1.This kids coloring book drawing that accidentally makes this woman look...curvier: · 2.This hand sanitizer bottle that's bound to cause a very thirsty person to make a big mistake:

48 Dumb, Misleading, Or Inappropriate Designs That Businesses Clearly Did Not Think Through At All

Clearly

clearly

Photo Credit by iAsk Photo Credit by iAsk Photo Credit by iAsk The numbers are in—and they’re massive. iAsk AI just passed half a billion searches. That’s not a typo. 500,000,000+ questions asked, problems solved, papers summarized, and headaches avoided. iAsk AI iAsk AI half a billion For a tool that didn’t exist a few years ago, this kind of growth is wild. But if you’ve used iAsk, you get it. It’s not just another AI chatbot—it’s the fastest way to go from “I’m stuck” to “I got this.” Why Everyone’s Using iAsk Why Everyone’s Using iAsk Students are swearing by it. Professionals are sneaking it into their workflows. And Gen Z? They're making it go viral on TikTok. Whether it’s breaking down calculus step-by-step, summarizing a 10-page article in seconds, or helping you write a killer essay—iAsk just gets it. No fluff, no distractions, just straight-to-the-point answers that actually help. One user put it perfectly, “It’s not really just answering questions, you know. iAsk AI solves problems.” It’s not really just answering questions, you know. iAsk AI solves problems. What Makes iAsk Different What Makes iAsk Different Speed is one thing. Accuracy is another. But iAsk shines because it actually thinks. Behind the scenes, it’s using something called Chain of Thought (CoT) reasoning. That means it doesn’t just spit out answers—it walks through them step-by-step, like a really smart friend who also happens to be an AI. It’s no wonder iAsk Pro scored a record-breaking 78.28% on the GPQA Diamond Test—a benchmark that stumps most AI models (and honestly, a lot of humans too). iAsk Pro scored a record-breaking 78.28% on the GPQA Diamond Test iAsk Pro scored a record-breaking 78.28% on the GPQA Diamond Test Not Just for Students Not Just for Students Sure, it’s a game-changer for students on tight deadlines. But creatives, researchers, and busy professionals are jumping on board too. Need to analyze a dense report? Done. Brainstorm content ideas? Easy. Polish a rough draft into something publish-ready? Say hello to iAsk Writer. iAsk Writer iAsk Writer “More than just getting answers, it’s about understanding them,” said one student who used iAsk to prep for finals and crushed it. More than just getting answers, it’s about understanding them The Best Part? It’s Still Free for Students The Best Part? It’s Still Free for Students To celebrate the milestone, iAsk is making iAsk Pro free for all students—giving anyone with a .edu email access to premium features like live tutoring, ad-free browsing, and more. For free. For a year. iAsk Pro free for all students iAsk Pro free for all students So… What’s Next? So… What’s Next? Half a billion searches is just the beginning. iAsk is building fast, listening to users, and leveling up what AI search can do. And if you’re still using regular search engines that give you a wall of links instead of real answers? Might be time to give iAsk a try. Because clearly… they’re doing something right. This article is published under HackerNoon’s Business Blogging program. This article is published under HackerNoon’s Business Blogging program. This article is published under HackerNoon’s Business Blogging program. This article is published under HackerNoon’s Business Blogging program. Business Blogging

Over 500 Million Searches on iAsk AI—They’re Clearly Doing Something Right

Más de 500 millones de búsquedas en iAsk AI - Claramente están haciendo algo correcto

Máis de 500 millóns de buscas en iAsk AI - Están claramente facendo algo correcto

iAsk AI で 500 万件を超える検索 - 明らかに正しいことをしている

ມີຫຼາຍກ່ວາ 500 ລ້ານການຊອກຫາກ່ຽວກັບ iAsk AI - ພວກເຂົາເຈົ້າຍັງເຮັດສິ່ງທີ່ດີ

Vairāk nekā 500 miljoni meklējumu iAsk AI - viņi skaidri dara kaut ko pareizi

Ponad 500 milionów wyszukiwań na iAsk AI – wyraźnie robią coś dobrze

Более 500 миллионов поисковых запросов на iAsk AI — они явно делают что-то правильно

Ka badan 500 Million Searches on iAsk AI - Waayo, Waayo, Waayo, Waayo, Waayo, Waayo

