They still get admission to a university with lowered standards and a credential at the end of the day. A lot of these scholarship athletes aren't college material and wouldn't get in otherwise. There's some value there.
It's kind of like rich kids who are bad students paying for admission into elite schools. Obviously there's value, otherwise they wouldn't have their parents pay for it.
Like I said it's non-zero value. But is it more value than a fair wage, negotiated without artificial restrictions? Why can't they grant the athletes admission and give them the option of either studying tuition-free, or pay tuition but earn a salary for playing?
Whether manufacturing grows, on its own or as % of GDP, has nothing to do with any particular segment of manufacturing has grown or declined, or emerged or disappeared.
As a thought experiment, you can do the same analysis with any number of technologies from the 20th century—typewriters, vacuum tubes, plate-based printing presses, analog telephones—and the point is obvious.
I didn't include typewriters on my list of goods. I only included items like cars and motherboards that were as economically relevant at the beginning measurement point as they are at the endpoint.
If you think that the manufacturing output in some of the things I listed declined or stagnated -- but it is countered by the fact that US manufacturing of other newly invented goods has increased -- then please specify what those goods are. Seems to me like the US manufacturing also lags in newly invented goods -- like drones.
As an "older" programmer, I feel the opposite. Git became mainstream very recently, though admittedly it's been a good ten years or more. I sometimes think younger programmers' attitudes toward git are borderline cultish—git or GitHub is not required to do programming—it's just another tool. I half expected something would have replaced it by now.
I have to agree on the cult aspect. This is unfortunate because better tools exist already today, but lots of people refuse to even entertain that possibility.
I feel about git how I presume vim users feel. Maybe there are better ways, but I've become so accustomed to how it works that I doubt I could easily switch to anything else.
> On some level mathematics is a description of reality that we can use to compute things in reality.
This is contested by nominalists. They'd say you have it backwards. Mathematics is just an abstraction/language that can be used as a tool. The reason we're able to understand the world through mathematics says more about the power of mathematics than it does about the world. If the physical world were different, math would still work.
Well if the fundamental constants were different, math would still work the same way. But if a universe acts in a completely different way, say like a dream world, where they is no logical physical causaulity, our universe's math would be irrelevant. You could still think about it but it would be irrelevant to that universe, and not applicable. And so you would also not be able to derive that math from within this universe, at least not the same math as ours. So we have to admit that our mathematics is tied to the universe we inhabit.
The properties of the universe affects mathematics insofar as matter is organized and living agents have a use for it, but its abstractions and logical relations still do not require the universe. I think a metaphysical position like physicalism would have to be invoked for that.
This is a better explanation, but can't the state be measured at any time, unchanged or not? The measurable attribute could always be in flux, for example.
Yes, basically as long as you keep measuring the object with a function (like length or weight etc) and the result of the measurement does not change, the state has not changed. When the result changes, its a new state.
I don't understand why people think Tailwind is a crutch. It's a tool that uses low level abstractions to build things quickly and lends itself to easier maintenance over time. It has its limits, just like high-abstraction CSS or other frameworks have.
It's a bit like saying a van is a "crutch" when you take your family on vacation and that "really" you should be using a bicycle with a trailer on it.
I don't think you understood the analogy. CSS is the language that Tailwind uses. CSS is the language that SCSS is based on. CSS is what other frameworks use. CSS is what the browser interprets for styles.
Tailwind is a methodology and a framework. So, it only makes sense to compare other methodologies or frameworks. "Just CSS" isn't a methodology, though non-web folks often think it is. What they probably mean, most of the time, is a certain brand of high-abstraction CSS made popular in the early 2000s. This way of doing things is 3-4x slower (conservatively) than Tailwind and is more difficult to maintain long term.
Of course, it's possible to mix and match the best features of CSS with a methodology that reigns in these problems, and that's what I'd advocate people do. But generally Tailwind can get you 90% of the way there.
The native experience is pretty good. Most of the complaints I hear are from people coming from other operating systems and have different expectations, which is understandable, but that isn't always the fault of the operating system.
That said, Sequoia includes native window snapping and a password manager. Apple is slowly addressing the "problem."
I'll bet if you polled most people, even non-Apple customers, they'd be okay with paying a little extra for the convenience of an app store. The problem is that it's 30%.
The problem is that it's the only option across the OS. There's no reason this option couldn't exist with other options, built by the app developer so it cost Apple nothing.
The problem is that the fee is not charged to the Apple user on a line item in addition to the content price. Like all markets are supposed to operate. It's information hiding.
But that's not designed in a way which considers that despite the app bringing in millions in total revenue, each individual creator makes far less than that.
It's kind of like rich kids who are bad students paying for admission into elite schools. Obviously there's value, otherwise they wouldn't have their parents pay for it.
reply