Not a clubhouse expert but it seems clubhouse is better for “spontaneous” conversations/talks, as in I don’t have to upload it as a podcast perhaps do post-processing etc to get my content out.
It also allows you to promote your audience to speakers so it’s more of an interactive podcasts, so you can actually ask questions to a panel or the speaker.
Again, haven’t used it much but this is what I understand Clubhouse brings to the table.
> as in I don’t have to upload it as a podcast perhaps do post-processing etc to get my content out
That sounds like shirking the responsibility of not wasting the listener's time, i.e. lowering the barrier to production at the cost of raising the friction of consumption. For the app to be popular to use — rather than just popular to publish on — wouldn't you want the opposite?
Or, to put that another way: wouldn't "an edited recording of a talk recorded on Clubhouse, posted to YouTube" become a more popular way to consume Clubhouse content, than actually going on Clubhouse? And would this not kill any hope Clubhouse would have of ever monetizing, since there would be no users on the app itself to ever show ads to?
(I think this is truly the thing that really did "kill" Vine, in the end: there was no reason for most people — who are not, themselves, performers — to engage with Vines on Vine, when they could just engage with Vine compilations on YouTube. The creators saw the writing on the wall and sold it. TikTok came up with a better model, "democratizing" Vine's professionally-produced-funny-6-second-clip model into the much more widely-engaged-with "clip of a pretty person being silly with platform-licensed music in the background" model.)
> That sounds like shirking the responsibility of not wasting the listener's time
This is why I don't consume podcasts. If it's worth saying, then it's worth making a transcript, which I can skim (or top-and-tail) in a tenth of the time it takes to listen to the whole thing.
Popehat was a blog that I used to visit regularly. Then Ken decided he was too busy to write, and most of his content is now some unscripted podcast - the blog now gets maybe a couple of posts a year, apart from the links to his podcasts.
Sure but the argument in the comment I was responding to was “look at all this long-form produced spoken content, clubhouse can tap that”. I don't experience much (any) spontaneous short form spoken content on the internet. The interactive element is interesting if that can somehow become relevant.
Can't one always say that?
Wouldn't it be more fair to compare equal level of skill?
I mean, in most cases it doesn't really matter what tech you choose as 1. Most products don't really need "massive scale" 2. It's more important to be proficient in the tech you pick rather than it being the "best tech ever". I mean Facebook still uses PHP no?
I might be thinking about this wrong, but does one have to "agree" rather than be indifferent with an expert?
I mean I don't agree or disagree with wearing face masks, but it's very clear the consensus among "experts" is that wearing masks is a good thing to prevent spreading a virus such as covid-19.
My point is more, to me wearing a mask is the "way it is" because the scientific community thinks it is through peer review etc. In my kind disagreement / agreement does not come into the question? I'm more questioning if the consensus is based on proper peer reviewed articles. And if was really concerned about the question I might research these, hopefully, publicly available papers.
In the case of vaccine / anti - vaccine my opinion is not really relevant (whether I agree or disagree), but the consensus is that vaccines helps us. If you think this consensus is wrong it's on you to prove otherwise instead of simply saying "it's my opinion". And the way you do this is to pursue research that can disprove vaccines are good?
The point of science is opinions don't matter, results do?
On the face-masks, the majority of experts do think it's a good thing, but there is not really any solid evidence. The WHO June 5th statement on this:
At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID-19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.
Indeed, interviewed on BBC Radio 4 last week, Professor Venki Ramakrishnan, president of the Royal Society (the UK "academy of science") declared that to ask for such evidence would be "methodological fetishism", we are expected, no demanded, to accept the opinions of experts.
I've heard this a couple of times, it's a bit trite, a little anti-science, but worth some analysis. Suppose your analogy holds: which of mask-wearing and non-wearing is the parachute and which is the empty backpack? I ride the London underground regularly, masks are mandatory and 90-95% of people wear one. I'd say 20% of people let it drift down from their nose while they play on their phones, more than that are constantly adjusting it, touching their face with the hands that are also touching the seats and the hand-rails. Is this more or less dangerous than not wearing one at all? Are we really saying that this question is outside the realm of science?
Not at a community level. Only a droplet level. There's no measures on if stopping droplets compensates for the fact that people touch their face every 10 seconds due to wearing a mask. Numerous places with mask laws have skyrocketing case counts.
No there isn't. If there was, why is the British scientist demanding faith rather than presenting evidence for mask wearing? "Methodological fetishism" isn't a real thing, is it.
Here's the mask science reality: there is none. There have only been two studies that looked at whether masks stop a sick wearer infecting healthy people (the other way around to how masks are normally used), one was underpowered and the other concluded no impact. There's plenty of studies on whether masks stop a healthy person being infected by a sick person, but that's not how mask requirements are being justified at the moment.