在iAsk AI上有超过5亿次搜索 - 他们显然正在做正确的事情

Ngaphezulu kwe-500 Million Searches ku-iAsk AI - Zibonele ukuthi zibonele okuhle

How to Write Clearly: Rules and Exercises on English Composition by Edwin Abbott Abbott, is part of the HackerNoon Books Series. You can jump to any chapter in this book . PREFACE. here PREFACE. Almost every English boy can be taught to write clearly, so far at least as clearness depends upon the arrangement of words. Force, elegance, and variety of style are more difficult to teach, and far more difficult to learn; but clear writing can be reduced to rules. To teach the art of writing clearly is the main object of these Rules and Exercises. Ambiguity may arise, not only from bad arrangement, but also from other causes—from the misuse of single words, and from confused thought. These causes are not removable by definite rules, and therefore, though not neglected, are not prominently considered in this book. My object rather is to point out some few continually recurring causes of ambiguity, and to suggest definite remedies in each case. Speeches in Parliament, newspaper narratives and articles, and, above all, resolutions at public meetings, furnish abundant instances of obscurity arising from the monotonous neglect of some dozen simple rules. The art of writing forcibly is, of course, a valuable acquisition—almost as valuable as the art of writing clearly. But forcible expression is not, like clear expression, a mere question of mechanism and of the manipulation of words; it is a much higher power, and implies much more. Writing clearly does not imply thinking clearly. A man may think and reason as obscurely as Dogberry himself, but he may (though it is not probable that he will) be able to write clearly for all that. Writing clearly—so far as arrangement of words is concerned—is a mere matter of adverbs, conjunctions, prepositions, and auxiliary verbs, placed and repeated according to definite rules.[1] Even obscure or illogical thought can be clearly expressed; indeed, the transparent medium of clear writing is not least beneficial when it reveals the illogical nature of the meaning beneath it. On the other hand, if a man is to write forcibly, he must (to use a well-known illustration) describe Jerusalem as "sown with salt," not as "captured," and the Jews not as being "subdued" but as "almost exterminated" by Titus. But what does this imply? It implies knowledge, and very often a great deal of knowledge, and it implies also a vivid imagination. The writer must have eyes to see the vivid side of everything, as well as words to describe what he sees. Hence forcible writing, and of course tasteful writing also, is far less a matter of rules than is clear writing; and hence, though forcible writing is exemplified in the exercises, clear writing occupies most of the space devoted to the rules. Boys who are studying Latin and Greek stand in especial need of help to enable them to write a long English sentence clearly. The periods of Thucydides and Cicero are not easily rendered into our idiom without some knowledge of the links that connect an English sentence. There is scarcely any better training, rhetorical as well as logical, than the task of construing Thucydides into genuine English; but the flat, vague, long-winded Greek-English and Latin-English imposture that is often tolerated in our examinations and is allowed to pass current for genuine English, diminishes instead of increasing the power that our pupils should possess over their native language. By getting marks at school and college for construing good Greek and Latin into bad English, our pupils systematically unlearn what they may have been allowed to pick up from Milton and from Shakespeare. I must acknowledge very large obligations to Professor Bain's treatise on "English Composition and Rhetoric," and also to his English Grammar. I have not always been able to agree with Professor Bain as to matters of taste; but I find it difficult to express my admiration for the systematic thoroughness and suggestiveness of his book on Composition. In particular, Professor Bain's rule on the use of "that" and "which" (see Rule 8) deserves to be better known.[2] The ambiguity produced by the confusion between these two forms of the Relative is not a mere fiction of pedants; it is practically serious. Take, for instance, the following sentence, which appeared lately in one of our ablest weekly periodicals: "There are a good many Radical members in the House cannot forgive the Prime Minister for being a Christian." Twenty years hence, who is to say whether the meaning is " , i.e. members in the House," or "there are a good many Radical members of the House cannot &c."? Professor Bain, apparently admitting no exceptions to his useful rule, amends many sentences in a manner that seems to me intolerably harsh. Therefore, while laying due stress on the utility of the rule, I have endeavoured to point out and explain the exceptions. who and they all the Radical that The rules are stated as briefly as possible, and are intended not so much for use by themselves as for reference while the pupil is working at the exercises. Consequently, there is no attempt to prove the rules by accumulations of examples. The few examples that are given, are given not to prove, but to illustrate the rules. The exercises are intended to be written out and revised, as exercises usually are; but they may also be used for instruction. The books being shut, the pupils, with their written exercises before them, may be questioned as to the reasons for the several alterations they have made. Experienced teachers will not require any explanation of the arrangement or rather non-arrangement of the exercises. They have been purposely mixed together unclassified to prevent the pupil from relying upon anything but his own common sense and industry, to show him what is the fault in each case, and how it is to be amended. Besides references to the rules, notes are attached to each sentence, so that the exercises ought not to present any difficulty to a painstaking boy of twelve or thirteen, provided he has first been fairly trained in English grammar. vivâ voce The "Continuous Extracts" present rather more difficulty, and are intended for boys somewhat older than those for whom the Exercises are intended. The attempt to modernize, and clarify, so to speak, the style of Burnet, Clarendon, and Bishop Butler,[3] may appear ambitious, and perhaps requires some explanation. My object has, of course, not been to the style of these authors, but to show how their meaning might be expressed more clearly in modern English. The charm of the style is necessarily lost, but if the loss is recognized both by teacher and pupil, there is nothing, in my opinion, to counterbalance the obvious utility of such exercises. Professor Bain speaks to the same effect:[4] "For an English exercise, the matter should in some way or other be supplied, and the pupil disciplined in giving it expression. I know of no better method than to prescribe passages containing good matter, but in some respects imperfectly worded, to be amended according to the laws and the proprieties of style. Our older writers might be extensively, though not exclusively, drawn upon for this purpose." improve upon To some of the friends whose help has been already acknowledged in "English Lessons for English People," I am indebted for further help in revising these pages. I desire to express especial obligations to the Rev. J. H. Lupton, late Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge, and Second Master of St. Paul's School, for copious and valuable suggestions; also to several of my colleagues at the City of London School, among whom I must mention in particular the Rev. A. R. Vardy, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. * * * * * Before electrotyping the Fourth and Revised Edition, I wish to say one word as to the manner in which this book has been used by my highest class, as a collection of Rules for reference in their construing lessons. In construing, from Thucydides especially, I have found Rules 5, 30, 34, 36, 37, and 40_a_, of great use. The rules about Metaphor and Climax have also been useful in correcting faults of taste in their Latin and Greek compositions. I have hopes that, used in this way, this little book may be of service to the highest as well as to the middle classes of our schools. FOOTNOTES: [1] Punctuation is fully discussed in most English Grammars, and is therefore referred to in this book only so far as is necessary to point out the slovenly fault of trusting too much to punctuation, and too little to arrangement. [2] Before meeting with Professor Bain's rule, I had shown that the difference between the Relatives is generally observed the Shakespeare. See "Shakespearian Grammar," paragraph 259. [3] Sir Archibald Alison stands on a very different footing. The extracts from this author are intended to exhibit the dangers of verbosity and exaggeration. [4] "English Composition and Rhetoric," p. vii. About HackerNoon Book Series: We bring you the most important technical, scientific, and insightful public domain books. This book is part of the public domain. Edwin Abbott Abbott (2007). How to Write Clearly: Rules and Exercises on English Composition. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/22600/pg22600.html This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at , located at . www.gutenberg.org https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html

