I had proper Flu this year, and almost exactly 4 weeks later caught COVID for the first time. Prior to these events I had a 5 year streak of being completely illness free, not a sniffle, not a head cold.
Both illnesses completely K.O.'d me. Literally 5 days straight of laying on the couch alternating between sleeping, sweating, or just groaning when I tried to move. So uncomfortable I couldn't even enjoy watching TV. I spent most of my awake time just kinda.... staring at the ceiling.
During the Flu on day 4 or 5 I was starting to feel a bit better, I was starting to care that my house was a bit of a wreck and the carpet in particular getting pretty gross (lots of dog treat crumbs). I did a half-assed job of vacuuming 2 bedrooms, the living room, and the den. Took maybe 15 minutes. That was the extent of my activity for the rest of the day, I was just wrecked. Had to sit down to catch my breath and get control of some violent shakes.
Next time I catch the flu I have to try going for a jog. It would probably put me into a coma long enough to sleep through the rest of the cold.
tip for the flu or cold:
because they (viruses) get into your sinuses, and start to multiply there, not in the mouth or stomach, then would be good to put something in the sinuses to kill them. This needs to be done at the first sneeze! when there aren't yet billions of them.
netipot, with cleaned water + salt is the way used for thousands of years. What is extra is to put pea size amount of cold pressed/virgin coconut oil in there (when water about 30c degrees, but not hotter) and flush with it. antiviral and antibacterial, gives nice coating also to sensitive skin inside sinuses.
you'll skip the whole perioid of getting sick. works. trust me
The sensory medium is separate from one's capacity to learn and use language. Sign languages have grammar, vocabulary, "accents" etc just like spoken languages.
I think they mean how can a person born deaf learn to make speech if the above quote says this individual will not be able to speak a language. I think the answer to that is it's more "they won't be able to make speech like a person born with hearing would do by listening and naturally learning" rather than "they won't be able to try to make sounds with their voice they are not able to process auditorily".
Moreso comprehend it. It seems impossible to suggest that a person could learn to vocalize language but not to understand those vocalizations. It may be impossible in spite of what it seems.
I went through a similar thing where I had some trouble sleeping due to external stressors and then started to get freaked out that I was having trouble sleeping, having always been a great sleeper. I developed a lot of anxiety around it and it was pretty awful, though I'm mostly over it now. To me, the key was accepting that I might sleep poorly and being okay with that. That true acceptance allowed me to relax. (The larger context for me fwiw is trying to overcome my perfectionism.)
Keep in mind that just because you're good at management doesn't mean you have to do it professionally. Stay purely technical if that's what you enjoy!
I often felt like they were describing me to myself as I was reading... Highly recommend if you deal with perpetual dissatisfaction with your performance or achievements and would like to learn how to accept yourself for who you are and live a "lighter" existence.
Bugs are inevitable but we should strive to have as few as possible. Your program not working right is obviously bad UX (as we've all experienced using buggy software).
The reason we have type checking is same reason we have other tooling in our editors to do static analysis like highlighting syntax errors and linting: catching bugs during development is better than finding them in production.
I got diagnosed with type 2 diabetes two years ago. I switched to a super low carb diet (30g per day). Contrast that with a 16oz Mt Dew, which has 77g. Or a bowl of cereal at 36g plus whatever is in the milk.
I ate all kinds of protiens and fats - cheese, meats, fish, veggies just to quell the hunger. I lost about 58 pounds in a year. Most of what I lost was fat. Two years later, I'm still doing a very low carb, but keep it under 50g per day. My weight has stayed ±3 pounds. I'm pretty convinced it's the super-high carb load everyone is eating three times per day.
The ultimate cause is consuming too much, the proximate causes are various elements of modern culture (i.e. Bigger serving sizes, more readily available snacks, alcohol consumption, etc).
There are a few other variables that could play a role.
