|
Whip them to work harder while reduce funding: success! 
|
|
|
|
|
Great!
Let him play with his toy spaceships and digger machines!
It'll keep him busy, while wiser heads fix the messes he's made.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: while wiser heads fix the messes he's made.
You're just going by what the television tells you to believe.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
You could be right -- if I ever watched television, which I don't.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Well you're getting your one-sided view from somewhere.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Sure, from a certain-coloured person's twitter account and daily press briefings.
It's the best entertainment since the OJ trial.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trump owns the moon and the asteroids? 
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
He does have SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE FOOOOORRRRRRRCE! I guess he figures no one will challenge him on it. 
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Does China own the South China Sea? No, but they are laying claim to it.
Does Russia own the North Pole? No, but they are laying claim to it.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
And is totally wrong as well.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Although last year there was an uptick in sales for audio cassettes at levels not achieved since the early 2000s, the format generally has been considered a useless relic of a long-gone era. Now people can watch your hot new mixtape
|
|
|
|
|
With 60 db S/N and 20 kHz analog bandwith, according to Shannon, you could in theory squeeze something like 400 kpbs onto the tape. On CC, the channels are totally separate, so you could have twice that bit rate. That is not to be laughed at. If you build your own hardware, you could even use all four tracks, for 1.6 Mbps bit rate. You could even fiddle around with other physical .parameters: When metal tape was introduced, lab prototypes showed a frequency range up to 20 kHz with 60 dB S/N on dictaphone 1/16" tape cassettes (half the CC width) running at 15/16" per second (half the CC speed). For backwards compatibility reasons, physical parameters had to be adjusted. Philips (the CC patent holder) refused to accept any non-standard tape speed, and e.g. pre-emphasis had to be adjusted so that playback of metal tapes on legacy players would return a reasonably balanced sound.
I used 128 kbps videophone in the ISDN days (even 64 kbps!), not exactly claiming that that is was IMAX quality, but a whole lot better than you would think! An essential point: ISDN B channels were fixed bitrate, single-connection channels, wasting no resources on channel contention, reordering of mislaid packets and so on: The pure 128 kbps was available to video and sound, without any restriction. (When IP telephony started to invade Norway, the common rule was that you needed at least a 1 Mbps Internet connection to support an IP phone line - 16 times the 64 kbit rate an ISDN connection would occupy.) That is how a tape works: It is dedicated to a single dedicated video stream, wasting no resources on channel allocation and management.
If we are talking about modern, H.264 or H.265 compressed video, resolution limited to what is visible to the human eye (at normal viewing distance, not when using a magnifier to "prove" that is video is "useless quality") anything in the 1 Mbps range actually provides quite tolerable quality. At least as good as the classical analog SD video. 400 kbps may be somewhat on the low side, but you'd probably be surprised by what can be delivered on that bit rate.
However, don't forget that H.264/265 encoding is not standardized. Only the decoding is standardized. An advanced encoder can find low bit rate encodings that will decode to an artifact free image, while a simplistic encoder may be wasting a lot of bits, yet creating encodings causing a lot of artifacts when decoded by standard methods. We saw this to an excessive degree with MP3: The early, simplistic MP3 decoders required at least 192 kbps to provide a decent sound quality. Today, high quality coders provide significantly better quality at 128 kbps. The same applies to H.26x video: The best encoders (often using patented or company secret tricks to find the most efficient encodings) provide impressing quality, compared to the "naive" encoders.
Don't get me wrong: I certainly do not want "CC video" to be the VHS of the 2020s, only to point out that this project is not as laughable as it at first may appear.
|
|
|
|
|
But does it play DooM?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
|
I’ve written up my advice (sprinkled with great advice from others), but this is way more straightforward nuts-and-bolts training on technical writing. How to write, "this project is cancelled" in a clear and concise manner
|
|
|
|
|
If it's like their C++ coding standard, which forbids exceptions, it should at least be good for some derisive laughter.
|
|
|
|
|
Ye gods, it's completely useless.
Technically it's not as grammatically incorrect as often as the worse-than-dire "Read this First" technical writing style guide, but it's still garbage that should be avoided.
Their lack of knowledge is shown right from the get-go, with an immediate link on the front page to a page on passive voice, where they open with this:Quote: Convert passive voice to active voice because active voice is usually clearer.
