This is key. The yen is still weak, so framing it in terms of today's value in USD is going to make it seem much more affordable than it actually is for the average Japanese person.
That definitely matters for the marketing landscape in Japan. But as far as Hyundai's ability to make a profit at that price, it's still a big challenge to US automakers like Tesla, isn't it?
I was in a similar spot, but knip offers more information that ts-prune, and ts-prune may trip on some newer TS syntax. I've been happy using knip so far.
Types are meta data for the compiler. They are not code that is compiled to JavaScript, so I isolate my type definitions to d.ts files. That is the only reason I have d.ts files at all.
> of course, I pretty much expect the NYT to fuck that up, but oh well, that always happens over time
They have a number of free games that don't require any kind of account or registration. I am optimistic that they won't introduce any unsavory elements to it and turn off the playerbase it's amassed.
If you look at these games you can see that Wordle is a perfect fit. There is no other way to put it.
If Wordle were already in that games list it wouldn’t stick out at all. Especially the aspect of having a daily puzzle that’s the same for everyone is a great fit. Even the whole design aesthetic is similar (it’s a pleasantly useable experience all around).
The biggest differences are the ads and the registration requirement. Which are, I guess, in a sense both ways to fuck it up.
Sorry, I beg to differ. I just clicked on your link and tried the Spelling Bee game. Started playing, after I hit my fifth word the game terminated and I got a popup:
You’re good at this!
Know more words? Subscribe to reach our Genius ranking.
With a subscribe button.
I don't blame NYT for doing this, at all. If you pay millions of dollars for something, you expect a return. But this kind of "stop what you were interested in doing right when it starts becoming fun so you can subscribe" is exactly the type of annoying shit I was talking about.
"Deciding for yourself" doesn't mean jumping to conspiratorial conclusions based on an ambiguous, off-the-cuff remark from 1992, though. And just looking at the comments on that video you can see what sort of agenda these people are bringing to their judgments.
Most journalism has an editorial line, which is usually aligned with the people that pay the bills. It is the case for newspapers, radio, TV... even websites.
Very rarely you have journalism with neutral editorial lines.
There's no such thing as neutrality. Usually when people talk about neutrality, they really mean status quo, or worse giving equal weight to "both sides" (implying the major US political parties are the only possible views on a subject), without even trying to assertain the truth of the matter.
Journalism isn't simply putting facts down on paper, but it's also interpreting how it affects the reader. Even if you pretend to simply write the who what when and where of a story, you still have to choose what to cover. That in and of itself has no right answer, you inevitably make an idological choice.
You can argue "there's no such thing as neutrality"... but consider the following:
News Station A:
1. Heavily edited clip of political candidate saying something.
2. News anchor provides a 10 min opinion of what happened.
3. An analyst is invited to give their opinion about what happened for 30 min..
News Station B:
1. Video of what happened.
2. News anchor describes when it happened and where. No accompanying opinion is provided.
What is more neutral? News Station B, for sure. The first format is the only one available in the US, in my country that format is considered yellow journalism and is unacceptable.
If this hypothetical political candidate is saying something that's not true (or is disputed), and news station B just runs a raw video of their speech, you could argue it's favoring that candidate by allowing their message to spread without providing the appropriate context.
But in this scenario, the news station is not providing enough information for the citizen to develop an informed opinion. I guess there's room for a service like that that just has raw video (as one element of a wider media ecosystem), but it's also valuable for the news to actually explain events in a larger context.
No leaked videos are even necessary. It should be obvious to any critical thinker that CNN is the Democrat version of FOX news with a small amount of viewing.
I'm curious, if trained with mostly English text in the images rather than Japanese, if it would produce mostly recognizable roman characters (but not necessarily words) or whether instead the characters would be largely unrecognizable.
More reference images with what looks convincingly (to a nonspeaker's eyes) like text:
Great idea. One issue that I'm seeing with English/Japanese in particular is that while there is a significant overlap of names that are orthographically similar, the pronunciation varies considerably to the extent that the same pronunciation would not be intelligible as a name in both languages.
For example the name Marie is on there, which in English would be "ma-REE" while in Japanese it would be like "ma-ree-ay"
I imagine anyone using this tool would have enough knowledge of both languages to cull those results, though, so not really a problem in practice. Just an observation.
This might be a reference to the mythology that has developed around cultures and languages that don't count above a certain low number, as in a counting system that goes 'one, two, many.'