Almost every English boy can be taught to write clearly

How to Write Clearly: Rules and Exercises on English Composition by Edwin Abbott Abbott is part of the HackerNoon Books Series. Read this book online for free on HackerNoon! : How to Write Clearly: Rules and Exercises on English Composition Title : Edwin Abbott Abbott Author : September 14, 2007 [eBook #22600] Most recently updated: January 2, 2021 Release date : English Language TABLE OF LINKS PREFACE INDEX OF RULES. I. CLEARNESS AND FORCE. . WORDS ORDER OF WORDS IN A SENTENCE. II. BREVITY. CLEARNESS AND FORCE. WORDS. ORDER OF WORDS IN A SENTENCE. BREVITY. EXERCISES CONTINUOUS EXERCISES CLEARNESS. BURNET. BISHOP BUTLER. BREVITY. About HackerNoon Book Series: We bring you the most important technical, scientific, and insightful public domain books. This book is part of the public domain. Edwin Abbott Abbott (2007). How to Write Clearly: Rules and Exercises on English Composition. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/22600/pg22600.html This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at , located at . www.gutenberg.org https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html

How to Write Clearly: Rules and Exercises on English Composition - Table of Links

Dependency injection (DI) is a wonderful thing. Simply add your dependency as a parameter to the constructor (most commonly) of your class, register it with you DI container, and away you go - the DI container will manage the rest. Some of the key benefits of DI are: greater testability, greater maintainability, and greater reusability. : { { ( dbContent = MyDbContext())
        {
            dbContext.Orders.Add(order);
            dbContent.SaveChanges(); Ok();
        }
    } { ( dbContext = MyDbContext())
        { orders = dbContext.Orders.ToList(); JsonResult(orders);
        }
    }
} : { MyDbContext _dbContext; {
        _dbContext = dbContext;
    } {
        _dbContext.Orders.Add(order);
        _dbContent.SaveChanges(); Ok();
    } { orders = _dbContext.Orders.ToList(); JsonResult(orders);
    }
} // without DI public class OrderController Controller ActionResult ( ) public Post Order order using var new return ActionResult ( ) public Get using var new var return new // with DI public class OrderController Controller private readonly ( ) public OrderController MyDbContext dbContext ActionResult ( ) public Post Order order return ActionResult ( ) public Get var return new However, I recently came across a use case where DI can be a real pain - dependency injection in inherited classes. The Problem I have recently been working a lot with the package, using it's request/request handler pattern to issue commands in the system (inspired by ). Mediatr Jason Taylor's Clean Architecture solution I typically create a RequestHandler base class that contains common dependencies and functionality. Each concrete request handler can then inherit from this base class. < , > : < , > : < >
{ {
        DbContext = dbContext;
    } IApplicationDbContext DbContext { ; } ;
} MyRequestHandler : RequestHandler<MyRequest, MyResponse>
{ { } { }
} public abstract class RequestHandler TRequest TResponse IRequestHandler TRequest TResponse where TRequest IRequest TResponse ( ) public RequestHandler IApplicationDbContext dbContext protected get Task<TResponse> ( ) public abstract Handle TRequest request, CancellationToken cancellationToken public ( ) : ( ) public MyRequestHandler IApplicationDbContext dbContext base dbContext Task<MyResponse> ( ) public override Handle MyRequest request, CancellationToken cancellationToken // handler logic The problem comes when I want to add more dependencies to the base class. Now I have to go through to every single concrete request handler and update the constructor to take the new dependency as well. Fortunately, the code will not compile if I miss one, so there is no risk of a runtime error, but it is still incredibly tedious work to have to update every single request handler. Also, you can end up with very large constructors, which obscures the intention of the class. < , > : < , > : < >
{ {
        DbContext = dbContext;
        CurrentUser = currentUser;
    } IApplicationDbContext DbContext { ; } ICurrentUser CurrentUser { ; } ;
} MyRequestHandler : RequestHandler<MyRequest, MyResponse>
{ { } { }
} public abstract class RequestHandler TRequest TResponse IRequestHandler TRequest TResponse where TRequest IRequest TResponse ( ) public RequestHandler IApplicationDbContext dbContext, ICurrentUser currentUser protected get protected get Task<TResponse> ( ) public abstract Handle TRequest request, CancellationToken cancellationToken public ( ) : ( ) public MyRequestHandler IApplicationDbContext dbContext, ICurrentUser currentUser base dbContext, currentUser Task<MyResponse> ( ) public override Handle MyRequest request, CancellationToken cancellationToken // handler logic The Solution - Dependency Aggregates The solution to this problem is really quite simple. Rather than injecting the dependencies directly, create a new class that contains the dependencies (known as an aggregate) and inject that instead. {
    IApplicationDbContext DbContext { ; }
    ICurrentUser { ; }
} : { {
        DbContext = dbContext;
        CurrentUser = currentUser;
    } IApplicationDbContext DbContext { ; } ICurrentUser CurrentUser { ; }
} < , > : < , > : < >
{ {
        DbContext = aggregate.DbContext;
        CurrentUser = aggregate.CurrentUser;
    } IApplicationDbContext DbContext { ; } ICurrentUser CurrentUser { ; } ;
} MyRequestHandler : RequestHandler<MyRequest, MyResponse>
{ { } { }
} public interface IDependencyAggregate get get public class DependencyAggregate IDependencyAggregate ( ) public DependencyAggregate IApplicationDbContext dbContext, ICurrentUser currentUser public get public get public abstract class RequestHandler TRequest TResponse IRequestHandler TRequest TResponse where TRequest IRequest TResponse ( ) public RequestHandler IDependencyAggregate aggregate protected get protected get Task<TResponse> ( ) public abstract Handle TRequest request, CancellationToken cancellationToken public ( ) : ( ) public MyRequestHandler IDependencyAggregate aggregate base aggregate Task<MyResponse> ( ) public override Handle MyRequest request, CancellationToken cancellationToken // handler logic Now if I want to add a new dependency, the only places that I need to change the code are in the DependencyAggregate class and the RequestHandler base class (I don't need to make any changes to the inherited classes). Conclusion In this post I have described a simple method for managing dependency injection in inherited classes, by creating a dependency aggregate class to inject into the base class. This ensures that new dependencies can easily be introduced with having to make changes to every inherited class. I post mostly about full stack .NET and Vue web development. To make sure that you don't miss out on any posts, please follow this blog and . If you found this post helpful, please like it and share it. You can also find me on . subscribe to my newsletter Twitter Previously published at https://samwalpole.com/handling-dependency-injection-in-inherited-classes

