The awesome thing for bootstrap startup is that if they go well you can get 100% of earnings and you are able to distribuite your dividends whenever you want.
If you are VC-funded you have lots of constraints in this. You are almost pushed to continually re-invest your earnings every year and only get a salary.
Agree. I turned off any analytics and all 3rd party tracking. Found this you can avoid cookie banner.
I only track internal product success metrics and occasionally gather feedback from phone support.
You get totally better perspective talking to users.
Analyzing data is limited because you don’t the user mind when is looking for something or clicking.
I mean, there is nothing stopping people from using the [Diataxis Framework](https://diataxis.fr/) for any sort of documentation - it just doesn't have as great a foothold outside our sphere.
I was a bit surprised it or Divio (where it was created) announced when they talked about the four types of documentation. I would love to see it make its way into information systems curriculum, as it's a quite useful mental model.
I go back and forth on the usefulness of Diataxis and related information frameworks—Mark Baker (of EPPO fame) has an interesting series[1] about the DITA equivalent of task, concept, and reference:
> If there is a problem with DITA, then, it is not that it lacks a theory of information design. The problem is that many people actually believe that it does have a theory of information design, and that that theory can be summed up in three words: concept, task, and reference. But a theory for breaking content up into pieces is not a theory of information design unless it also includes a theory of how the pieces should go back together.
> There is, of course, nothing preventing DITA users from having or developing a sound theory about how the pieces should go back together. The problem is not that DITA does not provide one. The problem is that writers often do not see that they need one. They believe, or act as if they believed, that the devolution into concept, task, and reference is a complete information design. The result, generally, is Frankenbooks.
Which I think is a salient point, and less an indictment on the "three/four types" model than a reminder that you shouldn't just throw together a bunch of type-delineated docs for their on sake; the individual pieces have to make a functional whole.
So I'm certainly in favor of supplementing traditional OpenAPI-esque reference docs with more conceptual or task-based docs... provided that they're actually designed to complement each other.
“A new study published in the scientific peer-reviewed journal, Climate, by 37 researchers from 18 countries suggests that current estimates of global warming are contaminated by urban warming biases.
The study also suggests that the solar activity estimates considered in the most recent reports by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimated the role of the Sun in global warming since the 19th century.”
"The paper was strongly criticized by numerous scientists for its methodology and for its misuse of data from previously published studies, which prompted concerns about the peer review process of the paper. The controversy resulted in the resignation of half of the editors of the journal and in the admission by its publisher, Otto Kinne, that the paper should not have been published as it was."
No it didn't occur to me to check that two of the thirty-seven authors were involved in a controversy 20 years earlier. Concerning those resignations the article notes that, "In a Climate Research editorial pre-published on 5 August 2003, its publisher Otto Kinne expressed regrets about the resignations of von Storch, Goodess, and a third editor, Mitsuru Ando." And it should be noted that resignations are not proof of wrong-doing, especially in a hotly contested area such as this where pressure can be brought to bear on people in any number of ways. Furthermore, pointing to an incident 20 years ago to somehow smear research published recently is rather a gauche and ugly way of refuting a claim.
I think the claim that the paper makes that what scientists have been measuring (when it comes to global warming) is in fact the difference between urban and rural temperature readings due to the urban heat island effect and the effect of increasing urbanization over time. This is how science works, no? If scientists show that there are errors in this paper then all well and good but can we stick to arguing about research on the merits of the research itself rather than going after the people who make the claims, that whole tactic is getting rather tiring.
Willie Soon is the lead author on that paper. A single glance at his Wikipedia page would have told you he's a completely discredited climate change denier who has sold out to fossil fuel interests.
I'm not interested in the millionth debunking of these idiots. Look it up for yourself if it's news to you.
Oh, and the urban heat island effect is taught to kids at school. The idea that all the climate scientists around the world somehow failed to account for it is just stupid.
You don't wonder how they even found this? Between the amount of climate change affirming papers, you'd almost have to be looking at the list of recent controversies
I understand but Code LLama or CoTracker do not create content for Facebook/Instagram. Moreover, AI-generated content is not so engageable as a human-generated content. I don't think the purpose is to have more content at lower price.
The theory makes sense, but it's not clear what its complement is?
