|
My team's code reviews:
Me: You followed our Standards?
He: Yes.
Me: Well alright then, ship it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Large nameless corporation wrote: Our team's code reviews:
PM: You changed all the icons?
Pion: Yes.
PM: Well alright then, ship it.
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Having 1 hour useless meeting every workday that I don't care about and talk about 20 seconds in each... 
Starting to use my phone usefully during meetings! 
modified 8-Dec-20 19:28pm.
|
|
|
|
|
having 12 devs in the room that can not agree on a single coding standard
|
|
|
|
|
Sarcastic, back stabbing, and mean spirited maybe, but not boring. 
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: The thing that will draw you in is the regularity for the inhomogeneous Boltzmann. And, I'm not talking about modulo minimal regularity bounds. I'm talking about unconditional and not even in a perturbative framework.
Reminds me of a book I used to have about abstract algebras. Every time I was feeling too smart for solving a really difficult problem, I would read a page from it and go: "Nah, still dumb!" 
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
Mircea Neacsu wrote: Reminds me of a book I used to have about abstract algebras. Every time I was feeling too smart for solving a really difficult problem, I would read a page from it and go: "Nah, still dumb!"
That's hilarious. Really made me laugh out loud, because I have a book like that too and I'm just going through my annual reading of it (I only read about 2 pages of it every year).
It's Donald Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming[^].
I was really motivated to get through a lot of it this year and then I got to the bottom of the 3rd page or so...
Knuth said: Algorithm E may, for example, be formalized in these terms as follows: Let Q be the set of all singletons (n), all ordered pairs (m, n), and all ordered quadruples (m, n, r, 1), (m, n, r, 2), and (m, n, p, 3), where m, n, and p are positive integers and r is a nonnegative integer. Let I be the subset of all pairs (m, n) and let Ω be the subset of all singletons (n). Let f be defined as follows:
 
|
|
|
|
|
See the citizen who lives in the luxury of a late stage capitalist society, where it is so decadent that folks like him can cast off reality itself, and make their bubble one of their own design without any real repercussions, like dying at work because his job is dangerous and he's so detached. He doesn't need to worry about that because people he hates that came before him made sure he wouldn't have to. Alternative facts are fine, they don't get in the way of eating, not anymore.
Our forebearers spoiled us, and this citizen is what that looks like. His bubble is the ultimate luxury item. Completely impractical to the point of hamstringing the wearer, its only purpose is status and vanity. It doesn't even make him happy.
We've given various names to this over the years, idolatry, false consciousness, magical thinking, but it's always dangerous.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: We've given various names to this over the years
How about vlogger, tiktok'er etc.?
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: It doesn't even make him happy.
I would like to test that.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
I've seen it plenty of times, but the clearest examples I can think of are political and thus verboten.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
I have no idea what you're talking about, everything is fine over here 
|
|
|
|
|
You and your tiny country are indeed, fine. 
(in my best American idiot voice)
Real programmers use butterflies
modified 8-Dec-20 11:45am.
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: (in my best American idiot voice)
now you are just trolling. Perhaps I should mark your OP as abusive/trolling. 
|
|
|
|
|
For the record, I am an american. I have no problem laughing at us. I mean, it's not like I named an album that or anything. 
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
You bring great technical achievement and experience to this site. Don't tarnish that with political bullshit posts - American or not.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd say consider yourself fortunate that you've only divined my political leanings after me posting here for years.
You have no idea how much i censor myself to post here.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Frustrating that when you say some citizens are living in a constructed reality you get called political, right? As if that wasn't a demonstrable fact. Everything is political now by design. Politics is inherently opinionated. Lumping facts and reality into it allows those that can't barter in the currency of intellect a means to participate in those markets. Your silver coin is now comparable to their lump of dung.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm reminded of a certain Isaac Asimov quote.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
I hope you don't mean to say that people who disagree with you politically are unable to "barter in the currency of intellect," but unfortunately that's what you said.
Superior much?
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Except that's not what I said at all. What I said was that politics is being used to equate fundamentally non-equatable positions. That it blurs the line between what is valuable and what is worthless.
If I walked into your office and said "everyone deflagilate the multi-tonal helicoid multiplexer" you'd all dismiss me as an idiot - for good reason! That statement has no value (or meaning). But what if I'm the boss or similar? Now office politics are involved. You may end up doing the same but the simple fact that politics are now involved will cause some consideration that was not previously given. It has legitimized, however slightly, my worthless statement. Now consider the same situation on a national scale. With worthless statements given intrinsic value purely because of politics. With millions of people incrementally legitimizing those statements. A constructed reality of worthless ideas.
There is nothing stopping differing positions from both having value. But value is derived from some foundation of truth. For example, would you fund research into whether the Earth is flat? No? Why? Because that position has no truth behind it. It has no value.
|
|
|
|
|
Ha, at least one of the mentioned country   
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
Chemists have exactly one rule: there are only exceptions
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: in my best American idiot voice
You mean there's another American voice?*
* I'm clearly joking, don't get offended... I know fully well there's also the hysterical Karen American voice.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to speak to the manager.
*calls the cops*
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