How to Create a Dependency Aggregate Class to Manage DI: Clearly Exemplified

I lead the technology industry business unit for a fast-growing analytics firm. And one of the perks of my job is the numerous conversations I get to have with a variety of prospects or clients. I recently read the novel ‘ by Rolf Dobelli, which deals with systematic cognitive errors of human beings as a result of our evolution. The Art of Thinking Clearly’ I enjoyed reading the book immensely, relating those cognitive errors to what I experience every day. I am selecting a few rampant cognitive errors mentioned in the book and linking them to situations I have come across. Neo-mania Def: The mania for all things new and shiny. The desire to have automation, machine models, artificial intelligence, and other such cutting-edge capabilities is intense in organizations today and probably justified. However, it’s alarming to see many of these efforts promise a very large ROI but never deliver it. marketing learning I once had an executive of a large organization say without batting an eyelid - “We have invested millions in a big data environment, and we now need to figure how to use it.” I am always disappointed when I hear things like — “Can you tell me how I can use machine learning capabilities in my business/function?” I wonder if anyone would say it if I replaced ‘machine learning’ with ‘statistics’. Conversely, the best use of ML/AI is when the need or a business problem was identified first and ML/AI emerged as a solution. Swimmer’s Body Illusion Def: Confusing the process of selection for effect. Rolf explains in the book that swimmers don’t have great bodies because they swim a lot; they are swimmers because their physique is suitable for swimming. I have seen companies falling to this illusion when they look to replicate an analytics success story from companies that seem to be doing very well and claiming that analytics is driving their success. It’s safe to say that the retail industry has the most mature analytics capability, but nobody is blaming the analytics team at Sears and Macy’s for their decline. In my opinion, most companies would succeed in their analytics initiatives if they just are more rational and use data to be just that. (Read more: Building an analytics-first organization ) Authority Bias Def: The tendency of human beings to follow authority without question, a culture most visible in religion but equally prominent in businesses. When I ask my clients why they were following a particular strategy, the responses most often indicate an authority bias. Interestingly, the bias seems more obvious when the perceived results from the strategy are less obvious. My advice to my clients has always been to focus on outcomes and not on the process. I am amazed even now that such a conversation isn’t always easy. The Paradox of Choice Def: Too many choices causing decision paralysis and subsequently leading to poor decisions. The number of , vendors, and technologies today is confounding. One would expect then that most clients would be happy with the choices they make. However, I haven’t seen a company that is entirely happy with its selection of business intelligence (BI) or . analytics solutions analytics platforms If only they hadn’t compared the tools with each other but against a prioritized list of their own needs, they would have come to a better decision. Default Effect/Status Quo Bias Def: A strong tendency to cling to the way things are, even when they put us at a disadvantage. Most tech companies with revenues of $500 million to $2 billion are hyper-focused on growth. The most important part of achieving growth is to size the market right, find the account segments to focus on, and then have the sales force or channel partners gain market share. One would imagine that these companies would have nailed this process well. I am yet to come across one. (Read more: Business Transformation — How Big Data Analytics Helps ) Alternative Blindness Def: Systematically forgetting to compare an existing offer with the next-best alternative. I have run across companies with no analytics capabilities looking to hire a team first, spending a million dollars, and losing quite a bit of time before they see any capability in action. When we provide them the alternative to spend less than half a million and have the capabilities stand up in six months, one would imagine it would be a no-brainer. It is, but only to our clients. *Please note that the terms and their descriptions are from Rolf Dobelli’s book. (This article was authored by Maruti Peri and first appeared on LinkedIn , the BRIDGEi2i blog & Datafloq .)

Master “The Art of Thinking Clearly” Before Making Your Analytics Investments!

