This takes me back to my teenage juggling glory days. Truly the golden years in hindsight.
I grew up in Silicon Valley in the late 80s/90s and learned to juggle, as many people did back then, from the book "Juggling for the Complete Klutz." As a kid I devoured almost every Klutz Press book.
A product of Stanford people, Klutz had a small brick and mortar store in Palo Alto. It sold all of their books, of course, but also juggling equipment, magic props, and random fun stuff like rubber chickens and fake corpse legs you could hang out the trunk of your car. Absolute paradise for ~12 year old me.
But the best part was that they ran a weekly juggling club out on the back deck area. Just show up and play. I learned a lot from all of the kind folks who turned out for that. My mom would drop me off every week, and I'd run out there excited to show the older guys what I learned that week. I wasn't a prodigy or anything but I was decent. Got to the point where I was juggling 4 clubs and I could hang with the club passers if they kept the pattern tame (and were skilled enough to catch my slop). Of course I also got proficient at other juggling-adjacent stuff like yo-yo, devil sticks, contact juggling... Just pure joy, really a cherished memory.
I was at the shop enough that my friend and I ended up being recruited to model for the 1998 edition of the Klutz Yo Yo book. There are 2 photos of me in there, I think. I was pissed that my friend was more photogenic and they ended up using way more of his photos than mine.
I would agree that the proper next step after getting comfortable with 3 balls is to learn 3 clubs, not 4 balls. It's much easier to go 3 balls -> 3 clubs than 3 balls -> 4 balls. So many fun things to do with clubs, and of course once you learn clubs you have learned torches/knives which never fail to impress.
But he isn't honestly accounting for the cost of the salmon, even by his own rules ("Food that I don't use needs to be factored into my costs.", "if it goes to waste, I have to charge myself for it.").
The salmon, at $1.99/lb, costs $4.48 for 2.25lbs (36oz) of whole fish. From that, he's only able to extract 3x 6.25oz portions (19oz total) of meat.
Despite consuming everything he could/would from $4.48 worth of fish, he only charges himself $0.77 * 3 = $2.31, ignoring the cost of the waste that he was required to purchase in order to obtain the meat.
IMO a fairer accounting for 3 equal servings would be $4.48/3 = $1.49 per serving. Nearly double.
I'm in a city well under 50,000 people not in the Americas nor Europe. The site gave a message that it was retrieving the data from OSM, then rendered the map faster than the browser would render a png. Very impressive.
I'm at 10 minutes now, for a town of <15k. Render time might depend more on total area than number of lines to draw. Update: gave up after 20min. Something might be wrong with the particular city.
Render time for Seattle is a blink of the eye which has both area and density. I think the time people is observing is loading the raw data from open street map itself.
Because they cache the biggest cities in the world.
> To improve the performance of download, I indexed ~3,000 cities with population larger than 100,000 people and stored into a very simple protobuf format. The cities are stored into a cache in this github repositor
About 2 seconds for me to load and draw Los Angeles. It’s definitely the load time/network latency, depending on where it’s loading from. This is amazing! I might use it for a custom map or something
Depends on the kid. Mine was a superstar sleeper from 2-6mo (8p-7a every night, predictable 90min-2h naps during the day), and then as he got older his napping took a nosedive -- shorter duration, lower quality, less predictable.
It sounds like you are assuming work = solo work. My day is about 25% meetings, my wife's is about 90% meetings. We can't participate in meetings with a baby in the room (let alone strapped to our body!) who might start screaming at any moment. Sure, we could fake it -- camera off, muted, jump out periodically to tend to the baby -- but then we're not really fully engaged in work.
Even if I had no meetings, I can't concentrate on solo work with a wiggly/screamy thing on me or in the same room. One of the biggest benefits of WFH for me is avoiding the distractions of the office. Babies are FAR more distracting than anything at the office.
What is there to "figure out"? Someone needs to look after the kid. If you as parents are unable due to full time work, you need to hire someone else to watch the kid (nanny, daycare, etc) or find a volunteer (extended family, friends, etc).
If you can't swing it financially, you have various choices -- Don't have kids, find higher-paying jobs, reduce expenses, or move closer to extended family/volunteers.
Nobody is "disinterested in supporting stay-at-home parenthood." On the contrary, the tax code is structured to give significant advantages to single-income (or at least lopsided-income) households over dual equivalent-income households.
It is rather absurd that one man working a city government IT job cannot support his family within said city without having to have his wife work (when she would rather raise children and keep the home instead). A few short decades ago this was an uncontroversial, common sentiment.
I grew up in Silicon Valley in the late 80s/90s and learned to juggle, as many people did back then, from the book "Juggling for the Complete Klutz." As a kid I devoured almost every Klutz Press book.
A product of Stanford people, Klutz had a small brick and mortar store in Palo Alto. It sold all of their books, of course, but also juggling equipment, magic props, and random fun stuff like rubber chickens and fake corpse legs you could hang out the trunk of your car. Absolute paradise for ~12 year old me.
But the best part was that they ran a weekly juggling club out on the back deck area. Just show up and play. I learned a lot from all of the kind folks who turned out for that. My mom would drop me off every week, and I'd run out there excited to show the older guys what I learned that week. I wasn't a prodigy or anything but I was decent. Got to the point where I was juggling 4 clubs and I could hang with the club passers if they kept the pattern tame (and were skilled enough to catch my slop). Of course I also got proficient at other juggling-adjacent stuff like yo-yo, devil sticks, contact juggling... Just pure joy, really a cherished memory.
I was at the shop enough that my friend and I ended up being recruited to model for the 1998 edition of the Klutz Yo Yo book. There are 2 photos of me in there, I think. I was pissed that my friend was more photogenic and they ended up using way more of his photos than mine.
reply