Thanks to Joe Shaw’s recommendations five months ago I joined the Chestnut Farm’s meat CSA. Today, fighting Cambridge/Arlington rush hour traffic I picked up my first monthly 10lbs. share. It was kind of funny finding a mail in my inbox stating that I had signed up some time ago and oh ya you need to go pick up your share this Wednesday. I almost skipped the mail but after looking at the quality of the meat I’m glad I read it.
It looks really tasty, unfortunately I spent last night cooking up 3lbs. of chuck beef stew which means I can’t justify cooking anything up just this minute. I will however be taking some of it to my parents house for the holidays and cooking some for them.
At $8 a pound it is pretty expensive but I am treating it like a learning expense. Since I don’t know what type of meat I will get each month I have to learn to cook almost any type thrown at me. I figure during the colder months I will stick with soups, stews and brazing while during the warmer months I will switch to grilling and slow roasting. If I like what they are sending me I may even get adventurous and see if they can send me the more exotic bits like sweetbreads though I suspect they sell those at a premium to restaurants.
Once I figure out my budget I may just start one of the vegetable CSA’s too.
[read this post in:
ar de es fr it ja ko pt ru zh-CN ]
We see bad design around us all the time. Often adequate design wins over great design . In a ecosystem based on limited resources (time, money, component parts, etc.) at what point does a better design start giving diminishing returns? Is this a good thing? – That problem has been solved we should move on to the next – or is it a bad thing? – The solution to that problem causes adverse side effects but the cost of fixing it is too high. In a world of limited resources it often takes a large catalyst or new markets to disrupt entrenched adequate design. I suspect there are good and bad sides to every decision here with some situations leaning further one way or the other.
That is a good leeway into my next thought about design in that decision making is a huge part of good design. Decisions are hard. Avoiding them has its cost. My favourite is that collectively avoiding a decision makes it harder for other decisions to be made down the road. You need to decide if it is worth the cost.
[read this post in:
ar de es fr it ja ko pt ru zh-CN ]
Ok so it isn’t all JavaScripts fault and Mozilla’s ‘let’ keyword might have just solved some of this if everyone would just support it, but take a look at this bit of hack I had to write.
public_methods: ["insert_row", "append_row", "remove_row", "json_load"],
public_signals: ["ready"],
bind_api: function(api_list) {
var self = this;
for (var i in api_list) {
var pm = api_list[i];
var name = pm + ".mokshagrid";
// proxy pattern (used for javascripts busted scoping rules)
(function() {
var proxied = self[pm];
if (!proxied)
throw ('ERROR: binding api "' + pm + '" failed - method does not exist.');
self.element.unbind(name).bind(name,
function() {
return proxied.apply(self, arguments);
});
})();
}
},
It is a convenience method for binding public API in my jQuery.UI plugins which require the use of the 'trigger' method in order to call into a widget from external code. In other words jQuery.UI treats signals and public methods all as part of their event system. A bit confusing but not a huge deal. This would all be unnecessary if there was a better OO model on top of the prototype model. I'll admit the prototype model allows for some cool stuff but there is a reason everyone is jumping to write an OO model on top and why everyone is doing it differently.
[read this post in: ar de es fr it ja ko pt ru zh-CN ]