Doesn’t it feel good (or a bit special) when someone sends you a reel or a meme? I mean - they saw something, they thought of you, and pressed that share button. That small moment of connection, that split second, where your friend paused their scrolling because something reminded them of you, is exactly what Instagram's new Blend feature is quietly erasing. Blend And honestly, I am NOT impressed. What Is Instagram Blend? FYI, Instagram has rolled out its new "Blend" feature that sits right inside your DMs. Instagram "Blend" Blend It allows you and your friends to create a shared feed of Instagram Reels, curated based on content suggestions specific to each individual. Once you tap that little icon at the top of your chat and send an invite (which the other person needs to accept), you will get a joint feed that's updated with new content daily. Each Reel comes with a name letting you know who it was originally recommended for - so if you watch cat videos (I do), your name appears next to those clips. Plus, Instagram also sends notifications whenever new content is added to your Blend. According to Instagram head Adam Mosseri, the goal is to help "Instagram be a place where people connect over creativity." Adam Mosseri "Instagram be a place where people connect over creativity." Now, if you are with me, haven't we seen this somewhere before? Yes, Spotify Did It First (And Instagram Kept the Same Name) Back in August 2021, at the height of the pandemic, when we were all desperately seeking connection, Spotify launched its own feature called – yes, you guessed it right – Blend. Spotify Blend In the music streaming app, this feature allowed friends to merge their musical tastes into a shared playlist, complete with "taste match scores" to compare listening preferences. Meta has a long history of "borrowing" features from other platforms. I mean Snapchat's Stories, TikTok's short-form video format (Reels), and now Spotify's Blend feature (they didn’t even bother to change the name). "borrowing" they didn’t even bother to change the name As Arjun Narayen, Spotify Product Manager, described their version of Blend: "It helps people find common ground with one another... Each time I make a Blend with someone, there's this awesome moment when we discover which artists and songs we both like and get to bond over how we discovered that artist". their version of Blend "It helps people find common ground with one another... Each time I make a Blend with someone, there's this awesome moment when we discover which artists and songs we both like and get to bond over how we discovered that artist". Now this sounds meaningful - discovering something about each other through shared tastes. Then, Why Instagram Blend Misses the Mark Instagram Blend The answer is – timing. Because we are not in 2021 anymore. Instagram has continuously developed features that prioritize algorithmic engagement over genuine connection, and Blend continues this troubling pattern. algorithmic engagement over genuine connection The pandemic-induced screen time that made features like Spotify's Blend so popular has now reached troubling levels, with studies showing adults spend up to a third of their waking hours on digital devices. This excessive screen time is actively damaging our relationships. Research has found that it increases emotional disconnection, miscommunication, and conflict, particularly between significant partners. Research There is even a term for ignoring someone while using your phone - "phubbing" (a blend of "phone" and "snubbing"). "phubbing" phubbing "phone" "snubbing" Compelling research shows that time spent on smartphones results in fewer meaningful conversations with established partners and even causes people to smile less around others. The WHO published a report in 2024 revealing that more than 1 in 10 adolescents (11%) show signs of problematic social media behavior, struggling to control their use, and experiencing negative consequences. report What's more concerning is that these numbers are increasing - the proportion classified as problematic social media users jumped from 7% in 2018 to 11% in 2022. So, Meta Completely Missed Signals If Meta had been paying the slightest attention to what is happening in society, they would have noticed a new growing desire among young people to move offline for relationships and friendships. Meta offline There has been a rising conversation around the lack of "third spaces" - places that are neither home nor work where people can gather and connect. "third spaces" third spaces One teenager shared her experience about third spaces, putting it perfectly: "Without third spaces, people have fewer opportunities to meet new people, engage in conversations, or simply exist in a shared environment. Instead, many people retreat to online spaces, accelerating polarization and isolation." her experience "Without third spaces, people have fewer opportunities to meet new people, engage in conversations, or simply exist in a shared environment. Instead, many people retreat to online spaces, accelerating polarization and isolation." Young people are increasingly aware of how digital connections fail to fulfill their social needs. As put by Dr. Hans Henri P. Kluge, WHO Regional Director for Europe: "It's clear that social media can have both positive and negative consequences on the health and wellbeing of adolescents". Dr. Hans Henri P. Kluge "It's clear that social media can have both positive and negative consequences on the health and wellbeing of adolescents". The challenge is finding the right balance - something Meta seems uninterested in addressing with features like Blend that only deepen our digital dependencies and occupancies. The challenge is finding the right balance Blend And, It Hits the Real Value of a Shared Reel Shared Reel The main problem with Instagram's Blend is that it completely misunderstands why we share content with friends in the first place. When your friend sends you a reel of a cat doing something ridiculous, the value is not in the content – it is in the fact that they thought of you. thought of you That cognitive moment where they paused, remembered something about you, and took action to share it with you – Now that's what we call the real connection. real connection By introducing Blend, Instagram is replacing that active thought process with a passive, algorithm-run experience. algorithm-run experience Instead of "I saw this and thought of you," it becomes "the algorithm determined we might both enjoy this." "I saw this and thought of you," "the algorithm determined we might both enjoy this." See the difference? One is a human connection, the other is an algorithmic suggestion. But People Want Human Connection, Not Algorithms Human Connection The irony is that Meta is launching this feature to help people "connect" at a time when research clearly shows that young people are willing to pay money to meet friends offline. "connect" They are seeking authentic human connection because they recognize that sending memes all day is not the same as having deeper conversations essential for well-being. Research on social media's impact on psychological well-being found that while there are some positive effects through bonding social capital, ‘digital-only’ connections often create what researchers term a "disembodied disconnect". "disembodied disconnect" disembodied disconnect This divide separates those who effectively use digital platforms from those who struggle with relationship difficulties, experiencing adverse effects like rumination and weakened offline social ties. Closing Thoughts Instagram's Blend feature is neither rightly inspired nor moving in the right direction. Instead of helping us create deeper connections, it is replacing the small but meaningful moments of human thought ("this made me think of you") with algorithm sharing. ("this made me think of you") As one user commented on Instagram's feature announcement: "Reels bhej bhej ke hi baat chit hota tha, ab same reel aayega toh koi kyun hi bhejega?" ("Conversations used to revolve around sharing Reels, but now if we get the same ones, why even bother sending them?") one user commented "Reels bhej bhej ke hi baat chit hota tha, ab same reel aayega toh koi kyun hi bhejega?" ("Conversations used to revolve around sharing Reels, but now if we get the same ones, why even bother sending them?") That question captures everything wrong with Blend. By automating what should be a personal choice to share, Instagram is not enhancing our connections – it is further diluting them into algorithm-run interactions. Maybe instead of designing features that keep us glued to our screens, tech companies should be asking how they can genuinely enhance human connection rather than replacing it with algorithmic simulations. But that would require actually listening to what people want and need - something Meta apparently didn't bother to do before launching Blend. Lastly, it is mostly about what they want, not what we actually need. actually

Instagram Blend Is Supposed to Bring Us Closer, But It’s Doing the Opposite

Instagram Blend трябва да ни сближи, но прави обратното

El Blend d'Instagram ens hauria de fer més propers, però està fent el contrari

Instagram Blend skal bringe os tættere, men det gør det modsatte

Instagram Blend se supone que nos acerque, pero está haciendo lo contrario

Instagram Blend nas treba približiti, ali čini suprotno

Instagram Blend dovrebbe avvicinarci, ma sta facendo il contrario

インスタグラムのブレンドは私たちをより近づけるべきですが、それは正反対です

Instagram Blend- ის მიზნით, რომ ჩვენ უფრო ახლოს, მაგრამ ეს გავაკეთებს განსხვავებული

Әрине, «Москва сразу не строилось» дейді, сондықтан да әлі де жақсартуға болады саяси жүйесін.

