Yeah like the programming language

Gonna whisper what the first word in “PHP” stands for

Compilation error or run time errors? One is a gift and the other is a curse.

Any language in which whitespace has syntactic value is intrinsically flawed.

Can’t speak to your specific issues, but that’s why yaml will always suck.

There have always been susceptible idiots.

Nazi’s are just a byproduct of an eroding standard of living. When things are good and getting better, there just isn’t the fertile ground for that kind of ideology, even among the idiots.

When standard of living is on the decline? Anyone who gives a simple answer and a simple solution gets the attention of idiots.

So you trick your stomach like you’d trick a dog by hiding medicine in their food?

Can I vote for obsfuscators not holding a language hostage?

I think pretty much everyone views their political ideology as “the one that stands for freedom”, and it just comes down to what it means to be “free”, and the follow up of free from what.

I feel like libertarians would love the concept of FOSS and decentralization, and I don’t think anyone would argue they skew left.

So, I disagree that FOSS is inherently left wing. I think it’s attractive to the left wing for many good reasons. I think people project their own politics onto whatever they love, and things can be loved by very different groups for different reasons.

You don’t want a department that you throw it over the fence to, you want them embedded on your team. Keep those feedback loops TIGHT bois

I mean, I’ve never seen a real platypus but I’m not going to use that as a justification for why they can’t exist.

I don’t know what to tell you. It’s a spectrum. I’ve worked in shops that claimed to be agile but to them, that just meant JIRA and story points. I’ve worked at places where agile meant having daily standups.

And I’ve worked places where there actually was a genuine attempt, and that was an awesome place to work.

I’ll rephrase them, except in good faith:

1. Talking directly to the people about the work is better than a 95 state JIRA pipeline

2. Document your finished working work, not every broken POC, because that’s a waste of time

3. If the contract isn’t actually going to meet the desires of your stakeholders, negotiate one that will

4. If you realize the plan sucks, make a better plan.

My company paid to have Kent Beck come to workshop with our Sr devs. I expected to dislike him, but he won me over pretty quick.

I don’t remember what it was, but someone was like “Kent, we do X like you recommend in the manifesto, but it creates Y, and Z problem for us”

And he was like “So, in your situation it isn’t providing value?”

Guy was like “No”

“Then stop doing it.”

It’s not hard. It’s the most fucking common sense shit. I feel bad for them because these guys came from a world where there were these process bibles that people were following. So they wrote like, basically a letter saying “if your Bible doesn’t serve you, don’t follow it”

And all these businesses dummies were like “oh look, a NEW bible we can mindlessly follow”

'Nailing down the definition of a story point to “1 developer day” oughta do it ’

Now you know how I feel about Tutankhamun.

Ah, an auditability audit.

This is an interpretation of what happened. It’s the one that paints America in the most favourable light, for sure.

Another one is that the “no surrender” mentality was a direct result of the terms of the Potsdam Declaration which demanded “unconditional surrender” from Japan. Japan knew they had lost, they were just hoping to fight for the SPECIFIC surrender condition of the preservation of the Imperial line (aka, let the Emporer still be the Emporer, preserve the family).

Had the Potsdam Declaration permitted that concession, it very well may have been the case that no nukes would have been necessary.

Anyways: tough to understand the exact truth of any hypothetical situation. I just think it’s unfortunate that the “The USA HAD to, though” argument is so often repeated without a very full context of the surrounding political realities. It’s a very bite sized explanation, and it paints the USA in a fantastic light. It’s perhaps not a coincidence that it was AT Potsdam that the west hinted to Stalin of the existence of the nuclear bomb.

What’s the point of building the thing if you can’t prove to the world you have it, and are willing to use it?

It depends VERY much about the content and invitees of the meetings.

If you’re there to give your expert engineering feedback, awesome. If you’re there to receive the information you need in order to provide expert engineering feedback, awesome.

So often, I find, meetings are too broad and end up oversubscribed. Engineers are in a 2 hour meeting with 10 minutes of relevance.

There are serious differences in meeting culture, with vast implications oh the amount of efficacy you can juice from the attendees.

I’m really confused about the arguments around this, being that things like apostrophes and hyphens have special meanings in databases.

Yes, they do… But there are incredibly mature standard practices around how to store and query this type of data so that it isn’t a problem.

Hyphens and apostrophes aren’t uncommon in surnames. Is anyone suggesting banning those?

I think a lot of people believe the science in this article to be problematic. Another poster went into several reasons. It’s heavy on persuasive language, shy of facts, and many of the facts are suspect, and it hasn’t been accepted by any publications so it hasn’t gotten any peer review. It’s possible it hasn’t gotten any publication because the apparently quality is so low.

It might be that people see your comment as accepting the validity of the claims which suspiciously have no peer review, and are then jumping the gun by associating it to things which ARE well scientifically established like climate change.

It’s kinda leaping to an ethical and political discussion when there are a lot of outstanding questions about the science. And this is /c/science.

I can’t speak for others. I didn’t downvote you. But, your comment wasn’t really… Science?

Removed by mod

I wish the article explained why people were against getting married? Like, kids, as a father, I get it.

But for marriage, is it just seen as an unnecessary formality? Is it about an aversion to long term relationships? Is there a cultural perception that you must have kids if you get married and people want to avoid a married-no-children stigma?