I mean it's no surprise with it being one of the most popular board games right now. I finally got around to purchasing it about a month ago and I really like it as well. Has the perfect balance between simplicity and strategy.
I only know 2 people taking Ozempic and while it is working great for their weight, their quality of life is affected. It removes the want to eat so you almost have to force yourself to eat to get the bare minimum calories. Drinks they have been consuming almost daily for their entire life needed to be cut out (coffee and tea) due to nausea. The doctors just keep increasing the dosage making them feel even more depressed. Not to mention studies show that when they stop taking it they could see their weight go back to pre-Ozempic levels.
The island is only 1.5 acres though. The size is too small to build any significant infrastructure. The island could maybe fit 100 people on it comfortably. I cannot find any reason that someone would want to visit this place for longer than a few hours.
100 people is about 5m² per person. That's already a crowd. The island is smaller than Times Square. It's 100 times smaller than Vatican City, it's in fact a fifth the size of St Peter's square.
49 m² per person, enough for a small house, not 5. If you build a skyscraper (or, more ambitiously, underground) you could have luxury space for hundreds of people. Energy would be a problem, but not as much of a problem as the Belizean government.
$ units
Currency exchange rates from FloatRates (USD base) on 2019-05-31
3460 units, 109 prefixes, 109 nonlinear units
You have: 1.2 acres
You want:
Definition: 4856.2277 m^2
You have: 1.2 acres/100 people
You want:
Definition: 48.562277 m^2
Less useful in the era of high explosive artillery shells, much less high-altitude bombers, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, and precision-guided munitions.
I think this has nothing to do with defence and everything to do with Kowloon Walled City that was sort of a no law enclave where everything was built very high and shoulder to shoulder to maximize floor space.
Oh, I was just thinking of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walled_city, which describes nearly all cities for the past ten thousand years, though less so for the last 5% of that time.
I'm a big fan of charter cities/SEZs and new city/country projects but I'm more skeptical this is a practical avenue for making money. There are plenty of established jurisdictions to do this (e.g. basically all the former British colonies, a few American states) and the 'infrastructure' of lawyers, accountants, etc. who know how to deal with it are already established. This is the same reason I don't get why people are bullish on e-Residency for Honduras, Liberland, etc. What's the real value prop of incorporating an entity in these places?
Would this work for just existing products in the supplier marketplace? Or would it somehow enable custom products to be dropshipped?
The advantages for the retailers seems great but what about advantages for the suppliers? Eventually if enough people started using one supplier, they would have so much inventory they would need another warehouse.
We built it to enable people to onboard their own suppliers to the network, so it works with existing or net new members of the network and everything is centralized either way.
For the suppliers, they're often being asked to participate in lots of different flavors of "vendor enablement" program. Most are oppressive, involve EDI integration, 40 page vendor agreements and opaque invoicing. We're trying to get rid of those things, and ideally give them a way to have one integration for all of this stuff.
I've been working on something similar to this for awhile now, not near completion though. It allows you to subscribe to some websites that include a paywall, for free, including adding your subscription accounts. It's made with Headless chrome and TypeScript.
I'm also in favour of e-books but you do have some notes wrong.
- You can arrange your books chronologically, by author, and other ways on e-book readers, at least the Kindle you can.
- Switching the book on your reader doesn't remove your reading history of the previous book. You can always switch back to a different book and it will be at the same location you left it.
- You have it the wrong way around for price. E-books are majority of the time cheaper than regular books. Also, almost all classic books are available for free through e-books.
- While reading the book on a Kindle, you can click the menu button and it says the Title and Author of the book.
> - You can arrange your books chronologically, by author, and other ways on e-book readers, at least the Kindle you can.
I'm aware of "sort by" but it does not achieve the same effect at all. My "screen" is the size of all my shelves and all the books are on that display at the same time. I can realistically take in the layout of maybe two hundred books at a time in one "view" (without physically moving) and I can engage spatial memory for recall. Not limited to six covers or a list of a dozen titles at a time whatever a given digital interface shows, with no fixed physical layout in space for any of it. The word "effectively" in my original post was intended to qualify out a simple "sort by" and limited digital view of a list or tiled covers, which is barely related to what I'm talking about as far as what it accomplishes.
> - Switching the book on your reader doesn't remove your reading history of the previous book. You can always switch back to a different book and it will be at the same location you left it.
Did I write that this wasn't the case? Though I do dislike using the OK-by-ereader-standards menus on my Nook enough that I try not to touch them more than necessary.
> - You have it the wrong way around for price. E-books are majority of the time cheaper than regular books. Also, almost all classic books are available for free through e-books.
Has not been my experience. Cheaper than new, yes. Cheaper than used? Rarely. Used popular fiction paperbacks or pop-business books (again, only ones that aren't badly crippled on an e-ink interface) are really, really cheap.
Free public domain classics are great and I've read a few, but books old enough to be free usually benefit strongly from additional, newer material—introductions, footnotes, and so on, often still covered by copyright. If in translation, the best translation(s) are often not yet out of copyright, and besides, the presence of additional, recent scholarship is even more useful for works in translation. If I'm gonna bother to read War and Peace I'm going to read the version (in English) that strikes me as best, even if I have to pay $6-7 for a used copy or something, because I'm going to be putting a lot of hours into it and may well never read a different version, ever. Project Gutenberg doesn't always (often does not) cut it, as much as I appreciate them.
- While reading the book on a Kindle, you can click the menu button and it says the Title and Author of the book.
I know I can look it up. This is about starting to talk about what I'm reading then realizing I can't remember who wrote it because I'm not seeing their name in large print every time I pick it up, every time I look at the table it's sitting on even if I'm not reading it just then, and maybe also at the top of every other page. It's automatic—almost unavoidable—with a paper book.
I would like to rebuttal. If there exists any dynamic application, you need some type of data store to keep all of the records, whether it be a persistent database or simply an in-memory database. So, in my opinion, this is a truthy statement.
Something you need isn't necessarily what defines you. We all need food and water but that's not what defines us -- at least not at the level of abstraction people care about. Google has a ton of databases, etc. but one would hardly call it a database company.
If you're architecting your application around a particular mechanism, be that a db or comms mechanism or whatever, then you're tightly coupled to it. This is a mistake.
Most applications need to store data, but most applications dont need to store data in a particular db.
Taking this attitude to your design is a great way to tank your performance before you've even started. I have seen too many projects suffer from overzealous architecture that treats the database as a persistence layer. Designs that start out trying to abstract away the persistence layer wind up building a complex caching layer.
I agree, I'm not arguing for complete abstractions here, just showing that the fact that you can abstract away the differences means that the db is not a "defining" part of the system.