If you think about it, designing a study to test this hypothesis wouldn't be possible. You'd have to ask for volunteers to specifically hang out in rooms around a sick person who was definitely shedding virus. But you aren't going to get permission to do that over and over again, probably you won't even be able to get volunteers. It's effectively unfalsifiable: exactly the kind of problem that makes for bad science.
It's possible that a simple mask can reduce transmission a bit, if someone is literally coughing phlegm into their mask. If they're not coughing up virus then how is a mask meant to work? The virus is too small to be directly blocked. It can only stop fairly large droplets.
If I wear a regular dust mask, without edge sealing, and glasses, my glasses fog up when I exhale. Seems to me suggestive evidence that anything at all deflects normally invisible breath that would travel outward onto the surroundings.
Some kinds of masks can stop much finer grained objects than droplets, e.g. gas masks, but the kinds of masks people are actually wearing are just regular cloth masks and there's no evidence they accomplish anything and plenty of evidence they don't: the article goes into this.
It's logical: your glasses fog up exactly because the hot air is exiting the mask and travelling outwards, that's why it's hitting the cold glass of your glasses.
But it's not sufficient to merely deflect a small amount of air from each breath in a different direction. That's not permanently trapping infected air; obviously it can't be because otherwise CO2 saturated air would build up inside your mask and suffocate you. The air has to be able to circulate. The mask is meant to let air through whilst blocking ... well, whilst blocking what? Virus particles? They're far too small. Water droplets that contain virus? Maybe, but only if you're actually spreading water droplets around and if you're asymptomatic then clearly you're not. Yet everyone is being forced to wear masks even if they're visibly healthy, on the basis that "you might be infected without realising it". The science behind this is garbled nonsense, being pushed on people because something must be done, this is something, therefore it must be done.
Stopping stuff travelling out is a different matter.
The other thing that's being missed is even for proper masks there are time limits to their effectiveness. That doesn't matter so much for health care professionals who should be frequently replacing the masks, but it is relevant to members of the public walking around.
Either they're keeping the mask on all day and it stops being useful after an hour, or they're taking it off and putting it on as they go in and out of shops.
> This study was conducted to check the efficacy of face masks in limiting bacterial dispersal when worn
continuously in Operation Theater. A comparison was done to find out difference between fabric and two ply
disposable masks. The first sample was collected prior to wearing the mask, using cough plate method holding
a blood agar plate approximately 10 -12 centimeters away from the mouth. The personnel were asked to
produce “ahh” phonation. Participants were then asked to don the face mask, continue routine work and report
to the study center located inside the theater for further sample collections at designated intervals of 30, 60,
90, 120 and 150 minutes after wearing the fabric mask made of cotton. The study was replicated on immediate
next day using two ply disposable mask keeping all the other conditions and personnel exactly the same.
Bacterial counts before wearing the mask were 5.36±4.38 and 5.7±2.99 on day 1 and day 2 of study. Bacterial
counts were 0.96±1.06 (P<0.001) and 0.7±0.87 (P<0.001) at 30 min; 2.33±1.42 (P<0.001) and 2.36±1.03
(P<0.001) at 60 min; 3.23±1.54 (P=0.007) and 4.16±1.78 (P=0.011) at 90 min; 5.63±4.02 (P=0.67) and
4.9±1.98 (P=0.161) at 120 min and 7.03±4.45 (P=0.019) and 5.6±2.21 (P=0.951) at 150min respectively for
fabric and two ply disposable mask. Counts were near pre-wear level in about two hours irrespective of the
type of mask. There was no significant difference between cotton fabric and two ply disposable masks. Face
masks significantly decreased bacterial dispersal initially but became almost ineffective after two hours of use.
There is a key part of that phrase "of healthy people". The problem here is that lots of people dont realize they are sick, or are in the earily stage of the sickness with low symptoms yet still infectious. The evidence for this position increases daily.
I agree with you here that, that is definitely an issue. One should never be ridiculed or looked down upon when asked for scientific evidence. But I guess that is a completely different subject of "scientific elitism" or "scientist elitism",
Not that is of any help but the government in Denmark has done sort of the same. If you question their policies and responses to COVID they say “It’s based on advice on scientists and professionals”. You ask what professionals and science for long enough they say well it was a political decision. And this circle go around in till someone gets tired
How you get infected is irrelevant unless you are spending your time in a COVID-19 hospital ward. The question is how you avoid infecting others, in the world as it exists, where most people are not infected but you might be.
When it is summer (like now) and the sun sets here around 10 pm, my son can put his head on the pillow for 5 mins, get up, see there is light outside (by leaving his room, as his rooms is dark) and exclaim: "It is now morning!". He is not always convinced that we are not lying to him when saying that is still evening / night.
