fidodo

My opinion is you should use it when it's useful, but not when it's unnecessary. Their main use case is when you need to couple the functionality of functions to a shared state, and it's particularly useful when you have multiple interdependent functions that need to be tied to multiple codependent states.

I find it relatively rare when I really need to use a class. Between first class functions and closures and modules and other features, I find JavaScript has a lot of tools to avoid needing classes. Classes add complexity so I only use them when the complexity they add is less than the complexity of the task they're needed for.

You should check out "post modern JavaScript explained for mammoths"

It used to be called early access. At least it wasn't a misleading term.

Getting over it?

At the end I said at the volume of consumption we have. If everyone switched to wild game we'd instantly go from over population to over hunting and that's not sustainable. You wouldn't be able to support the volume with pasture raised without deforestation either. Raising your own animals also wouldn't match the volume that people eat meat currently either. Even if we were more efficient with the meat we use I still think we'd be orders of magnitude off. I'm not totalitarian anti meat, I just don't see any path to sustainability without huge decreases in consumption. The things you pointed out are great, but I think we can't mislead people into thinking that will be enough for them to not have to change their eating habits.

Yes, it's still a transpiler, I'm not saying it isn't, but what I mean is that it doesn't add any functionally specific to the typescript language. There's a transpiler for TS that doesn't even do any type checking at all and just does the type stripping and back porting. But of course, that's not why people use typescript. All the features that are actually important to typescript could be done through a linter instead. If type annotations were added to JavaScript you could get most of typescript's features with linting rules and just handle back porting in a more standard way.

It's basically a book you can talk to. A book can contain incredibly knowledge, but it's a preserve artifact of intelligence, not intelligence.

The common thing there is that they're smaller animals. When you raise a large animal like a cow you need to sustain that extra size for the entire time they grow.

Does climate friendly meat actually exist? I don't really understand how, at least not at the volume people eat meat today.

Agreed. I'm not defending phones in class, just pointing out that there's more work that can be done with lesson plans as well.

I fully support kicking kids off their phones in class, I don't think any lesson no matter how engaging can compete with that. I'm not supposed to be on my phone during meetings, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ban phones from class. I was just commenting that work can be done to make lessons more engaging when phones aren't involved. There's of course a limit to what you can do, and some subjects are just inherently harder to get kids into, like statistics. But seriously good on you for doing that. I'm sure that while it didn't have perfect engagement, it was far better than just teaching it to the book.

Just curious, is there a place you can share that lesson plan to other teachers? It'd be a shame for all that work you did to not get to be used in other classrooms as well.

You can increase motivation to learn by making lessons more engaging even if it's a subject they're not personally interested in. But making lessons more interesting and engaging is not easy and we can't expect all teachers to have the skills and resources to do the research and development needed to produce lesson plans that are really interesting. I think it could be improved by putting more money into developing interesting lesson plans centrally and distributing the materials to teachers to follow instead of just producing dry curriculums. Teachers need support.