Instagram Blend нь биднийг ближ байна гэж байна, Гэхдээ энэ нь өөр өөрчилж байна

Instagram Blend ควรจะทําให้เราใกล้ชิด แต่ก็ทําได้ตรงกันข้าม

Ang Instagram Blend ay Sinasabi na magbubuo tayo ng mas malapit, ngunit ito ay gumagawa ng opposite

5 Strategies to Break Your Overthinking Habit

If you have ever traded traditional futures markets such as the ES or NQ, you may have noticed that you can only see a few levels of the order book and often have to pay a significant amount to access the full depth. Even worse, products like Spot Forex and other CFDs do not offer a visible order book since they are traded over the counter (OTC). However, when it comes to crypto, things are different. One of the main advantages of trading cryptocurrency derivatives is data transparency; seeing the full market depth for all products is standard. As useful as this data can be, many traders are intimidated by clusters of numbers popping on the screen. Even if they manage to understand how to read the order book, they more often than not fall for spoofing and end up on the completely wrong side of the trade. In this article, you will learn everything you need to know about order books, how to read them, what websites to use and how to utilize them in your trading. What is the Order Book The order book, sometimes also called the market depth or DOM, shows us the resting limit orders. The limit orders are also called passive orderflow, liquidity, or maker orders. The image above shows us the spot order book for BTCUSDT and ETHUSDT on Woo. Woo The numbers inside the Bid column with a blue background show us bids willing to buy, and the numbers inside the Ask column with a red background show us asks (also called offers) willing to sell. You might also be familiar with the heatmaps, which are exactly the same as the order book but visualized directly on a chart with different colors based on the order intensity. As someone who originally came to trade crypto from a legacy markets background, I always viewed the order book information as only applicable in extremely low timeframes and as noise due to a large amount of spoofing. For those of you who do not know, spoofing means placing orders into the order book without the intention of them ever being filled; this happens mostly to confuse other market participants. What I realized is that things are pretty different in the cryptocurrency space, and order books can often be utilized even on higher timeframes. Large market participants frequently do not care to make their orders visible, probably because the “average crypto trader” does not care about this information at all. As you can see in the image below, the large bid was left in Solana for several hours before being filled, creating a strong intra-day bounce. Later on, I will show you the easy way how you can verify if the order was actually filled or not. Spot vs Futures Order Books When it comes to trading cryptocurrencies, you have two options: you can either trade derivatives (perpetual futures), or you can trade a spot. The differences are straightforward: if you trade a spot, you can only buy to own the underlying asset and sell it back to the cash (stablecoins); with derivates, you can speculate on price movements going both long and short and use leverage. The futures are the “retail trader” choice. If you think Bitcoin is about to move from $60,000 to $65,000 and you want to buy 1 BTC to make $5,000 if the move happens, you will need to have $60,000 on the exchange to purchase 1 BTC. For futures, this will be much cheaper as you can use leverage, and your margin requirements will be substantially lower. Although futures order books can occasionally provide useful information, the limit order book in futures is very often well populated by market makers who provide liquidity rather than trying to express any direction bias. In the spot order book, we find large players with enough capital to influence the price movements. The two examples above show the BTCUSDT spot order book (top) and BTCUSDT perpetual futures order book (bottom). The chart is also filtered out only to show large outstanding orders. You can very quickly notice that on the spot order book, the large orders only appeared in the areas of decent price turning points compared to the futures order book, which was swarmed by large orders on both sides above and below the price the whole time. This is a classic example of what market-making (providing liquidity) looks like. Using Order Book as a Supply and Demand Indicator While examining individual price points in the order book as support and resistance levels can be useful, single orders often fail to provide a complete picture and can be misleading. You will use the order books much better once you look at the delta imbalance inside the order book. For those of you who have no idea what delta imbalance is, it is simply a difference between the limit orders available to buy and the limit orders available to sell. If you have an order book with 100 BTC resting on the bid side (to buy) and 70 BTC resting on the asks side (to sell), the delta in this case would be 30 (100-70). Below, you will see the example from the actual order book. You can see that, in this case, the order book is more or less balanced, with a negative delta of 3.1BTC (approximately $150,000). Luckily, we do not have to look at the constantly changing order book and try to calculate the difference ourselves; several platforms will do it for us and plot the order book depth delta as an oscillator. Tradinglite, Mobchart, and Trdr.io are the few that can display the order book depth. Tradinglite Mobchart Trdr.io I have no affiliation with either of them (besides using a sneaky reff link shill in the URLs in the previous sentence), but all of them are great and have features. Since you will need a premium subscription to access order book depth data, I recommend Trdr.io because they are the only platform with aggregated order book depth, even though Mobbchart has the largest selection of coins and Tradinglite has the most overall features. Trdr.io I will complete the rundown of the platforms and settings at the end of the article. As I mentioned, we do not care about particular price levels but rather the significant delta differences between buyers and sellers when using the order book depth. The picture above shows price reactions on BTC once the order book delta went above or below $50m; as you can see, every time there was outstanding demand on the bid or supply on the offer, the price followed the direction. This example is only from the last two weeks of Bitcoin price action, but as I mentioned before, the order book depth can also be used in higher timeframes. Below, you will see the BTC on a daily timeframe and price reactions when the order book delta was above or below $150m with a depth smaller than 10% from the market price. Compared to traditional indicators such as RSI, which clearly set boundaries for “overbought/oversold” areas, the order book depth just shows the current delta. What you perceive as high or low is your discretionary decision. Because of that, it is well worth spending time backtesting previous price reactions in different markets. Improving on execution using order book depth The order book depth is not a classic indicator; it does not tell you when to buy or sell. It simply tells you what if the spot traders (often heavier hands) are interested in buying or selling. Spot traders are also often much more patient than those who trade futures; because of that, the spot books can be heavily skewed on one side for much longer before the mean-reverting move happens. As you can see on the chart above, SOL order books were heavily skewed on the sell side, but Solana still rallied 7% higher before eventually selling off. It would be best if you thought about using an order book depth more as a confluence indicator inside your system, which will help you stay on the same side as large market participants and give you higher conviction in your trades. On my Twitter, I recently did a full trade breakdown, using the order book depth as a confluence for my overall trade idea; you can find the whole thread here. Twitter here Order Book Depth Platforms To view order book depth, you need to use a specific platform. There are a few, but I will list the three that I found the most useful for various reasons. I have no affiliation with either of these platforms, and they might come with additional monthly subscriptions. Trdr.io This is my personal favourite as it offers a variety of settings and, most importantly, aggregates data from several exchanges; therefore, you will get a full picture of what is going on. The little disadvantage of Trdr.io is that they are pretty slow to list any new coins therefore you might not find you favorite altcoins there. When it comes to settings, you want to make sure that Market Types are set to Spot and the Smaller than setting is 1% or 2.5% for day trading/scalping, 5% for intra-week swings, and 10% for higher-timeframe swing trading. Mobchart Mobchart is also great. They do not have aggregated feeds, as they only offer Binance and Bybit, but theyer variety of coins and a screener that have a much wid will show large limit orders across all markets. Coinglass Coinglass is the only one which is free and a good starting point if you don’t want to pay for any subscriptions. They also have aggregated feed, but unfortunately, the indicator will only show you the nearest 1% from market price; therefore, it will only be useful for very fast-paced scalping. Conclusion Utilising order book depth in your trading is a great tool to gain additional confluence for any trading system that evolves around using price action or indicators. Obviously, nothing works every time, but it is usually beneficial to be on the same side of the market as the spot traders.

