Honestly, you've already identified the problem (reading books of the "first kind"), so you know what to do. Stop picking up books just because they're best sellers. That would be a great start.
You could take it a step further and read academic reviews, which are about the size of a book chapter but are otherwise meant to be self-contained pieces of writing on a topic.
... What? I've never downloaded it myself (for the same reasons as you), but that doesn't sound true. Play Store says it's 39MB. But maybe OP has that much in media in the app's cache or something.
It's not app's cache I believe, but rather app's data. I think they're different? It's indeed 39MB on Play Store, but after I installed it and used it for a month, it's using 1GB+ storage on my phone (after I deleted app's cache).
Ha, I hate it when apps do that. One of the main reason I got rid of Spotify and my Spotify paid subscription was because their android app gobbled all the free space it could find on a device by filling it with caches music. “Of course Spotify, I pay extra for more storage on me device so you can use it to cache songs and save a few cents on bandwidth, you’re very welcome.”
I’m not talking about being able to download an album actively. I’m talking about Spotify using up all my devices storage to store their own cache, songs I listened to but didn’t select to be downloaded for offline listening.
Ah, fair. Though to a certain degree I still think that's helpful when I recently listened to something but forgot to download it.
I agree though that that shouldn't take up all of your storage and should definitely be toggleable.
Please tell me how that isn't equivalent to "adhering to <famous developer on Twitter>'s gospel" vs. "not adhering to <famous developer on Twitter>'s gospel."
Because the point isn't "Prettier's formatting is the best", it's "let's nip the argument about formatting in the bud so we can focus on much more important things". I couldn't care less who made Prettier, many tools in this space would likely accomplish this goal.
> many tools in this space would likely accomplish this goal
Exactly, so what made your team choose Prettier versus the other tools if not the fact Prettier is the trendier choice? If some of these other tools becomes the tool du jour, what's the guarantee that people won't start arguing that you should all move over to it? You only see it as nipping the argument in the bud while a single solution holds the majority mindshare on what to do with the argument.
You seem to think I am stating Prettier removes all arguments and opinions. I said it "reduces the opinion surface". If some other formatter becomes popular, debating between it and Prettier is still way preferable over arguing over single versus double quote? Space around params? Opening brace at end of line or new line? Should if statements always have brackets? Should else statements start on a new line? Template strings or concatenation? Single or multi var? Let or const? Line up variable values on the same column? How many blank lines between functions? How long should a line be? How to format ternaries?
I could go on and on and on. And on some teams I've been on, people have. I just roll my eyes at all of this. None of it matters. At all!
Prettier takes 10 seconds to set up and our prettierrc file typically has one or two settings at most, often we don't stray from the defaults at all. It's totally painless. It'd take a very compelling tool to compete with that. If one comes along, sure, whatever. The goal is to minimize bikeshedding. Truly eliminating it is a tall order.
I have found that feeding my dogs a food high in fish has improved their allergies. This was plainly ethical, right?
I was suggesting that people test on themselves. Which is we something we already don and can only avoid by outsourcing all our choices. If I expect a given behavior to be net-beneficial and I carefully document and publish my findings who is harmed?
What set of behavior, specifically, are you looking to legislate away? The fewer people looking for drugs and treatments the more expensive those will be. Every restriction is another price hike.
Maybe not? We could even have a discussion whether it's ethical to have a pet at all. But that's not even the point. You should probably be able to tell the difference between food that has been known to be consumed since forever vs. experimental drugs (or food for that matter).
> I was suggesting that people test on themselves
Ok, if that's your point, I'm completely on board with that. It wasn't very clear from your comment.
Most importantly, being anti-mask can't be attributed to a clear genetic variable (although I suppose there might be some very weak correlation), and natural selection takes way, way longer than a human lifetime to create noticeable results anyway. Not even getting into the fact that there's much more to evolution than natural selection. It actually scares me that supposedly "pro-science" people have such simplified views about it.
Note that the timescale for seeing results is related to the selection pressure. You can see very fast results (e.g. a single or few generations) if the pressure is extraordinary.
AFAIK this only happens via guided intervention (see humans selective breeding of crops, dogs, foxes, etc)
