In web development, you mostly deal with data, sometimes you need to group that data, and some of these algos can help with that.
Most useful when you work with large datasets, if you can reduce a workload that takes hours into minutes or less, congrats, otherwise, you are forced to wait the hours. Either way, job security.
[1] tells me a $350k mortgage with a 10% deposit, paid off over 15 years, costs $2,585 per month. That's $31k a year.
That kind of income with that kind of house price should be pretty comfortable, given you don't mention supporting a family. If your non-housing bills are costing $109k a year, there's a good chance you could reign in your lifestyle choices.
Don't forget real estate tax and sales tax. In some places, real estate tax is about 20-30% of the rental cost. Sales tax is as high as 10% in some places.
But that's not $140->$70 after tax, that's $140k->$70k after tossing $24k into retirement investment savings, another $5k into healthcare savings, possibly another $1,500 towards healthcare premiums (huge amount of variability there), and then finally taxes.
Until it isn't because enough people realize it is inherently flawed and will never result in stability and they would rather die than relegate themselves, their children, and all their later generations, to indefinite servitude of an outdated economic system. Provided we don't kill our world first in our pursuit of endless profit growth.
> I'd much rather deal with some less stability and have a lot more resources
This strategy works so long as you're in the group of people who do indeed have "more resources," but breaks down if you're marginalized in any way, or if you don't want to support the exploitative system.
That is what people always says about their current culture or economy or political system, even as they are on the very edge of systemic change. And quite frankly to me that just reads like an excuse to not do or try anything so people can kick the can down the road, benefiting themselves at the expense of many others both currently and in the future as things deteriorate further.
it is if that's all people do, but I think it is a necessary step to realize that we do live under a system that encourages an amoral allocation of resources. If people only ever shrug that off or treat it as intractable it will never change. Some would argue that it cannot be changed, but I think that just means they haven't read history.
Brother lately I’ve only been putting groceries on credit cards and you’re right, they’re not a fixed cost. They’re a variable cost that just keeps going up.
You are getting down voted, but it's true. They (WEF-types during their meetings you can watch on youtube) telegraphed it during/soon after the entire Covid lock downs that they intended to make large structural changes to society and the concept of ownership. They didn't make this secret or anything. Heck some sold books on the subject.
Most of what the WEF discusses is how to gain more technocratic control over democracy. You know, for the benefit of everyone...
I guess people think that there is the need for an centralised evil being responsible to coordinate an attack on society and they feel that the comment is a paranoia attack.
It is nothing like that. We can see how equity firms risen again buying certain types of businesses and change the structure of prices. The incentives to do it wrong are all out.
People still think that Microsoft layouts were an unfortunate unpredictable movement given market circumstances when every regulatory organisation pointed that it would be exactly what they would do.
People also think that putting their money in such companies because they have money back is an endless loop of free money and that money is an infinite resource.
Not one or two only have discussed how they should start licensing their products as a new business model. What people thought that would mean? How selling the product does not give the buyer the ownership? How is that not taxed differently?
The essay was a thought experiment based around the popularity of the so-called "sharing economy" at the time, not a WEF strategy document and certainly no government's policy.
Even the author of the piece said it was not a description of her vision of the future, but intended to start a discussion about technology.
But it's been picked up by wackaloons around the world as part of some overarching conspiracy theory.
it's because it's so easy to simply blame the ills of society on some illusory few pulling the strings behind the scenes. It used to be the migrants, or blacks, or the chinese (still is apparently) or the japanese...and now, it's the rich/shadowy figures etc.
The actual truth is that the collective actions of everybody leads to certain outcomes - today's outcomes. It can't really have happened any other way.
Please don't dilute the argument by comparing racial groups with the ultra-rich.
The (ultra-)rich form a class in the classical Marxist sense - a group whose interests naturally align, and they work together to further their interests.
There is deliberate government policy behind what's going on with housing - free money for the rich, which they can in turn invest into speculative assets to make yet even more free money.
Then they ensure that their money has weight by putting said money into housing, pricing out common folk, and building new units to serve as price control to preserve the value of their assets.
Then it's a good thing that the World Economic Forum are not government and do not have lawmaking powers. It's essentially a lobbying firm. I wouldn't worry too much about random slop they publish.
But you see that everywhere.
You buy the hardware but the company may block your property totally or partially.
You buy a car but pays to use heated seat? Who eats this thing that you haven't paid extra for the seats. The costs are just sunk in other parts.
You buy a movie but it can be revoked.
You buy an smart tv that can have features revoked.
You barely can pay your rent because now everyone needs to rent because no one has money to buy except equity firms.
There is no need for "they" to be a centralised being. It is just happening. Doesn't matter who or if there are a "they".
We live in a world where people think that the homeless man is the enemy because people are to simple minded to not understand why there are incentives to keep make it worse and worse.
They are the proponents of The Great Reset. Here’s an excerpt from a book I read:
‘As Hitler declared in 1934, “The German revolution will be concluded only when the entire German Volk has been totally created anew, reorganized and reconstructed” (cited in Koonz, 2003, p. 87). The “Great Reset,” announced by World Economic Forum (WEF) director Klaus Schwab, son of Nazi industrialist Eugen Schwab, attempts the same thing on a global scale, promising to “revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions. Every country [ . . . ] must participate, and every industry [ . . . ] must be transformed” (Schwab, 2020).’
