This is how cheese differs around the world 🌎

More from Food

**********
6TH ANNUAL
BULL CITY FOODRAISER
FINAL METRICS THREAD
**********


Going to fill this thread with the updated final numbers

Prior threads are here –

➡️ Foodraiser history thread:
https://t.co/Hz0jxFrswF

➡️ Initial 6th Annual data thread: https://t.co/XkK4oWE9iT

➡️ 6th Annual results photos + video thread:


You'll recall that we had to buy a sh*tload of grocery bags that were not included in our initial data thread

And then had to buy another sh*tload the next day 🤦‍♂️

Those paper bag runs added $386.94 to the expenditures ($193.47 x 2)

That put the grand total spent at $55,426.68:
➡️ $10 for cashier's check
➡️ $55,029.74 for food
➡️ $386.94 for bags

The Bag Fund donations exceeded what we needed though, so we capped 2020's #'s at actual expenditures and will hold the rest for 2021 (more on that down-thread)


Counting the new donors who contributed to The Bag Fund, and de-duplicating the folks who'd already donated to the main fundraiser, we ended up with 825 total donors

You May Also Like

I’m torn on how to approach the idea of luck. I’m the first to admit that I am one of the luckiest people on the planet. To be born into a prosperous American family in 1960 with smart parents is to start life on third base. The odds against my very existence are astronomical.


I’ve always felt that the luckiest people I know had a talent for recognizing circumstances, not of their own making, that were conducive to a favorable outcome and their ability to quickly take advantage of them.

In other words, dumb luck was just that, it required no awareness on the person’s part, whereas “smart” luck involved awareness followed by action before the circumstances changed.

So, was I “lucky” to be born when I was—nothing I had any control over—and that I came of age just as huge databases and computers were advancing to the point where I could use those tools to write “What Works on Wall Street?” Absolutely.

Was I lucky to start my stock market investments near the peak of interest rates which allowed me to spend the majority of my adult life in a falling rate environment? Yup.
A brief analysis and comparison of the CSS for Twitter's PWA vs Twitter's legacy desktop website. The difference is dramatic and I'll touch on some reasons why.

Legacy site *downloads* ~630 KB CSS per theme and writing direction.

6,769 rules
9,252 selectors
16.7k declarations
3,370 unique declarations
44 media queries
36 unique colors
50 unique background colors
46 unique font sizes
39 unique z-indices

https://t.co/qyl4Bt1i5x


PWA *incrementally generates* ~30 KB CSS that handles all themes and writing directions.

735 rules
740 selectors
757 declarations
730 unique declarations
0 media queries
11 unique colors
32 unique background colors
15 unique font sizes
7 unique z-indices

https://t.co/w7oNG5KUkJ


The legacy site's CSS is what happens when hundreds of people directly write CSS over many years. Specificity wars, redundancy, a house of cards that can't be fixed. The result is extremely inefficient and error-prone styling that punishes users and developers.

The PWA's CSS is generated on-demand by a JS framework that manages styles and outputs "atomic CSS". The framework can enforce strict constraints and perform optimisations, which is why the CSS is so much smaller and safer. Style conflicts and unbounded CSS growth are avoided.