The Official Funny Stuff Thread™
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@dcon The real question is if they put the trolley back. Decency > Intelligence
Update: did not put costco cart back yesterday, couldn't find a return thing anywhere close by and I wasn't going to walk back to the store.
I think you guys in flyover states don't understand how valuable parking spots are over here.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
I love it when updated content reminds me how non-updated places are.
Someone dressed as a printer technician came in and took a photo of some documents that had come in on the fax machine while I was on lunch break. My office is in a secure area. Lesson learned: don't leave documents unattended.
How about, don't have paper at all? Or phacks muhtchines?
Or let people in to secure are with phones?
-
-
-
-
-
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Update: did not put costco cart back yesterday, couldn't find a return thing anywhere close by and I wasn't going to walk back to the store.
I think you guys in flyover states don't understand how valuable parking spots are over here.
-
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
I have a feeling homosexual screwdrivers would be less effective...
-
@jinpa said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@da-Doctah And so there would be a risk of someone crooked who worked in the office who routinely looked at all of the faxes.
Office? This was in my home. I see no office here.
-
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Or let people in to secure are with phones?
that reminds me of my visits to the old NATO building. Could have well been a printer repair guy but I needed my phone since it's hard to test phone systems without phone and the telco room didn't have a fixed line.
Solution: put phone in laptop bag, put laptop bag on xray, empty pockets, walk through gate and take everything with me again. Don't even remember if the Nokia brick even had a camera.Usually lost more time with security then doing actual work there.
-
How I feel when most people say the word 'microservices' at me:
-
-
@loopback0 said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
And then you find out Joe was the manager.... trying to cut corners on safety.
-
-
@loopback0 I prefer:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@TimeBandit said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@dcon said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
I think I still have a SCSI cable...
I still have IDE, SCSI, serial and Centronic cables.
I even have an external MODEM.I'm prepared for any occasion
username checks out
-
-
@BernieTheBernie said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@dcon said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Is this a knife thread?
No, this is a knife thread!
-
-
-
-
-
-
Life hack!
-
@dcon said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@TimeBandit said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
I even have an external MODEM.
Hayes Accura 28.8
New-fangled gimmicks. I have an amateur radio TNC lying around that does 1200 bps. Half-duplex of course.
-
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
I don't think it's called "heterosexual" if you will screw all 8 genders
-
@Gern_Blaanston said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
I mean can you blame him? Going from windows 3.11 to 95 is like going from lynx to chrome.
-
@dangeRuss I’d rather use a hole in the knee than Chrome.
-
@topspin said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@dangeRuss I’d rather use a hole in the knee than Chrome.
You trying to watch porn with it or fuck it?
-
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@topspin said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@dangeRuss I’d rather use a hole in the knee than Chrome.
You trying to watch porn with it or fuck it?
OK, Chrome has a slight Edge over lynx w3n it comes to watching porn.
Then again, 90s porn MPGs … I'd have taken lynx + literotica.com, thanks.
-
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@topspin said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@dangeRuss I’d rather use a hole in the knee than Chrome.
You trying to watch porn with it or fuck it?
-
-
@topspin I think you misread the topic title. FYI, This is not the Nope! thread where that should have been posted instead.
-
-
@dangeRuss That's what you get for allowing assignments in
if
statements.
-
@Rhywden said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@dangeRuss That's what you get for allowing assignments in
if
statements.That's what you get for not putting the value on the left side.
-
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Rhywden said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@dangeRuss That's what you get for allowing assignments in
if
statements.That's what you get for not putting the value on the left side.
Hey now, there's a beautiful garage over there for that!
-
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Rhywden said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@dangeRuss That's what you get for allowing assignments in
if
statements.That's what you get for not putting the value on the left side.
Horrible hack.
That’s what yougetdeserve for comparing with Boolean constants.It’s
if (foo)
, notif (foo == true)
orif ((foo == true) == true)
.
-
@topspin said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
if (foo == true)
In my very early days of coding I used to be that guy. Then, one day one of the seniors in the team simply explained that at runtime I'm basically asking
if (true == true) or if (false == true)
and it just clicked. I have not written it like that ever since (now nearly 15 years later)...
-
@AgentDenton said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@topspin said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
if (foo == true)
In my very early days of coding I used to be that guy. Then, one day one of the seniors in the team simply explained that at runtime I'm basically asking
if (true == true) or if (false == true)
and it just clicked. I have not written it like that ever since (now nearly 15 years later)...
I've worked at a place that mandated doing the if(var == true) for clarity reasons.
I kept telling them how dumb this is.
-
@topspin Yeah, but if you're working with
nullable
types in C#, sometimes you have to do that. If a intermediary property may be null then you need to do the bool check explicitlyif ( Instance.PropertyMayBeNull?.BoolValue == true) { //works [...] } if (Instance.PropertyMayBeNull?.BoolValue) { //does not work [...] }
because here you might have
null
,true
orfalse
and null isn't the same as false, after all. So the compiler will balk at that. Of course, you could do null checks all over the place but that would defeat the purpose of the?
inPropertyMayBeNull?
in the first place.
-
@Rhywden As you probably know, this is where depending on your version of C# (and tastes) you might start using
??
(coalescing to a constant) or!
(not null assertion).