole thing. But as long as there are no records of communication and the dealer has been paid off to take the fall, they can play dumb in front of a judge if it ever came to that. With a good lawyer, they might very well get away with playing the victim.
If you have enough money to finance an art heist or buy a priceless Van Gogh from a "dealer", you probably have enough money to not go to jail over an art theft. The collector pays a replica price on paper but in reality pays much more to the dealer. If caught, you just say you thought it was a replica, the dealer says they thought it was a replica, their dealer says the same, and so on until no one ends up with any jail time.
> If you have enough money to finance an art heist or buy a priceless Van Gogh from a "dealer", you probably have enough money to not go to jail over an art theft. The collector pays a replica price on paper but in reality pays much more to the dealer. If caught, you just say you thought it was a replica, the dealer says they thought it was a replica, their dealer says the same, and so on until no one ends up with any jail time.
But that story just beggars belief. Sure it's a story, but one that makes no sense at all unless you're willing to entertain the ludicrous premise that someone would steal painting just to sell it as a cheaper replica. Furthermore, a professional art dealer could probably be expected to be able to tell the difference between a replica and a genuine painting. Otherwise, who would buy genuine paintings from him?
I think a prosecutor would be able to quickly identify an individual in the chain of custody who clearly should have known the painting was stolen, and is thus be guilty of receiving stolen property:
And you've just decided that the "replica" was so good that you paid stolen-art-on-the-black-market money for it, not "good replica painter" money for it...
The thing is your books say "good replica money" and only your crypto wallet or offshore account or shell company slush fund or pile of gold have the 'stolen-art-on-the-black-market' money removed from the balance sheet. Smart accountants are payed a lot of money to figure out exactly how to hide this from overworked and underpaid auditors.
Ash and Mickey have tried to capitalise on the theft of a rare Picasso by selling a fake to a well-known collector, Petre Sava (Peter Polycarpou), a vicious Eastern European gangster. They learn too late that Sava who owned the stolen original. Mickey is taken prisoner by Sava, leaving Ash and the others with just a few hours to return the real stolen painting, otherwise Mickey is a dead man. With their usual contacts unable to give any clues, except only the word that a Scottish crew were behind the theft, the gang visit renowned Picasso forger Dolly Hammond (Sheila Hancock) (the one who helped to create the fake). She points them in the direction of the McCrary brothers, the thieves in question, and are told that they stole the original painting for another renowned gangster, Harry Holmes (Martin Kemp). Time is ticking and Mickey is edging closer to death; if the group can't find the real painting, Ash will have to devise a plan that can get him back...
Now imagine being the dev who keeps making proposals and working diligently at the problem only to have countless ideas and proposals shot down for one reason or another. Ian Lance Taylor is persistent if nothing else and I'm hoping his hard work pays off with this proposal.
This is why we’re going round in circles. There’s been significant effort invested in generics for Go, so the team aren’t willing to veto the idea. But they’re not willing to accept a proposal either.
Working on it _internally_, in depths of google sea. There is not much to follow that progress other than following small bubbles from that submarine raising to the surface here and there... (imho, ymmv)
Not everything has to be followed at every step. When they have a relevant update on the draft design they publish it, gather feedback, improve, and so on.
If we want people to create more text-based material, it needs to have similar financial incentives.