I don't see how the two are related, personally. I'm regularly accused of over-abstraction specifically because I aspire to make each abstraction do as little as possible, i.e. fewest lines possible.
"Abstracting" means extracting the commnon parts of multiple instances, and making everything else a parameter. The difficulty for software is that developers often start by writing the abstraction, rather than having multiple existing instances and then writing code that collects the common parts of those multiple instances into a single abstraction. I guess that is what "refactoring" is about.
In sciences and humanities abstraction is applied the proper way, studying the instances first then describing multitude of existing phenomena by giving names to their common repeating descriptions.
I call that lasagna code! From what I've seen, developers start with spaghetti, overcompensate with lasagna, then end up with some organization more optimized for the human, that minimizes cognitive load while reading.
To me, abstraction is an encapsulation of some concept. I can't understand how they're practically different, unless you encapsulate true nonsense, without purpose or resulting meaning, which I can't think of an example of, since humans tend to categorize/name everything. I'm dumb.
It's quite relevant, considering the OP was a single word with an example. It's kind of ridiculous to claim what is or isn't relevant when the discussion prompt literally could not be broader (a single word).
Reading between the lines a bit, but I think the point is that public ridicule and personal attacks as well a general lack professionalism is a page out of his book.
So I think OP is trying to insinuate POTUS' behavior inspires a general lack of decorum, a la trickle-down dickonomics. Which is a sentiment I can't in good faith disagree with entirely, but it seems like a stretch in this case.
is public ridiculing of somebody who intentionally submits garbage in order to potentially earn a few bucks a bad thing? it's like with patent trolls, dragging their shady actions to public and ridiculing them is best thing that can happen
I get your point, but regardless of how justified it may seem, I find behaving that way just isn't nearly as effective as kindness.
When I'm not being conscious, I tend to be pretty negative or sarcastic and even trend towards passive aggressive. I've found it to be rather damaging for a number of reasons.
I find when I choose kindness, not only is it more effective at accomplishing my goals, but I am happier and I set a better example for those around me. I find the kinder I respond ESPECIALLY in situations where it feels undeserved, the more positive impact it has.
To put it in more cliche terms, I want the world to be a kinder place, and I am trying to be the change I seek.
So yeah, personally I think it's a bad thing. Ban em, sure. But why take it any further? And FWIW, I'm sure the "threat" of ridicule is more tongue in cheek than anything, I was just trying to elaborate on what I suspected the other commenter was intimating.
As someone who's just been trying to buy a crappy used truck to haul some crap to the dump a couple times a year, you're absolutely spot on. I even live in the southwest US where trucks make up a considerable portion of vehicles on the road.
Crappy used trucks simply aren't up for sale. And even the rare listing I do come across, the asking price is ridiculously inflated.
I was looking for the same thing and a friend gave me some advice.
Get an SUV with a trailer hitch.
worked out great. Maybe better than a pickup.
For example - taking mountain bikes somewhere to ride - you can put them in the back, go ride, and leave them there while you go eat without someone stealing them. You can even load them the night before.
dirty stuff can use a trailer (I've never needed one)
and suv carries lots of people - which has worked out many many times more than I predicted.
(it is a gas guzzler, but was cheaper because of that, and didn't compete with higher-priced pickup market)
Never understood why the yanks don't like vans? Pickups are much less popular here in the UK, many more people use vans. A crew cab van with removable seats is infinitely more flexible than a pickup, other than long stuff which you chuck on a roof rack.
Indeed. It's because of the fashion preferences of American SUV and pickup buyers.
I can attest to the fact that minivans are much more comfortable. I picked up my Pacifica hybrid minivan in early 2021 before the price hike and it was a steal compared to SUVs and pickups. When I was doing paperwork for the vehicle at the Chrysler dealership, I was chatting with some sales guys and discovered the shocking fact they had recently sold a luxuriously loaded-down pickup for over $100K. I was fortunate to easily haggle with them over my minivan because they don't make much money on minivans so they focus on pickups, Jeeps, etc.
A couple decades ago, I had started looking to replace an old hand-me-down car from my grandma, and had been mulling over whether I could ever justify spending $30K on an Infiniti at that time. My boss at work got a new pickup, and he was rather proud of it, and I innocently asked if it cost $25K because plenty of my Texan relatives had driven them over the years and I assumed they were a no-frills working man's practical vehicle. After a brief pause, he answered, "It was a little over 40 thousand." That was over 20 years ago.
Vans don't project manliness. Most people don't use pickup trucks for pickup truck things. They'd be fine with a station wagon, but they have self-confidence issues.
This is the main thing. The US is very, very weird in terms of how it genders every possible lifestyle choice, and polices those gender norms. The rise of SUVs in the US was partly driven by things like inconsistent emissions standards, but also by the need to make a more "masculine" alternative to the minivan or station wagon.