The book is:
Wall Street, the Nazis, and the Crimes of the Deep State
This was actually pretty cool. It's similar to crossword puzzles in how you get a hint. Maybe its too easy though, I got it in 2 attempts. I'm definitely not smart lol.
You should try the words from previous days (clicking on the date below the title). So far it’s been pretty random how many tries someone will need to find a word, the same person who needed 2 tries one day might need 10 tries another time. Just like wordle, you might get lucky or unlucky on your first guesses.
As I like to say in some other contexts on HN, you must not underestimate the criminal underground. You should not model it as some hacker alone in his basement trying to run scams. You're probably a lot closer thinking of the industry as at least the equivalent of a Dark Google in size and sophistication. If I can imagine a framework where I have a strong set of modular APIs that we can deploy rapidly and put together some prompts for AIs to customize the frontends and graphics hooks so each site looks different, deploying them just like you'd deploy a k8s cluster of these things (and, heck, for all I know, actually being on k8s), the industry as a whole has more than enough firepower to actually implement it. There's an entire dark economy out there where you can outsource parts of this to specialized businesses and get sketchy cloud hosting of all kinds, there's a rich economy around who is taking what actual risks and who gets compensated for them, everything you can imagine.
I don't want it to be but AI is going to be the mediator of all human communication and access to information and the generator of all cultural expression soon so it kind of has to be. Otherwise "free speech" is just what people say to one another face to face.
There is a bit more nuance in using `this` in a named function that wasn't covered. Named functions defined in classes are scoped outside of the class, meaning they are not bound to the class. To use `this` in your named function, you usually have to bind it in the constructor using `this.functionName.bind(this)`
Arrow functions defined within a class are scoped and bound to the class automatically. Hence, arrow functions do not require calling the .bind in constructor, and you can happily use `this` inside arrow functions.
Late binding is also what the above poster is complaining about and they mention the habit some have in class constructors for "early binding" to try to avoid it.
The `class` keyword is as much "just" syntax sugar for stuff you can do without the `class` keyword. The behaviors are the same.
Late binding happens whether or not the function is a part of the Object's prototype chain or directly attached. JS is built so that's all mostly the same thing. That's why late binding exists. Maybe you copy a function from one prototype to another to create a new sort of prototype with a bit of "code-sharing", which is the same if you want to copy a function directly from one object to another. You want that function to work in all these cases, you don't want to redefine the function explicitly for a different kind of prototype or a different kind of object, you want to pick up what it is bound to by how it is called (thus late binding). Late binding is an ancient feature of JS that feels like a bug if you think `class` works like it does in OO languages like C++ or Java or C#. Late binding feels like a bug if you think of an Object's prototype as being a strongly formed contract and not a runtime object that itself can change at any time, or can be used as a lego brick to construct other types of objects and code-sharing beyond traditional class-based OOP "inheritance" models.
The difference between a "regular object" and thing constructed from a `class` in JS is effectively nonexistent. It's the same stuff, just a few syntax niceties. (In the old days, it was a lot harder to build a clean prototype, `class` makes it a lot cleaner. But that's all it does, it makes it cleaner to write, but under the hood it is entirely the same as it was.)
> in the constructor, using arrow functions?
The example above was the related but similar thing of doing `this.a = this.a.bind(this)` in a class constructor. It's very similar to using `this.a = () => …` arrow functions to early bind `this`. (Assigning a function to itself in a constructor with a `bind()` is also an idiom pattern that predates arrow functions and class syntax. Constructors predate class syntax, but they used to look a lot different. You can still write that form of constructor if you want, but class syntax is a lot cleaner.)
Late binding is an old feature that feels like a bug today, so a lot of people work very hard to early bind functions or only ever use arrow functions because they don't trust late binding.
Yes, I think we are on the same page. I did not want to include "legacy" prototype-based inheritance examples because I'm on a phone and didn't want to make complexity
explode here.
Also I made a weird statement here:
> That can also be done after the class was declared?
That doesn't make much sense for binding "this" to the class that was declared, I wsd mixing up arrow function class properties inside the class declaration with adding prototype properties (which is exactly what one doesn't want for classes with many instances).
In the scope of the class declaration, all methods of adding methods to the prototype are awkward, I guess.
Regarding the "early-binding" using .bind or arrow functions in constructor, I see your points, and it's the subtle and hard-to-explain differences that are really annoying.
JS really requires some discipline and sticking to a pit of success, while it's still essential to know the basics.
> Late binding is an old feature that feels like a bug today, so a lot of people work very hard to early bind functions or only ever use arrow functions because they don't trust late binding
Yes, that's what I was going at, thanks for making clear the difference between arrow functions (lexical scoping) and using `bind` (arbitrarily fixed "this").
I was lately (no pun!! really coincidence, it just wasn't only recently) using late binding with object literals in tests with Jest and TS and had to ignore TS there, it's pretty much the major reason I'm commenting here. It was convenient and succinct for a mock object implementing an interface otherwise used by class instances to use late binding.
Most useful when you work with large datasets, if you can reduce a workload that takes hours into minutes or less, congrats, otherwise, you are forced to wait the hours. Either way, job security.