Maybe it gets easier to explain when they have a better understanding of time?
Understanding time has past and how much of it seems to be difficult for kids to grasp / understand ? (I have no clue, just observing my own small world).
I guess the same could be said for adults though, our concept of time often depends on whether or not we want to do what we are doing - time flies and so on. Sorry for the tangent!
Would be super awesome if you could share what you find! Having the same issues here - and I have a real time accepting that stuff becomes slow when you wanna return over 1k records. Sometimes way less for advanced things. Read: nested objects. But that slow? Come on.
I also use nestjs and there it seems updates to how to resolve a field has made it tons faster l, purely looking at the trace.
And I know that it won't be as fast as regular old json due to the checking but that slow? Must be something someone can do :)
Interesting sorting algorithm I haven't encountered before(even though it seems to be from 1998) m, but one that actually makes logical sense.
However, my first thoughts it does seem (from its concept) not so easy to implement(?). Additionally I would have concerns with regards to how much an overhead this calculation adds compared to just a “simple” comparison.
Maybe the calculation is worth it if the comparison is costly enough? My guess would at least be that we would need fewer comparisons in Flashsort as we should have a higher chance of “knowing” where things should go.
The Wikipedia article shares no plots/data (guess I should dig deeper for that), but would be interesting to see how well it fares against more modern and/or optimized versions or Quicksort as it is unclear if the claim that it becomes faster than Quicksort is correct :)
Have to agree here. I sometimes find quite a big gap between deadline setters (sales/management) and the ones who have to meet them (developers).
I find it to be a very difficult topic, as everything has to coexist: no sales, no company but no developers no product to sell which is then no company.
I find that the deadline setting sometimes gets out of hand because it's not the setter who has to meet the deadline. For example if I set a deadline you have to meet and I can not influence the work being done (help or somehow make it easier to hit the deadline) how could I ever understand the "true" consequence of setting the deadline?
In other words, not my weekend so I probably won't care as much as you.
What has worked for me (sometimes) is setting up the consequence; if we have to make x for deadline y, we won't be able to make a for deadline b. And then try and involve "sales" or the deadline setters in how we cut down whatever has to be made so we do make the deadline.
But that completely aligns with the post as that rarely is user centric or building the best solution for users. This simply gets stuff done within an arbitrary deadline set by someone, to meet a contract etc.
Bear in mind these experiences are from startups and not corporates.
Sure, not everything is applicable but the solid foundation goes a very long way.
I also see others fail at some tasks because they are not able to understand the foundations. Not saying it would be solved by going to university, but it might have helped to study it without tight deadlines and in a world where nobody has time to wait
While I do tend to agree with you and I'm a firm believer in "learning by doing", which I can especially see in my (young) kids but I never got the "learned more in 4 months working than 4 years of school" premise/idea.
Sorry in advance of this a tangent and maybe I'm just lucky that I'm the product of a good education or perhaps I have always had the wrong jobs, but while I of course learned tons by working I have never been able to compare what I learned at university and on the job, not because they are fundamentally different, just different.
I never learned or more importantly had time to deep dive into an issue for months of time on the job compared to university. Things have to be solved fast, go go style a client is waiting. Perhaps this is a product of the jobs I have had, don’t have enough data to say otherwise.
But I have never at university learned how to for instance lead a team or communicate effectively to non-academics. This is not something I expected of my university of course as these are very different skills.
But what I did learn was to understand the computer at a deeper level, which helps me every day and I find to be crucial to my day job.
I value my university degree/time dearly, but it is of course not the real world and of course not everything is applicable, but you never really know what is before you need it I guess.
By this not saying that teaching shouldn’t evolve, innovate and/or change for the better, I think I’m just saying it is doing some stuff right, and I believe (no data backing here) that our industry wouldn’t get or continue to get the innovations we have achieved without at least some university foundations sprinkled in there :)
I can back up your experience. My university studies were focused on maths and theoretical computer science, and I've learned a lot of things there that are unlikely to be learned on a regular job. That said, at least my PhD did feel a bit like an apprenticeship in how it was structured. It was an apprenticeship for becoming an academic - and while I don't work in academia anymore, that has given me some useful skills that most of my peers don't have. (Of course, there are also skills that I don't have but some of my peers do. In many teams it's useful to have a mix of academically and not academically inclined folks, and the ideal mixture obviously depends on the kind of work the team does.)
It also allows you to promote your audience to speakers so it’s more of an interactive podcasts, so you can actually ask questions to a panel or the speaker.
Again, haven’t used it much but this is what I understand Clubhouse brings to the table.