I paint my fingernails so I'm not exactly concerned with projecting masculine energy. I just don't like the roof over the cargo area. It feels limiting. Also my primary use case of hauling lawn debris would aggravate my asthma way too much.
Vans usually have a very difficult time off-road or in mountainous terrain.
Vans are commonly used in urban areas, especially by businesses, but suburbs, rural, and construction benefit from higher clearences of SUVs and trucks.
SUVs are also usually much better in hazardous driving conditions because of a more optimal weight distribution.
Having grown up in the mountains, and currently living in a hilly snowy area, no thanks I'll keep my SUV. My in laws have a mini van, and it's not great.
I deal and have dealt with enough deep snow that would eat a van.
I still might get a Sienna Hybrid for daily commuter
I can't take this comment seriously unless you are buying snow tires. If you have snow tires, and you still can't get where you want in the winter, sure get 4wd.
I had a RWD pickup with snow tires and went anywhere I wanted to through two utah winters and many vermont ones too.
Yanks never got cool vans. Vans also became synonymous with Chester the Molester. Yanks also had Chevy Astro as an option. I grew up with the family owning a full sized custom van with 2 rows of captain chairs and the third row bench folding out into a bed.
From all of the bitching in the driveway, vans were not pleasant to work on the engine. Some of them had to remove a cover from inside the van to gain access, and that cover tended to not be well insulated and was the source of a lot of heat. Not much of a firewall as a car with the engine fully separated from the passenger compartment.
There were a lot of things people did not like about vans available in the land of Yanks. The Limey vans are not the same, so do not equate your experience as being the same.
Vans had tones of popularity. They are an iconic part of 60s culture(minibus) and 80s as well(A Team van)
There are two current reasons
- Millennials grew up in minivans and its viewed as a mom mobile and they don't want that look (despite the fact that most family SUVs are basically mini vans with out the sliders
I love a van, but they're a pain to work on compared to a full size truck. Like a popular minivan that has a 5 hour book time to do a simple tuneup. Reaching the plugs between the firewall is most of that time. Same with compact PCs, it's a puzzle to get everything in your 7L case.
Anecdotally, a lot more people in the US tow. And pickup trucks are the indisputable king of towing.
There's also the fact that it's a lot harder to take the top off a van than it is to add a top to the bed of a pickup. If I sometimes moved manure and had a van... I'd probably rent a trailer.
Some "yanks" align their identity with their vehicle. There are songs about trucks but yes a van or mini-van are more flexible.
There are many that buy trucks for off road capabilities but probably 70% or more of truck owners don't go off road more than once a year. Many pick up truck models, like stock versions with crew cabs, are too long and not equipped for serious off-road use. Shallow sand/snow they can handle but so can SUVs.
The powertrain packaging for vans is much tighter than for trucks. Who amongst us remembers removing the interior to change sparkplugs 6 and 8 in a GMC Vandura?
Even if you're not going to do the knuckle-skinning work yourself, the packaging negatively influences book rates when you take it to a shop
I wouldn't want to haul 3 yards of dirt/mulch in a van, or yard refuse. I wouldn't want to try and move a full-sized fridge in a van, or a queen bed box spring, neither will fit.
I can't fit an ATV in a van, and I really don't want to put a dead deer in the back of a van after I hunt one.
I wouldn't trust a van to haul 75 8x8x16 concrete bricks (over 2000 lbs/1100kg) because the suspension wasn't designed to do that, nor was the transmission, and the van will quickly deteriorate.
How about moving a couch? Fits in the truck, not in a van.
I did all of those things in the past 12 months.
All that being said, vans are great, especially with kids. They absolutely do not replace trucks... if you use the truck and don't mind getting it dirty. Shiny trucks with 5.5ft beds are fucking stupid. My kids all laugh at "trucks with a baby bed" these days.
Or, downthread, people just assume everyone with a truck is insecure, projecting wealth, and generally ignorant. Which ironically, is a very ignorant take.
The larger vans used by tradespeople in the UK, like a full size Ford Transit, would be fine with those loads (though I agree I wouldn't stick a dead deer in one as they're harder to hose out than a pickup bed). 10ft long loadspace, 1400kg payload, plenty of room for couches, beds and things. They're quite different beasts than the smaller kind like a minivan with removable seats. Plus it rains so much here that having a roof on is generally an advantage.
There are some pickups here, having said that: more rural utilities people, or landscapers who move lots of dirt, or farmers, might have one. They tend to be smaller than an F-150, but then everything's smaller in Britain including the roads...
Most of what you said is not true, at least for a full sized van. Sure you may not want to get it dirty inside, that makes sense. But they have more space than an 8' pickup bed. You can absolutely carry 2000lbs in a 1 ton van. An ATV or a couch will fit in one better than a pickup.