Understanding Crypto Order Books Could Save Your Next Trade

Begrip van Crypto Bestellingsboeke kan jou volgende handel red

فهم الكتب المرسلة الخاصة بك يمكن أن تخزين التداول التالي الخاص بك

Pochopení knih o kryptoměnách by mohlo ušetřit váš další obchod

Das Verstehen von Crypto-Order-Büchern könnte Ihren nächsten Trade retten

Comprender los libros de pedidos de criptografía podría ahorrar su próximo comercio

क्रिप्टो ऑर्डर किताबों को समझना आपके अगले व्यापार को बचा सकता है

暗号化注文書の理解はあなたの次の取引を救うことができます

Crypto Order წიგნი შეიძლება გადარჩენა თქვენი შემდეგი სავაჭრო

«Қазақтелеком» АҚ-ның телекоммуникациялар желісін қуаттылығы 1 млн. абонент Next Generation Network (NGN) технологиясына көшіру

Het begrijpen van Crypto Order Books kan uw volgende handel redden

Qalabka Qalabka Qalabka Qalabka Qalabka Qalabka Qalabka Qalabka Qalabka Qalabka Qalabka

Ukuphathelela i-Crypto Order Books Ingaba Ukukhusela i-Trade yakho elandelayo

I've been writing code for the last ~18 years, and professionally for about 8 years (including at Google, Uber) - and I’ve got to say I’ve really loved it. And what’s not to love? I got to spend most of my time building fun things, the reward feedback loop was tight and my tools got better pretty much every few years. Syntax highlighting, auto-complete, IntelliSense, project-level refactorings, and even early Github Copilot all made my experience writing code more joyful.  With every generation of improvements, it felt like these enhancements helped *me* be a better coder. Until now. This latest wave feels very, very different. With agentic programming (*cough* vibe-coding), it doesn't feel like another incremental upgrade. It actively scrambles my perception of what's coming next, and my role in it. I tried to narrow down on why exactly it feels so different. Then as I witnessed a code agent one-shot yet another small but still somewhat ambiguous task on my codebase, it suddenly dawned on me. It doesn't feel like I'm “coding” anymore, rather it feels like I’m “delegating”. It feels like I'm giving abstract instructions to another human, or a set of humans - rather than giving precise instructions to a computer. This has crossed some sort of chasm for me. A "feel the AGI" moment of sorts. "feel the AGI" https://x.com/sidharth_raja/status/1905667236628705476?embedable=true https://x.com/sidharth_raja/status/1905667236628705476?embedable=true It still feels like I’m “directing” or “programming” the system. But what’s different is that I’m now programming an organization of agent coders to achieve the goal, rather than programming the computer directly. Working this way requires me to confront an unfortunate new truth. A Sobering Realization The economic value of my knowing how to “code” has gone to zero. The fact of the matter is that everyone in the world now has (or soon will have) access to an army of increasingly brilliant coders in their pocket. One they can instantly summon whenever they want. And it’s basically free. It’s a bittersweet realization. I empathize with @amasad’s sentiment here, after a tweet where he says he “no longer thinks you should learn to code”. @amasad https://x.com/amasad/status/1905261929452519838?embedable=true https://x.com/amasad/status/1905261929452519838?embedable=true Coding for art’s sake v/s Coding for the user’s sake Coding for fun is enjoyable. Back in undergrad days, I really enjoyed competitive programming too. My team even went for the ACM-ICPC Asia regionals twice, and we generally had a blast. There’s a certain rush that comes from figuring out a problem, and writing code to solve it. It’s not entirely unlike a crossword puzzle or a sudoku or a math problem. Sure, you could get help to do it (erm. cheat!), but that’s not the point of it. This is an artisanal mindset. Coding for art's sake. For the mere fun of the game. When working on a product, you largely need to throw that mindset out the window. Here, the code mainly exists to serve the product and the user. It's a means to an end. The end user doesn’t care whether I wrote it, or instructed an agent to write it. The user only cares that it works. Correctly, reliably, securely, fast. That they can forget it exists, and get on with their day. So the question then becomes “What’s the fastest way to get to (good, maintainable) code that does that?” Unfortunately, it seems like the answer to that is that I may have to learn to… get out of the way. That maybe I mostly shouldn’t be writing code anymore, because doing so would make me the bottleneck, or even worse - the hindrance. In ”Average is Over”, Tyler Cowen talked about the dynamic of “human + computer” teams in chess. Such teamups (surprisingly) still held an advantage even as recently as 2013, but the trend line of human contribution to the team was clear. From his essay  “What are humans still good for”: ”Average is Over” “What are humans still good for” it is interesting to observe an approach to the flip point, where even the most talented humans move from being very real contributors to being strictly zero