StudioLE @ StudioLE @programming.dev

Posts

2

Comments

114

Joined

2 yr. ago

They only require permission to write to the password field, they don't necessarily need to read passwords. Although it does change the work flow for some users.

As someone who read a lot as a child I still find myself saying hyperbowl. I'd certainly heard the correct pronunciation but it wasn't until very late that I made the connection to the word I'd learned by reading.

And then farmer gets stiffed with increased insurance premiums. I really hope that's not how it works.

Hopefully the farmer can directly sue the owner for actual and emotional damages with Farm insurance covering the legal costs.

The obsession with Shakespeare puts a lot of students off literature

How many people are actually returning this product though? Nobody is going to any effort to return a product that costs so little.

And everything I've read about this recall makes the reason clear so I can't see anyone opting not to just consume it - which more than likely they already did immediately on purchase.

What phrasing are you saying is dishonest? A quick search of proton student discount doesn't even bring up any results from them

My mantra has always been to bring solutions not problems. Applying that to code reviews makes for a far more productive experience.

Rather than just pointing out errors in code help the developer with prompts towards the solution.

Or, if you're too lazy to explain why something shouldn't be done then why should another developer have to act on your criticism?

I wish this had been my experience. I pushed for so long in my last company for standards to be written, code formatters implemented and objectivity to be brought to reviews but it was always ignored.

Instead I had to endure every employee who claimed seniority (in a non hierarchical company) subjecting their opinion on style in reviews. It came up the point that I dreaded having to work with specific people because they kept triggering my PTSD with their moving target of micro management.

Only afterwards did I truly appreciate how poor a lot of their opinions were. Now one of my first questions when approaching a new project is what standards we're following. If they look at me blank faced that's a pretty solid red flag.

This was my experience too. At first I found code reviews to be an invaluable resource for improving my code. But I then reached a point where I'd learned everything I could from a particular reviewer.

I'd submit code that met every criteria, but the reviewer would still nit pick on tiny details that were entirely subjectective. It was no longer about the quality of code it became about the reviewer trying to put their mark on my work.

The only solution was to either ignore their nits or adopt the hairy arm technique whereby you include intentional errors for the reviewer to comment on so they feel their time had been valuable and you get away without yours being wasted.

jQuery was an essential stepping stone back when JS was lacking a ton of features that people take for granted these days.

Sure everything could have been done with Vanilla JS but it was verbose and difficult to follow. jQuery made it possible for any developer to quickly make a page dynamic

Yep. And three functions is better than one for legibility even if one would be fewer lines of code

Putting a dead character in a container and then yeeting that container into a chasm will no longer permanently destroy the character - they will now float around as a resurrectable Soul Echo as expected.

QA clearly wasn't good enough if they didn't pick up on such a game breaking bug prior to release

And...

If you dismiss your companion to camp and shove them into a chasm, Withers will now be able to resurrect them... so you can shove them into a chasm again, probably.

Whoever wrote these notes really deserves some credit

I think this might be what you're after

UI Improvements

Added a 'Delete all but latest' option for each campaign, so you can regain a little storage space wiggle room.

It's fine. The cost of compensating victims is less than fixing the issue so yeah it's safe.

I used to see this a lot with Facebook. Every time they altered the design people would kick up a fuss and I never understood why, the new design always looked far better.

Nowadays of course I don't use Facebook but will occasionally have to sign in to look up the details of a business or something. The design has of course changed and I can't find a damn thing on it. So I'm finally on board with the masses.

But they aren't getting forced to change accounts. Their service continues just under another provider.

It'd be interesting to know how one way streets are counted

People who use the default email their ISP gives them don't like change. The new service will probably have a different login screen and that's going to upset aunty Ethel and uncle ron. And then a different colour background. It's the worst thing that anyone could ever do to them

I'll occasionally

1. stash my changes
2. unstash them.
3. Revise the file in my editor so only the chunk I want to commit is present
4. Commit
5. Unstash the changes again to get back the uncommitted change

It's clunky but it's robust and safe. It does sound a lot cleaner to just use commit -p though

-p --patch

Interactively choose hunks of patch between the index and the work tree and add them to the index. This gives the user a chance to review the difference before adding modified contents to the index.

This effectively runs add --interactive, but bypasses the initial command menu and directly jumps to the patch subcommand. See “Interactive mode” for details.

The documentation is entirely meaningless? What does it do?