Yeah yeah, and 30-50 feral hogs could burst into your yard any moment.
For moving yards of mulch, topsoil or concrete blocks, almost anyone in my country, including people in construction would just have that delivered to the site, next day, by the seller.
No clue what van you're imagining, but weather alone makes many things much worse in an open bed. Moving a couch is a very common use of vans, people rent them specifically to move furniture all the time.
It’s 10 bucks for me to haul mulch and topsoil from a place down the road.
It’s hundreds of dollars to have the same literal dirt, delivered and dumped on my property. So now, instead of driving the truck full of dirt around my property and using it as desired, I now need to do it one wheelbarrow full at a time.
Fuck that.
As for weather, they make removable flat and domed “roofs” for truck beds, the weather argument is a nonstarter.
I own a station wagon, a van and a pickup (none of which are nice or new) vehicle and three trailers (to be fair one is special purpose) and I'll put up to ~1000lb on the roof of the car before I drag a trailer around.
Trailer is kind of obnoxious pain in the ass and has a bunch more shit to go wrong with it's use compared to a vehicle that "just does what you need".
It might not be the literal cheapest but a truck with the desired cab to bed ratio is the right call for the casual user who just wants to do homeowner things and doesn't wanna think about it.
I just plain don't have room to store a trailer, but I do have room for a second car - hence I own a ute (pickup or whatever in American parlance).
Which is really the thing: it's very useful to have a second car, but a trailer can't be a second car.
What's really desperately missing is useful payload capacity: a standard ute can't carry 1 ton in the tray confidently (and it's downright impossible to find accurate info on what you should do to get that outside of "add a tag axle").
I appreciate the suggestion! It's crossed my mind, but unfortunately a trailer doesn't really work for my living situation. It'd require off-site storage which just sounds like more of a headache (and expense) than I care to take on.
Not even. When I lived in the boonies trash service was ~$75 a quarter, the local hardware store would deliver pallets of mulch for free, and furniture stores offered free delivery above certain purchase amounts. My buddy's dad would haul your boat between the marina and your house for a flat fee. Hell, I was able to cram a full PA with floor monitors and a few guitars into my Corolla for weekend band gigs.
I started looking into getting a trailer or hitch hauler but it didn't seem to make much sense. I could usually pay somebody on-demand to move stuff around and it always worked out to be cheaper than owning and maintaining a truck. I presently work from home and don't even own a car anymore; the math is quite similar with rideshare and motorcycle maintenance coming in significantly cheaper.
Do you not have services in the US to do this for you?
The problem: I have a pile of construction waste, household junk, garden waste etc. is solved by many businesses who'll come pick it up for a small fee.
If your local government doesn't offer this, there are many commercial operators that do this in the UK. Seems bizarre to buy a whole giant, inefficient, vehicle just for 'hauling' occasionally.
Scheduling a "bulk trash" pick up at my current home is only accomplished by calling my landlord, who then calls the trash company, who then calls back with some arbitrary date and time a month or more in the future. When I have crap I want to get rid of it, I don't want to deal with any of that. I'll take the "inefficiency" of storing and maintaining a second vehicle -- which my family would easily make use of other than hauling duties -- over dealing with the bureaucratic nuisance.
There are private options, of course, but the fees are nowhere near "small" for this service.
Consider a trailer if you have even a mildly acceptable tow vehicle that can take a 2 inch receiver. Use what UHaul will rent you as a rough limit for what your vehicle can handle, and then if you want to save some weight get your own because it will be lighter than UHaul's brick shithouses.
Having said that, I'm still in the market for a larger vehicle with a better tow weight rating as I use the trailer more than a handful of times per year, and my current tow vehicle is getting a bit long in the tooth.
These are quite expensive for what you get and are slooooooow. It's fine if you want an expensive, quirky neighborhood runabout, but you'll be made very aware that this is a product not at all designed for the US market (there's a good reason most examples do ~1000 miles a year). The ACTYs I found online were in the $7-20k range, for a ~30 year old model - more for a nice van.
The best used work truck is actually a van. They lack the coolness factor of trucks, but are far more versatile. You can pick up a <10 year old Transit with under 100k miles for like 10-15k. That price point will get you a >10 year old F150 in the 100-150k mile range.
Plus, there are good options if you want something smaller can car-based, like NV2000s and Transit connects. Which don't really exist for trucks outside of newer (maverick) or niche (Ridgeline) options.
Bonus points, a nice Transit is a great daily driver too.
Harsh did a tipper conversion for the Daihatsu Hijet, which had an 850cc triple with a lot more poke than the Acty's 660cc twin, and had a "true 4WD" variant.
In the UK, Truck and Driver Magazine featured one so equipped in a head-to-head AWD tipper test (AWD in the sense of all wheels driven regardless of number of axles, not Subaru AWD/Audi Quattro type AWD), alongside a variety of extremely large trucks. Proper trucks, not F150s, we're talking 18-tonne Scanias and stuff here.