WRONG!
Technical documents should use passive voice more than almost any other kind of writing, for the simple reason that readers don't give a damn about the "actor", they just need to know what happens.
The example I usually give for this is that "that hole in the road has been fixed" is far preferable to "someone, I know not who, has fixed that hole in the road", because the statement is about the hole, not about the person or people who fixed it.Their explanation, with incorrect statements and bad advice crossed out: Prefer active voice to passive voice
Use the active voice most of the time. Use the passive voice sparingly. Active voice provides the following advantages:
Most readers mentally convert passive voice to active voice. Why subject your readers to extra processing time? By sticking to active voice, readers can skip the preprocessor stage and go straight to compilation.
Passive voice obfuscates your ideas, turning sentences on their head. Passive voice reports action indirectly.
Some passive voice sentences omit an actor altogether, which forces the reader to guess the actor's identity.
Active voice is generally shorter than passive voice.
Be bold—be active.
There is nothing "bold" about active voice; it's just the name of the voice. You could call them banana voice and poms-frites voice, but that wouldn't make one of them yellow, and the other a side dish.Their examples: The QA team loves ice cream, but their managers prefer sorbet.
Performance metrics are required by the team, though I prefer wild guesses.
When software engineers attempt something new and innovative, a reward should be given.
WT-Flying-F has that kind of statement got to do with technical writing, and how do they help someone to learn how to write documentation?
So yes, they explain what active voice and passive voice are (making the typical mistake of confusing "active voice" with some kind of dynamism), but they completely screw up everything else, by flooding the description with:
• More unnecessary information than useful information
• Useless diagrams
• Pointless verbiage
• Incorrect instructions on how to use the voices
None of which will help people write documentation.
So yeah, it's exactly like a lot of technical documentation, which also fails on the above four points -- but the point of teaching documentation skills is to make the documentation better, not perpetuate cr@p quality levels.
I strongly suggest giving it a miss.
If anyone's having trouble documenting things, let me know, and I'll churn out some articles for CP.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: If anyone's having trouble documenting things, let me know, and I'll churn out some articles for CP.
Joking apart, I think there is a real need for proper guidance so I'd be interested to read your take on it.
I am sort of smarting a bit at the moment as I've just had a TOR returned by my manager, with some "minor" amendments made to it. These amendments include: taking out the Author, removing the Version numbering, even removing the corporate frontispiece. They have also converted some (I thought very) clear bullet points into some woolly sentences. I want off this project now! 
|
|
|
|
|
CHill60 wrote: These amendments include: taking out the Author, removing the Version numbering, even removing the corporate frontispiece.
If it were only the author and versioning being removed, it would likely be a case of someone wanting to take credit for your work (which happens a lot), but if the branding has been removed, there are two typical reason:
0: A customer is going to put their own branding on it.
1: The company is up for sale, and you're not allowed to see the version with the new branding.
The fact that it's a ToR doc doesn't lend itself to either option, but it perhaps explains why the bullets were converted to normal prose -- bullets are for people who need to follow a process; ToR docs are for people who need to understand the process (which is probably also why they strike you as being wooly).
Just set in you mind that you're writing for someone who isn't experienced in what you do. Too much detail, and their eyes will glaze over, because they're not interested in getting into too much technical detail, at that point, because it's up to them to decide the details, later.
So, even if you think you have the processes nailed, you need to soften the text to suit their role -- they don't need to be told step-by-step what to do, they need to be given enough overviews so that they, in discussions with other involved parties (who also need to provide input, because it affects their workload, too), can decide on steps that work for everyone.
And never get upset if someone changes your text, in a business context, or you'll live a short, unhappy life with a violent heart attack at the end of it.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Good points, thank you. I did say I was interested in your take on it 
|
|
|
|
|
CHill60 wrote: so I'd be interested to read your take on it.
+1
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelek wrote: CHill60 wrote: so I'd be interested to read your take on it.
+1
I've responded to CHill, but if you want it too, I'm afraid there will have to be a service charge.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I wanted to describe what I do to diagnose memory perf issues, or rather the common part of various work flows of doing such diagnostics. I thought the GC saved us from all this? (/sarcasm)
|
|
|
|
|
It's an OK article, but...
... I've forgotten what I was going to say.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
