Go on a Tuesday or Wednesday and tickets are 50% off at AMC (and maybe other theaters). While still not cheap, that gets you down to $16.49 for an imax showing at the metreon AMC and $9.49 for a standard screen.
AMC also has their A List thing which is $27/month (here in NYC) while a regular evening ticket is ~$24. It's a stupidly good deal if you go to even two movies a month.
Despite what everyone here always says I haven't noticed a substantial difference in service or the audience quality since pre-COVID. Remember, even in the early 90's Seinfeld had an entire B-plot about disruptive movie-goers. This isn't new.
The one thing that's annoying is the commercials, but AMC even tells you how long those are now, and with reserved seats, you can just show up near the end of them.
> Each of these consumes, on an annual basis, in the region of 400m tonnes of other animals.
The amount of food consumed by spiders is certainly impressive, but limiting the comparison to the tonnage of animals consumed must just be for clickbait.
While a cursory search failed to find total food consumption, this NPR article [0] uses USDA data to outline average American food consumption. While these numbers are obviously inflated compared to average human food consumption worldwide, the percentage breakdown can shine some more light on the issue.
* Dairy - 630 lbs (32.7%)
* Meat - 185 lbs (9.6%)
* Grain - 197 lbs (10.2%)
* Fruit - 273 lbs (14.2%)
* Vegetables - 415 lbs (21.5%)
* Sugars - 141 lbs (7.3%)
* Fats - 85 lbs (4.4%)
(There was a missing 70 lbs from their provided total of 1996 lbs, so I just summed the included values)
Even if "of other animals" included dairy products, that is only 42.3% of food consumption. Pretending we could accurately extrapolate those numbers worldwide, that would lead to a real total food consumption of ~950 million tonnes. If "tonnes of other animals" is exclusively meat, that would mean total human food consumption is more in the ballpark of ~4.2 billion tonnes.
The actual title of the article is "The ecological impact of spiders" with the submitted title being the byline. While the actual article's title is not clickbait, the submitter clearly went with the byline to attract more interest.
You could argue that that isn't clickbait because it is a technically correct answer, but it would be nice to see an actual source for the human/whale food consumption.
There is an article about the same paper on How Stuff Works that is definitely clickbait: "Each Year Spiders Eat Millions of Tons of Food More Than Humans".
"You won't believe who loves smoothies made of bug guts" would be clickbait. 'Mildly curious fact' is just a mildly curious fact like EO Wilson telling you how much all ants weigh in a nature documentary.
Clickbait is over-sensationalising a title to bring more traffic to the article page, where ads and other monetising things can be served.
HN has been going bonkers over complaining about clickbait titles recently... it seems our denizens have somehow developed a highly-tuned sense of what clickbait looks like... but for some reason still can't resist clicking on it when they see it.
I don't think this is recent but I'm glad people do it. If I read a title that seem shocking, I'm more likely to see that's it's true or have one of the first comments call it out upon quick glance.
Perhaps a not so serious answer, but Larry Niven has a number of science fiction stories based on this concept, which is dubbed organlegging [0]. The one that sticks out in my mind is The Jigsaw Man [1].
You can switch to the metric system on their website [1]. The graph can also be switched to metric by changing the "uom" query parameter from "E" to "M"
It would be better if NOAA used kilopascal (an actual SI unit) instead of millibar, but I guess the conversion is not too bad since 1000 mbar = 100 kPa.
The NOAA data isn't consumed solely by scientists though. I'm sure millibars were chosen as the metric measurement of pressure because people actually use them, such as mariners.
Reminds me of the library trek in Asimov's Bicentennial Man. Asimov had a great perspective on the various ways humans would react to robots. His robot series is a really enjoyable read (and once you finish those, there's a good chance you'll want to read the Foundation series as well).
That would be preferable to what happened to me once. I tried using a + filter and it was accepted but I never received booking information for my trip. When my trip was getting closer I realized I didn't have a confirmation number, and after a long conversation with customer service, it turned out that instead of "<email>+<filter>@gmail.com" my email address was saved as "<email> <filter>@gmail.com", so nothing ever made it through to me.
I'll bet that's a URL-decoding bug -- space gets encoded as plus, so if they decoded an extra time your plus would turn into a space. I've made that mistake a few times myself.
Wow, that article isn't about the conference at all, it just serves as an anecdote. The quote the conference uses in their media serves, if anything, as nothing more than a flippant missive meant to contrast the writer's own view of himself against the people he writes about, not as praise for the event.
It is interesting to me that Teespring seems to force sellers to advertise each specific design. I was looking for, but couldn't find, a way to see all designs created by a specific user. On a cursory search, I found a few designs by the million dollar seller mentioned in the article, and each of those designs involves clip art quality graphics and a number of seemingly randomly chosen fonts. I imagine if I came across a page showing all of his designs, Teespring would look a lot more like Zazzle or CafePress.
With TeeSpring, the only way to win as a seller is to go for scale
I know some internet marketers who will go out and create hundreds of campaigns targeting different interest groups (right from broad categories like 'truckers' to narrow interest groups like Pokemon fans who play Skyrim). Then they'll test them all out on Facebook, throwing in thousands of dollars into the process.
The people selling on Teespring likely prefer it this way. Launching these campaigns is like digging for psychological gold... Once you've found it, you don't want your competitors to know where you found it. A lot of the campaign pages also have do not crawl headers set on them to prevent this as well.
If you have a function that requires both the species and a speak message from an animal, it would make sense for the interface to have a function that returns both the species and speak strings. I think that this [0] does what you would want.
If you want to guarantee that two structs contain a set of the same required fields, I believe the best practice would be to include an anonymous field for a struct with the fields across both. [1]
reply