One thing that most peeps from the East/West coast don't realize about Detroit is how big it is, compared to it's population size.
The city limits of Detroit proper encompass about 143 square miles.
While it's not that large of a city compared to others, you can fit the cities of San Francisco (46.7 sq miles), Boston (89.6 sq miles), and Manhattan (22.8 sq miles) within Detroit city limits.
While you process that, the 2017 population of Detroit is about 672,000 people, compared to the 3.12 million people who live in SF(860k), Boston (618k), and Manhattan (1.64M)
While it's growing for sure, if you get off the highway you'll see really fast that Detroit is still a ghost town.
There are entire neighborhoods/subdivisions with streets lined with houses except all of those houses have been abandoned. For DECADES. It's like the Walking Dead minus the zombies.
I'm psyched for Detroit (I grew up in the Detroit suburbs) and am rooting hard for it's recovery. With that said... the city of Detroit has lost 61% of it's population since it's peak in the 1950s.
61 PERCENT! While I remain optimistic, I'm also realistic. I'm psyched that Detroit is on an upswing, but there's a long way up to go.
> While it's not that large of a city compared to others, you can fit the cities of San Francisco (46.7 sq miles), Boston (89.6 sq miles), and Manhattan (22.8 sq miles) within Detroit city limits.
Sure, but Boston is only a part of what people think of as Boston. When Paul Graham talked about Boston in "Cities and Ambition", he meant Cambridge.
...you have a 'city' encompassing 160 sq mi, which is bigger than Detroit.
That standard doesn't generalize -- I grew up in the DC area, and the metro there goes all the way out to Rockville, which is generally considered to be an exurb, practically flyover country. (IMO, that's an unfair assessment, but it is what it is.) But it seems about right for Boston.
Does Detroit have central parts that aren't part of the city proper, the way Boston has Cambridge and Somerville and San Francisco has Berkeley and Oakland?
I seem to recall an article that exposed Kindle authors who plagiarized old trade paperback romance novels and sold them for a profit, which might be why Kindle Direct Publishing does check content.
There's nothing wrong with selling public domain works for profit in general. (KDP has some restrictions - https://kdp.amazon.com/help?topicId=A2OHLJURFVK57Q) Were those authors pretending they were original works?
That actually makes sense although, in practice, it's still a bit of a mess. They basically don't want a bunch of 25 cent versions of public domain books clogging up the site in various forms of unreadability that don't add anything to the free versions.
Totally sympathetic to the author here, and believe that the counterfeit should be taken down IMMEDIATELY (checking amazon it looks like this is the case)
If the book was digital then I would say preemptive verification should be done. However, for a physical paper book how could you verify legitimacy at scale?
It's a hard problem. I can't think of a way that doesn't involve destroying a physical copy to OCR, and that's a lot of manual effort.
What would you propose? Not trying to be confrontational, legitimately curious!
It's a hard problem. I can't think of a way that doesn't involve destroying a physical copy to OCR, and that's a lot of manual effort.
I've worked at places with serious quality management systems, the problem isn't hard. The answer is easy and obvious: incoming inspection.
Unless "scale" means the percentage of product that passes through inspection is zero. In which case the problem is only hard because the problem isn't how to do something, the problem is how get the benefit of having done something without doing it (whether through inspection, not co-mingling, etc...).
In the case of No Starch Press, the build quality issues were noticeable without scanning the book. And even cutting the spine and covers off of a book to scan it isn't that much manual effort with the right hardware. One of the offices at my college had the cutter and bulk scanner, it was so not a big deal for them to use that they'd digitize a semester's worth of course textbooks for anyone who asked.
The city limits of Detroit proper encompass about 143 square miles.
While it's not that large of a city compared to others, you can fit the cities of San Francisco (46.7 sq miles), Boston (89.6 sq miles), and Manhattan (22.8 sq miles) within Detroit city limits.
While you process that, the 2017 population of Detroit is about 672,000 people, compared to the 3.12 million people who live in SF(860k), Boston (618k), and Manhattan (1.64M)
While it's growing for sure, if you get off the highway you'll see really fast that Detroit is still a ghost town.
There are entire neighborhoods/subdivisions with streets lined with houses except all of those houses have been abandoned. For DECADES. It's like the Walking Dead minus the zombies.
I'm psyched for Detroit (I grew up in the Detroit suburbs) and am rooting hard for it's recovery. With that said... the city of Detroit has lost 61% of it's population since it's peak in the 1950s.
61 PERCENT! While I remain optimistic, I'm also realistic. I'm psyched that Detroit is on an upswing, but there's a long way up to go.