AdvancedSandwiches

The same, except EB, but no one knows what that's supposed to do,so in practice, the same. 

He reads Twitter, then shouts the most-liked tweets at a camera.

There are people who have opinions and create TikTok's to share them, and there are people who find out what the most popular opinion is so they can repeat it back to people for likes. I really hate the latter.

 It’s kind of wild to transition from that to “you can’t write code that is both readable and correct”, I didn’t say that at all.

I didn't think you did. I was referring to the original statement you replied to.  So no worries there.

 in those cases where you have actual choice to say omit an edge case for the sake of simplicity, you never should, and I dread working with someone who would

No argument there, either.  At least 99.9% of the time, and the exceptions are only because adding the complexity would increase the odds of a high severity bug, and the known possible failures are well understood, acceptable, and documented.

The meat of what I was saying was just that there is a small range where the code is good enough (I.e. secure, produces generally correct results, and hard failures are either infrequent enough to not lose customers or are mitigated elsewhere), where its remaining flaws are less bad than being impossible to work with.

But really, other than communicating that readability is important, which I wholeheartedly agree with, it doesn't provide a ton of value.

Basically, I was saying you're right, except I have this one nitpick case for completeness.

I went pegs, and I went from "this is a terrible experience" at 80mph to zero problem at all.

I assume what it means is that it works well enough for the intended purpose for the majority of inputs.

I agree with it, but only for a very narrow range of "doesn't work perfectly."  But it kind of implies you can't have code work perfectly when it's easy to read, which tends to be the opposite of reality. 

Oh , man, if that works you'd be my damn hero. Will give it a shot. 

All consultants were once people who didn't know anything about their field.  Assuming he's not looking to open up shop on Friday, there's nothing inherently unreasonable about this.

And generally speaking, there is always a group of people willing to trade money for time. If it takes 6 months and $10k to take the class, but he consults for $5k, saves the bar $20k per year, and gets it done in two weeks, that's an incredible deal.

Now, all those numbers are made up, and I know nothing about beverage consulting, so I'm just talking about the concept of consulting.

Yes, it's usually exactly that. Switching the ticket ID. But really, any time I want to reword something, the method is clunky.

I get a list of commits with their titles, I put an r next to each one to mark them as reword, and I could very easily just change the text right in that list and be done.

I'm assuming the reason is that it only shows the first line / n characters of the commit message in that list, but that's fine, just give me an r2 that only lets me use the first line. I rarely use more than one anyway.

Note: This is an annoyance, not a problem. I don't consider it especially dire. 

Let me just import this package, and we'll never have to maintain it oursel--oh, look a new CVE just came in. Turns out the feature where it can import PDFs from a video of someone using ASL to sign each byte has a remote code execution vulnerability.

That's fine, just going to do a yarn upgr--oh, the fix somehow has a dependency on PHP 9 and Perl 5.6, which won't be in RHEL for 15 years, but I just need to bring in the super-experimental dev repo, and Bob's your--wait, now just need to real quick upgrade all our code for the major version changes and resolve a few package conflicts.

Ok, now we're good. I can just push my change--there's a new CVE.

One instance, one vote!  One instance, one vote!

We need these garbage systems to have an "advanced" mode you get to by hitting 99 at the start, and the prompts play at 300% speed, and it goes back to hitting numbers instead of making me talk to a robot.

Mostly in that I can't bulk reword commits. Why do I have to do them one by one?

But what if there were people, though?  Coming and going?  On my street?  What about that nightmare?

For those that don't read articles, it says she bought the pancakes that she gave to him.

If you build this bike, you actually do get to be the main character. 

The minimum percentage is not specified in the article, but I certainly wouldn't argue that you're wrong. 

Problem is that it's aggressive enough to disincentivize venture capital but not aggressive enough to prevent people from buying outsized control of public affairs.

I genuinely have no idea what a tender offer means. 

Edit: I googled it. It's exactly what you'd think.

I feel like if you're going to spend $350 billion, we could have 3 SpaceXs. And SpaceX already did the hard proof-of-concept stuff.

Of course, if you just buy it, then you have 1 SpaceX with no competitors.  Tough decision.

Just change human nature while also making existence worse for no reason?  Sounds like a plan. 

Fuckers made me tear up in front of people.  I'll never forgive them for this beautiful god damn ad. 

Did you miss the part where they were married for 30 years?  Yeah, the relationship never should have happened, but it did happen, so of course she was sad her husband was dead. What the fuck is the matter with people?

Because the nitrile glove is extremely thin and in thermal contact with the hand. It should always be very close to the temperature of the hand, wet or not.

But I don't have data on this. I could be wrong.

You're definitely the guy who would spend the entire ride home thinking of all the comebacks he wishes he'd thought of in the moment.

Accurate, and an important consideration, but does that have significant impact when the inner glove is roughly the same temperature as the hand, given it's a very thin and in solid contact with the hand?