rainynight65 @ rainynight65 @feddit.de

Posts

18

Comments

279

Joined

2 yr. ago

My in-laws brought me back a pack of 4 different craft beers from a trip recently. I can't drink and enjoy them - way too hoppy. Even the Pilsner - and I like a good Pilsner - was not enjoyable at all. The one that's left is the dark beer - going to be an expensive dirty Diesel one day.

Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. If legal and moral standard of society are dominated by the tenets of one religion, that's not freedom of religion.

You can have your faith, so long as you stop forcing it down other people's throats.

I pointed out that your JOKE was shit. You're the one who started calling me names, so don't lecture me on twisted knickers.

Wow, you have even less of a sense of humour than the average German.

Enjoy your two-ingredient Fleischsalat.

Any company with reasonably involved processes (read: more than three steps) should have clearly documented SOPs, policies and process documentation. This has nothing to do with the level people are at. I'm at senior level and sure as shit don't remember every detail of something that was verbally communicated to me months ago unless I do it every single day, and even that's error-prone. I write step by step instructions on processes for myself and everyone else.

Benefits of this approach:

• It's not stuck in my or anyone else's head, but clearly spelled out
• people can follow the process again and again, no matter how much time passes between each time - you'd be surprised how much people forget if they don't do something on a daily basis
• clear documentation removes doubt
• clear documentation is beneficial to newly onboarded staff. Nobody gives them a half-baked version scraped together from memory fragments
• people can point out potential issues with the process, and the documentation can be amended/updated
• I myself can go back to it if I have even the slightest amount of doubt on a detail.

Drawbacks of this approach:

• someone has to write the document
• someone has to maintain it

I'm off by one, you're off by one - shall we split the difference and I'll overlook that even being merely technically correct I'm still closer than you, who's both technically and objectively incorrect?

C'mon, no cop is going to give you that deal.

The recipe you've linked has more than two ingredients. To say that it's 'mayo on sliced sausage' is misleading. We Germans are a smidgen more sophisticated than that.

I have one of those, it's completely useless. It had novelty value but the eggs never came out the way I wanted them. I've gone back to a normal timer.

What's giving me dementia is the fact that so many Americans want this guy to be president. Again.

The difference is, Devops isn't a bubble that everyone is waiting for to pop. I've been in that field for over ten years now, and properly implemented it is a net gain for everyone who does it. The reason companies are falling over themselves trying to hire 'Devops' is because they still haven't properly cottoned on to the concept but are afraid of falling behind. And yes, I can absolutely attest to the fact that Devops is a tough market to hire in at the moment, that there are a lot of places who don't have the first clue about what Devops really is, and - similarly to Agile - think they can add some buzzwords to their toolchain and call Bob their uncle. And there are a lot of candidates who somehow acquired a Devopsy title in all that chaos, but all their CVs have are tech buzzwords, and when you interview them they're clueless. That doesn't change the fact that Devops is a solid concept with high benefits for those who understand it.

AI, and more specifically GenAI and LLMs - is more like crypto, in the sense that people are trying to get rich from it without having the first clue what it is. It's this shiny new thing that everyone is rushing to get on board with, but I have yet to see someone propose a use case that actually makes sense, couldn't be implemented better without AI, and is a net gain for those using it. Right now it's all this nebulous bullshit, everyone just slaps their own coat of paint onto ChatGPT and calls it a day. Useful AI-adjacent concepts like Big Data and Machine Learning have been around for much longer than the tooling underpinning the current hype, and already have a lot of very valid use cases.

By the way, I work with a bunch of high aptitude Devops engineers and none of them are thinking about adding AI to our pipelines, not even to pad their CV.

So not only do they want AI to take your job - you also won't be able to get another job if you don't wholesale buy into this shit.

I love the future.

The Korean War took place before the Vietnam War, and Nixon wasn't President at the time.

Sometimes good enough is good enough.

Jokes can still be dumb and unfunny.

Sorry, I absolutely care about proper Ultrawide support. Currently the game is dogshit on an Ultrawide, with interface and mouse input being all kinds of screwy.

One, that wasn't what I was talking about. Shanks had to pay 100k in legal costs in the Barilaro case, pull several videos, and there are some court matters still open in the aftermath of that. Google had to pay Barilaro 715k, and Shanks was referred for possible contempt of court.

Two, the police investigated the arson attacks, someone was arrested and charged. If that classes as "wouldn't do shit about it" in your book, then I'm not sure what your expectations are.

Do you have any idea how often serious journalists put themselves in danger with their work? Just because you don't hear about them being attacked, doesn't mean it's not happening. They just don't have YouTube channels with a million followers. And these days it doesn't take in-depth research to draw the ire of people. It doesn't take effort to piss off the powerful. Say the wrong thing and you're a target.

I know this guy is popular - but my god I can't stand Jordan Shanks. I absolutely don't get the way parts of the Australian Left revere this guy as a hero and almost a martyr.

Everything I've seen from him was low effort. He goes out and points a camera at people or things while talking to/about them. He does very little background research, and basically just plays insinuations for effect. He presents some vaguely related, easy to find factoids, and then does a bit of 'surely there's something crooked here, wink wink'. His videos are more about his crude humour than anything else - every Honest Government Ad (shoutouts to thejuicemedia) manages to pack more actual and factual information and context into a few minutes than what Shanks does in an hour of waffling. Their clip on the cashless welfare card was highly educational, and that's just one example of many.

Not only is Shanks' work low-effort, it also does investigative journalism - which he has been alleged to be engaging in - a huge disservice. Investigative journalism does more than sling allegations and mire itself in innuendo. Investigative journalism aims to uncover things, these people go to great lengths to dig up material that most people would never know even exists. Again, Shanks rarely does anything like that. His spat with Barilaro always seemed to be more rooted in personal aversion than anything else. And not to be misunderstood: Is Barilaro a corrupt piece of shit? That's almost a given. Has Shanks achieved anything tangible to uncover corrupt activities on the part of Barilaro? Doubtful. And whenever the going got tough, Shanks had to give in.

And once again, not to be misunderstood: I give him full credit for raising bushfire relief funds - that's actually something tangible and highly laudable he has achieved. And I don't wish death threats and arson attacks on anyone, even people I can't otherwise stand.

But no, to me he's not a hero. He's a Youtuber with high visibility who, ultimately, likes to feed the outrage machine, but offers very little of substance. In that sense he's not unlike some of thew well known right wing outrage merchants.