(1) Share of physical labor jobs vs office jobs
(2) Increased hormone and pesticide use in agriculture (dropping worldwide sperm counts is an underreported story, might or might not be related)
(2A) Less nutritional content in food - has gone down 60% since 1940s according to some studies; likely from over-farming. Need to eat more to get the same nutrients.
(3) Food deserts (related to (1)) - where healthy food options are rare
(4) Less general socialization (internet makes it less necessary to go outside, etc)
I think it depends on population density as well. I grew up in a rural area in the US and now live in Philadelphia on a tiny side street barely two cars wide. Every single car on our street has scratches/small dents on the bumper and fender from others parallel parking. If you live here you have to accept that "bumpers are for bumping"!
> You almost have to reach for some utility library or build your own ad-hoc one just to use the language.
Sure. But are hundreds of dependencies really required for this?
In Java you would use tools like Guava or Spring for general quality of life improvements, and there would be a few deps for them (under a dozen iirc).
The solution is for the “top tier” libraries and frameworks in the JS world to be designed with minimal dependencies. And where they do have a need for a dependency, they undertake serious consideration of the best option that minimises dependency hell.
And those "top tier" libraries do exist for some stuff- especially if we're talking about the anemic standard library. The famous lodash library doesn't have any (non-lodash-umbrella) dependencies AFAIK.
You are meant to pass an argument to [].sort; If you don't, it falls back to the most generic thing that makes sense -- which is turning everything into a string and sorting lexicographically.
Arrays in JS can have any type in them, such as [number, string, function]. That's obviously very unlikely, but the only thing in common between all types in JS is that they can all be explicitly turned into strings.
And yes, I agree that throwing an error here for no argument would be better here (a linter WILL enforce this), but this is hardly a critical shortcoming of JS's standard library, and you DEFINITELY do not need a utility library just to use the language (especially for your examples).
I hear what you're saying, but it still seems pretty bonkers to me that if you try to sort an array of numbers it will cast them to strings and sort alphabetically (!):
> [1, 2, 10, 3].sort()
[ 1, 10, 2, 3 ]
> And yes, I agree that throwing an error here for no argument would be better here (a linter WILL enforce this), but this is hardly a critical shortcoming of JS's standard library
I suppose "critical" is debatable but this seems very fundamental and very unexpected to me.
> you DEFINITELY do not need a utility library just to use the language (especially for your examples)
I hadn't actually considered using a linter to avoid these types of standard library footguns... that's actually a pretty great idea!
Since arrays can contain a mix of anything, I don't think it's that bonkers that the default impl chose to canonicalize values into consistent comparables with String(). It's just not useful for numbers.
But for example, they probably decided that it was more useful defaulting to having a sort order for things that otherwise aren't comparable:
Since null < undefined and undefined < null are both false, then a simple `a < b` comparator wouldn't sort them at all. Same for objects.
If you have an array that's a huge mix of random values, from null to undefined to [] to {} and you sort() it, all of those values will now be grouped together by type.
There would be a significant performance impact if `.sort()` argumentless had to traverse the list and checked all inputs were numbers. It's better to pass a sort function -- that is how the API is meant to be used.
I agree that without an argument it should just be a fatal error, but if it were to have any sort of functionality, it should convert all to strings.
This is consistent among JS's apis, and pretty much the origin of all the 'js wut' moments on the internet. Everything in JS can be converted into a string. If you do something stupid with disparate types, it will likely turn operands into strings and compare them that way.
I don't see that as the case. Modern JS can do a lot out of the box but the culture looks down on "vanilla" JavaScript. I've seen way too many libraries that are nothing but a thin wrapper around native functionality. When your first (and only) technique is to look for a library, this is where you end up.
I agree and am very pro vanilla JS FWIW. I just find myself reaching for something like lodash's `intersection`/`difference` functions when working with sets, `sortBy` to get more normal (and not in-place) sorting behavior, and `groupBy` to do group by.