marginal product. Or negative marginal product, as the case may be it is interesting to observe an approach to the flip point, where even the most talented humans move from being very real contributors to being strictly zero marginal product. Or negative marginal product, as the case may be A similar dynamic seems to be playing out here in coding. For now, it appears I can still add value by looking at the machine output and adding value on top of it, but once again - for how long?. What’s currently good for quick prototyping today will improve and be the builder of robust systems tomorrow. Today’s toy is tomorrow’s tool. On one hand, low level things getting abstracted away isn't new for the field. Computer Science, much moreso than other fields has a rich history of composability. Chances are you haven't written in machine code or assembly in a while if ever (thank you compilers!). You've almost certainly used building blocks (libraries/APIs/platforms) created by other people. It's wrappers all the way down to the silicon. For now however, coding remains only one part of the overall software engineering process. And it just so turns out that the way I can bring most value to this system is not with my coding ability anymore, it’s with my vision and ability to articulate what I want, and to steer this organization of agents towards that goal. It's to eliminate ambiguity as much as possible, and to bridge the gap between the vision and the spec. In a sense, this role is closer to an “Agent Director” than a software engineer writing code. So where do we go from here? Because it's like delegation, axioms of human organization management seem to apply to agent organization management. For example: Know your agents limitations, and delegate accordingly. They will always willingly attempt to bite off more they can chew. Don't let them.
Setup systems of checks and balances to catch when a change is breaking, and to guide the agent towards writing good code. Type safety is good. Tests are good.
Setup an environment where agents can get the info they need to succeed. Documentation is good. Separation of concerns is good. A well organized codebase is good.
Parallelization is good. Don't just wait on a single agent in a single threaded way, especially for long running tasks. There's a solid chance that future elite programmers resemble torrential high APM Starcraft players - commanding and collating the outputs of their army of agent units.
And most importantly, make your vision clear and communicate it clearly, so that the agent can be empowered to make the right decisions fitting into your broader framework. What the agent really doesn’t know is what you want, so it’s up to you to direct it towards that. Know your agents limitations, and delegate accordingly. They will always willingly attempt to bite off more they can chew. Don't let them. Setup systems of checks and balances to catch when a change is breaking, and to guide the agent towards writing good code. Type safety is good. Tests are good. Setup an environment where agents can get the info they need to succeed. Documentation is good. Separation of concerns is good. A well organized codebase is good. Parallelization is good. Don't just wait on a single agent in a single threaded way, especially for long running tasks. There's a solid chance that future elite programmers resemble torrential high APM Starcraft players - commanding and collating the outputs of their army of agent units. torrential high APM Starcraft players And most importantly, make your vision clear and communicate it clearly, so that the agent can be empowered to make the right decisions fitting into your broader framework. What the agent really doesn’t know is what you want, so it’s up to you to direct it towards that. And after all is said and done though, when you finally deliver something - you’re still stamping it with your seal of quality. Your name and reputation is your brand. As the "lead" of those agents, you’re still accountable for their results. The buck stops with you.

Coding Might Not Be the Best Use of Your Time Any More

Kodering mag nie meer die beste gebruik van jou tyd wees nie

Код можа не быць найлепшым выкарыстаннем вашага часу

কোডিং আপনার সময়ের সেরা ব্যবহার হতে পারে না

Η κωδικοποίηση μπορεί να μην είναι η καλύτερη χρήση του χρόνου σας πια

Codificar puede no ser el mejor uso de tu tiempo ya

Koodaus ei ehkä ole parasta aikaa enää

कोडिंग अब आपके समय का सबसे अच्छा उपयोग नहीं हो सकता है

A kódolás már nem lehet a legjobb használata az időnek

コードはもはやあなたの時間の最善の使い方ではないかもしれません。

Coding შეიძლება არ იყოს საუკეთესო გამოყენება თქვენი დრო უფრო მეტი

ការកូដអាចមិនមែនជាការប្រើប្រាស់ល្អបំផុតនៃពេលវេលារបស់អ្នកជាច្រើនទៀត

Kodimi nuk mund të jetë më përdorimi më i mirë i kohës suaj

This Open Source Tool Turns Markdown Into a Knowledge Graph—With a Little Help From AI

Stories, News & Mentions about CLEARLY

Categories

Trending Topics

Stories, News & Mentions about CLEARLY

Clearly’s Stories on HackerNoon

Clearly's News & Mentions

Categories

Trending Topics