Dwemthy (he/him) @ dwemthy @lemdro.id

Posts

1

Comments

199

Joined

1 yr. ago

Ours is a fun god!
Ours is the sun god!
Ra ra ra!

Having a regular schedule of updates helps get individual big fixes or features out faster. You may not notice a difference because you may not experience the bugs that are being fixed. There may be slight changes to features that you don't use enough to notice. There could even be features that are disabled until they're remotely enabled. Mobile apps often run A/B tests for changes to see how those changes affect user behavior, so you might be in the "no change" test cohort when you don't see changes, those changes may never activate on your installation if the test doesn't pan out.

I recently convinced my team to adopt this practice so I've been brushing up on it. When done right it can mean a more stable app and quicker response to issues since it relies heavily on monitoring app performance, bug reports, and user reviews. Communication to users is hard since you don't want to have every update be "fixed bugs" but it's also unnecessary to say "fixed an issue where a batch upload job didn't handle individual errors by retrying" for each change that may not actually impact you as a user but which impacts the business that builds the app.

Natural selection is dead.

What a concept

Thank you! That's what I was going for

Black Hole Sun

It's a play on the classic riddle:
You're walking on the beach with your good friend Jesus, huffing paint and dissociating. At one point you forget what you were doing and look over at Jesus, then back behind you at the sand. Behind you there's only one set of footprints. You ask Jesus why he left you and he looks directly at the you who is reading this, not the you who is in the story, and asks "Why do you think there's only one set of footprints?"

Is this gain?

If NORAD can keep us safe from Santa they can keep us safe from anything

Oilrig

Tex-a-me
Tex-a-you

This is why I like to gather passive scores at the start of a session. Then regularly glance meaningfully at them and then at the player with the lowest score

Not in those words

I'm voting both pragmatically and with my conscience by voting for Claudia De La Crúz.

With the goal of

Removing legitimacy from the system itself, and forcing the DNC to appeal to the left

Is that not good? Or is it not real?

Or maybe it won't have that effect? Because that's an idealistic plan, not a pragmatic one

Says the guy advocating poorly applied electoralism

Lol, yes. There are metaphorical carrots pulling the DNC to the right, I think we agree there. Now if you want to be "pragmatic" about it will a metaphorical stick from the left move them more left, or more right given the way we can see they calculate?

The same DNC that blamed the left for Hillary losing and then credited centrism with Biden winning?

Those are fine goals, but pragmatism involves addressing reality as it is, not how you would like it to be. I doubt you can achieve both removing legitimacy from the system as you see it and forcing the DNC to speak to the left simultaneously since the DNC is a part of the system that's in place. Unfortunately the DNC appealing to the left needs to be a two way street, make the left more appealing to the DNC than the right. All those Republicans endorsing Harris is the right appealing to the DNC, the left needs to out do that effort to pull the DNC to the left. Rejecting them won't do that, only the opposite.

It's important to keep your goblin friend happy. If they find something gross and no one else wants to look at it, then go take a look, marvel at how gross it is.

What's pragmatic about voting for a long shot candidate in a system that so heavily favors the two major parties?

Millimeters?

Nurse sharks are friendly? The things I remember about them from my childhood book on sharks are: they sleep in big piles on the ocean floor, their eggs are like weird sacks, and they latch on after biting and will not let go

But how do you make the eggs reassemble themselves?