The term "sprite" is mostly used in games. A single image file that contains multiple sub-images is called a "sprite sheet". (This reduces overhead compared to loading a large number of image files.) In this case they happen to be video thumbnails.
I worked for a storage startup in the South Bay in the late 00s which did something like this. After staff crunched to deliver the base operating system and kernel controllers, management gave across-the-board poor reviews to all IC staff to justify no raise. Those with the ability quickly left for greener pastures; Google hired some of the best. Only those who had to (work visas, lack of experience, etc.) remained.
The product, being a v0.1 release implemented in C, was of course plagued with data corruption and poor performance. It read /etc/password from disk on every file access. An uninitialized int caused indirect inode corruption every ~millionth write. And so on.
Because of the poor product quality, they lost multiple opportunities, including a bid for early Facebook photo storage. The company never had more than 250 customers and ended up being sold to a Valley stalwart. The CEO and VP Eng were paid out handsomely, of course; preferred converted stock tranches or whatever. My options from 4 years of employment ended up worth $500.
As for why type-obsessed languages use terms like this, I guess we can blame math, as the article briefly mentions. Something is homomorphic ("same form") if there is a map ("relationship, point-to-point equivalence") with another structure.
I'll use the example of actual maps. The Earth is a globe. There are projections (mappings) between Earth-as-a-sphere and Earth-as-a-flat-2D-projection. A globe and a projection are homomorphic; if you know the mapping you can turn one into the other. This is useful, because sometimes it's much easier to do certain things with one way of viewing the problem, for example, drawing a straight line between two points.
Unsurprisingly this comes up a lot in type theory. The globe and the projection are both types, and closely related types. And Haskell etc. borrowed the term because, well, type theory.
Quite a few things share common operations - lists and graphs, for example. If you have a graph and walk it, it produces a list. Graphs can be (with only partial structure preservation) collapsed into lists. So any algorithm that works on a list can work on a graph, in theory. In a language like Haskell you can use a list operator on a graph automatically, the compiler can work it out, just tell it how to walk the graph. This tendency to try to preserve those structures, to allow that sort of fancy lifting, gets a lot of emphasis in languages like Haskell and Typescript. And they call it homomorphism, though it has become rather far-stretched from its math roots, I suppose. As the Haskell Wiki puts it "a homomorphism is defined by a function's ability to preserve the operations of the two underlying structures involved in the mapping".
That's not the cause at all. Extreme minority poverty and the potent bifurcation of incomes, education and wealth in the US is the cause.
Parking won't fix any of that realistically. You can push minority poverty to the suburbs, which for example is what France does, however it doesn't solve anything about the bombed out look, it merely redistributes the problem to somewhere else. You can gentrify the cities and push poor minorities to the suburbs and inverse how it's arranged in the US now, it will make the suburbs look bombed out - until you fix the minority poverty problem.
> Several years ago, just before my 40th birthday, I switched careers from sales, marketing and consulting to learn how to program, with the goal of making the world a better place through code [1]
It checks out, sales/consulting folks are pretty infamous for their tendency to abuse metrics. The metric here is npm downloads and Github stars.
The strategy does mean that he's _technically_ not inaccurate in claiming this on his LinkedIn -
> NASA, Microsoft, Google, AMEX, Target, IBM, Apple, Facebook, Airbus, Mercedes, Salesforce, and hundreds of thousands of other organizations depend on code I wrote to power their developer tools and consumer applications.
I encountered this type a lot in college consulting groups, it's a little funny seeing one make their way to the OSS community.
I love Youtube and consider it a major contribution to the modern world -- however it would have been "invented" within a few months regardless of who built if first and would have grown regardless of who acquired it.
It's important to recall that Youtube grew not because of "you" -- there was really not any kind of creator ecosystem for the first phase of massive growth. Youtube grew because of piracy and the posting/distribution of copyrighted content.
Unlike Napster which was blatantly P2P and obviously tried to circumvent copyright protections, Youtube had an official way for content owners to take steps to remove unauthorized content. In the days or weeks that it took to get content removed, it was copied and re-posted, and all the while Youtube continued to earn ad revenue from it until finally, many dollars later, it would be removed and successfully blocked.
In Today's world, Youtube makes money by incentivizing generatively created garbage content, much of which is shown to kids, and by spamming promoted content into playlists and generally always preferring to play content that was promoted over non-promoted content.
It's not clear how much of Youtube's revenue comes from quality content that people consume intentionally vs content that nobody would ever pay for that has managed to hijack the recommendation algorithm in some way.
