SolarMech @ SolarMech @slrpnk.net

Posts

0

Comments

61

Joined

2 yr. ago

Git wasn't used all that much in the 2000s. As far as I know it became popular in the 2010s (though it was always a thing in some circles I think) and then just supplanted almost everything else.

Also keep in mind some shops tend to follow larger tech companies (microsoft, etc.) and their product offering. So even new products might not have been on git until MS went in that direction.

I'm a senior dev. This is exactly it.

Metrics are at best guidelines to help ground subjective observations. They all have huge gaping holes and if you want to plug those you'll spend more time measuring than working. The best guide of if you are doing ok is how good other people think you are doing. Does the PO think you deliver fast enough given the complexity, do you help out other devs when possible, do other devs respect the quality of your work?

I don’t understand why we can’t name and shame these days

Power. Respect for authorities.

You need to be hired somewhere else. The new company you apply at don't know what actually happened, it's all hearsay and bad employees may make shit up to get more pity or make them look less bad if they were fired for legit reasons. In the confusion they'll want to defend their interest, and some may just be bad people to begin with.

And then there might be repercussions because they have more means than you do.

Or if the debates weren't managed by a private entity owned by the other two parties.

Canada has first past the post voting, and 3 active parties. My province has first pas the post and has 4 major parties (with a 5th one that is close but can't get a representative in). I'll agree that ranked voting at least would be a lot better.

Outside the US college is sometimes stilll a good path. I've seen people blow it (useless degrees with no plan to get a job with it, etc.). but if you pick the right field it helps a lot.

Where I'm from, they know. The news have done a good job of reporting on it, and they see the cost of houses, and whatnot be worse than before. It's kind of new from the last 5 or so years, before that they didn't get it. But now it's pretty obvious so long as they watch the news or pay attention to their kids and grandkid's lives.

It works like that in French until you use a different word for the machine.

"Mon ordinateur est une bonne machine". In a single sentence my computer was described with words both male and female.

It's just vocabulary and grammar, not the deep essence or identity of things or people.

IIRC they all learn some physics at engineering school. Even the software engineers.

The problem is, the way I see it, all energy use is connected. Basically the problem we have is energy consumption grows faster than clean energy production. So requiring more green energy in this context still sucks. Even where I live where all of our energy is green (at least in the grid), extra energy can be sold either via selling it to other provinces/states, or by making deals with companies to do their production here where energy is cheap and green.

Energy is a commodity on a market. If you use it to inefficiently move people, you can't use it for other things. Remember that to move a 150 lbs person in a car, you have to move about a ton and a half of car...

100 years is ambitious only if you want to remove all of the cars. There are plenty of milestones that can be attained fairly quickly :

• Smaller cars. Less energy, materials, etc. Safer for other road users (you don't get hit on your vital organs, better vision for the driver and everyone else since pedestrians can easily see over the car).
• Less car use is available now, if we just empower the alternatives (make bike usage safe, make public transport good enough)
• No more cars in cities. Bikes + trains mostly do the job, you can rent a car if you leave the city, or park it at the outskirts.
• Even smaller cities used to be liveable without a car. This could be brought back, but that's probably a tough hill to climb.

Generally, you can replace some comments with variable names or comment names. Which means you must already be in the habbit of extracting methods, setting new variables to use appropriate names, and limit context to reduce the name (Smaller classes and methods means shorter names can be just as expressive, because the context is clearer). It lowers the number of wtfs per minute you get reading code before you even need whole sentences to explain why things are done in a certain way, because the names can be a powerful hint.

But realistically, you end up needing comments for some things anyways.

Now imagine having worked overtime for this project. Not that I know that anyone did, but if they did, I hope they enjoyed the journey, because all that effort was wasted.

This. Especially if your team does not follow SOLID principles (as then someone fixes a bug in a base class method that shouldn't be shared. This fixes an issue in a subclass but introduces one in another. Rinse, repeat.

Yes and no. I mean sure, if you are going to leverage this to gain a significant edge in the market, that works.

If you add a tool to the project, that you need to understand to maintain some parts of it, which adds to the learning curve of someone joining said team, then the gains have best be worth the effort.

We adopt so many librairies/plugins/tools over time that adding more complexity than you need this way is just terrible.

Yeah, but it's easy to overuse it. If your for loop is much longer. For a few lines I'd agree, don't bother using something longer.

Code should scream out it's intent for the reader to see. It's why you are doing something that needs to be communicated, not what you are doing. "i", "counter" or "index" all scream out what you are doing, not why. This is more important than the name being short (but for equal explanations of intent, go with the shorter name). The for loop does that already.

If you can't do that, be more precise. At the least make it "cardIndex", or "searchIndex". It makes it easier to connect the dots.

I'm glad they are finally doing something about climate anxiety.

There's a whole list of 8 points over what constitute a cult.

I don't remember the whole thing, but it was something like : Cults don't let you leave. If you do leave, your family and friends who are still in the cult will not speak to you. Cults control you in details. They make sure you are tired at the end of the day, too tired to think for yourself. Cults make you dependent financially. Once you are that deep in, leaving means starting over economically.

There's more, but it is different from how most people experience mainstream religions (I mean there are pockets here and there that are very cultish, but really the religion as a whole is a different beast that just works differently than an actual cult).

That said, working from home has so far saved me a lot of both time and money. This is a thing to consider as an employee when considering who to work for (or if your boss takes it away, if you still want to work there after essentially having a benefit revoked unilateraly).

Public transit pass. Actual time for transit which for me was around 90 minutes a day (7.5 hours a week!), more complex lunch logistics (time or money), etc.

A quieter workplace, no need to book rarely available rooms to take calls/meetings. There were upsides.

My first remote job had almost no issues at all. We already knew each other and we still took time to discuss issues via calls. New job not so much. We tend to be pressed for time so only focus on obvious "work" and then works suffers because of a lack of communication/common vision.

Being facts does not prevent them from being non sequiturs.

Except that instead of an authoritarian government using it to totally control the learned populace, they are showing you ads.

We've still got a way to go before 1984. If it did happen, you wouldn't be able to discuss it.