Everyone wanted one of the little Hijets to take home.
Renting a vehicle invites bureaucratic nonsense. For my personal situation, I need it ready to go at virtually a moments notice or I'll simply just avoid the chore.
For me personally, it's too much hassle. Between the paperwork, rental fees, getting a ride to and from, etc. I just start to lose motivation, and end up deciding to do the chore the "next weekend" which never comes. I need as few barriers between me and accomplishing a chore if I ever want to have any hope of completing it.
That's a good point. Private Equity is a fairly broad umbrella term that encompasses a variety of investment strategies and business models.
The type of Private Equity that most here are referring to is the type that buys up existing businesses, squeezes as much money as possible out of them, and throws their desecrated corpses in the gutter. These "investors" are a blight on society, this activity should be criminalized, they should be in prison.
But there are a lot of well-meaning investors who do great things for society that also get stuck with the same label.
Just like crows! People hate crows even though they play a valuable role in ecosystems.
I would argue that moribund businesses who maintain a competitive moat but are otherwise extremely unproductive and inefficient are the real blight on society. If PE firms can liquidate those businesses and open up the market while freeing up capital for more productive investment then I fully support them.
I would love to hear some counterexamples though. Productive and innovative businesses with really solid fundamentals (balance sheets) that were acquired and dismantled by PE.
> Productive and innovative businesses with really solid fundamentals (balance sheets) that were acquired and dismantled by PE.
You have way too much (unneeded) limiting qualifications. In Netherlands PE have bought loads of companies, then put the acquisition price as a loan on the balance sheet. Plus then sold the assets, made the company then lease those assets. Then those companies often went bankrupt as the leasing prices increased crazily.
> I would argue that moribund businesses who maintain a competitive moat but are otherwise extremely unproductive and inefficient are the real blight on society.
The companies I've cited weren't "extremely unproductive and inefficient". Businesses can be profitable and healthy without all the qualifications you think they need.
Weren't they losing money for years on all-you-can-eat seafood specials [1]?
It's not uncommon in the fast food business to be breaking even or losing money on all aspects of the business while the true value of the company, its real estate portfolio, steadily grows. The fact that investors decided they wanted to cash out should be a surprise to no one.
> The type of Private Equity that most here are referring to is the type that buys up existing businesses, squeezes as much money as possible out of them, and throws their desecrated corpses in the gutter.
And this type of PE represents a very small minority of what is actually considered "Private Equity". The vast majority of PE deals are about growth. This small minority of asset stripping PE groups gets the most headlines though.
Of course it's bad. It's new. But it won't always be either of those things. I think "bad" is relative assessment and based on a build-up of knowledge, often over decades.
Electrical plugs and stairs are "good" only because that knowledge has been discovered and has been regulated. Expecting a tool to be literally and metaphorically fool-proof immediately upon discovery strikes me as pretty disingenuous.
In the case of AI, the most anti-AI crowd are often vehement with their fingers in their ears saying "it's not good and never will be, and shouldn't exist." To be fair, the pro-AI crowd are often raving as if all the kinks had already been worked out.
What about it? There simply isn't any information format that's both perfectly accessible and reproduces what you're seeing with perfect fidelity. In the happy path you can make the important parts match, but almost by definition, when someone's reporting an issue it's because what they "should" see and what they are seeing don't align.
There are many accessibility issues with using a screenshot of text instead of text directly:
- displaying a white background image of text when I'm using dark mode;
- using a small font to a user with a visual imparement or on a high DPI display;
- using a colour scheme with low contrast, or colours that are indistinguishable for people with a form of colour blindness;
- using a font that is difficult to read for someone with dislexia;
- etc.
And others have mentioned not being able to search for the text within the image, or select/highlight the text (useful for copying a function name, link, or term in the text, or for keeping track of where you are when reading).
Well, that's not the scenario relevant to the article and not a scenario I encounter much these days. I'm not a designer or a front end dev anymore so I rarely encounter a situation where "perfect fidelity" is relevant to me.
I'm biased, but I can't help but feel like chances are, if the screenshot is text, the content of the text is important, not the visual aspects.
99% of the time I get a screenshot these days, it's people sending me screenshots of text logs or code, and almost always cropped in a way that eliminates any context anyway. Give me plain text or give me death.
In some cases visuals are important, and in other cases, they're not. Hence why I said "chances are" and declared my bias rather than using absolutist language. However, somewhat ironically, you chopped off that part of my reply. I find it odd you chose to respond the way you did, but I digress.
I also carefully indicated my every day interactions with screenshots do not align with those requirements.
Of course there are situations where visual aspects are critical. I'm not disputing that. I'm stating my _preferences_ and my _opinion_ that situation is exceptional.
reply