Check your basics
-
interesting.com or interesting.cn?
Interesting times, indeed.
-
When did he say that? I recall reading several times where he said it was not a place for pure discussion (i.e., a forum). Not that I'd be shocked if he said that as part of a rationalization of something Discourse related, but...
If Discourse's search wasn't so retarded, I'd dig it up but he has definitely cited Stack* as an example of a good forum, as part of justifying bullshit here.
-
In http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/147100/the-homework-tag-is-now-officially-deprecated:
Selective quoting is fun.Jeff suggests the following strategy: [...]
Try to remove the worst of the worst,
And TBH, FWIW, TL;DR, FYI.
-
Paging @mikeTheLiar
-
knowing about the things they manage is not a requirement
Apparently it is also not a requirement to know not to interview people for things they don't know about.
-
If Discourse's search wasn't so retarded, I'd dig it up but he has definitely cited Stack* as an example of a good forum, as part of justifying bullshit here.
I recall Jeff saying something along these lines as well. I even remember pointing out to him that he has said Stack* is not designed for discussion, so you can't use it to justify design decisions in forum software.
-
I tried to find a post to reference, but there are so many mentions to stack in the forums already that the search is even more worthless than usual.
-
It's not even like you can easily just filter on Jeff's posts. If you can I have no idea how.
-
You have to search from their profile. But he has mentioned Stack* in about 2 dozen topics, and I'm not wading through that because there's probably multiple mentions per topic.
-
I'd give it a whirl, but again, not wanting to raise my blood pressure reading the stupid of everything else to find one post containing (at least) that point.
-
You have to search from their profile. But he has mentioned Stack* in about 2 dozen topics, and I'm not wading through that because there's probably multiple mentions per topic.
Searching his blog? Google can do that. But you'd also have to check on both meta.stackoverflow.com and meta.stackexchange.com, which have a lot of discussion of policies relating to things. (You can ignore anything that's been deleted unless you're trying to prove he was wrong in the past. That'd be both trivial and pointless; everyone is wrong sometimes.)
-
Searching his blog? Google can do that. But you'd also have to check on both meta.stackoverflow.com and meta.stackexchange.com, which have a lot of discussion of policies relating to things. (You can ignore anything that's been deleted unless you're trying to prove he was wrong in the past. That'd be both trivial and pointless; everyone is wrong sometimes.)
No, searching this forum for posts by Jeff regarding stack*.
-
No, searching this forum for posts by Jeff regarding stack*.
Don't be ridiculous. Nobody searches this forum.
-
Don't be ridiculous. Nobody searches this forum.
Mostly because we've all learned the futility of such an exercise.
-
Don't be ridiculous. Nobody searches this forum.
that's why so many topics get closed as duplicates.
WAIT, WRONG SITE!
-
I've recently noticed that 90% of my programming-related searches land me on StackOverflow pages that were closed due to the question "not being suitable for StackOverflow" or some other such nonsense.
It would seem StackOverflow is a barrier to me getting programming guidance.
-
StackOverflow is simply a barrier to knowledge.
-
-
I've recently noticed that 90% of my programming-related searches land me on StackOverflow pages that were closed due to the question "not being suitable for StackOverflow" or some other such nonsense.
You were looking for “Which software package shall I use to do XYZ?”
-
You were looking for “Which software package shall I use to do XYZ?”
They have a separate site for that
-
Thanks. Didn't know about that one.
-
This post is deleted!
-
Hooray! I'm helping!
-
Wtf? Is that directed at me?
-
What's up with @Zoidberg necroing threads? Not cool.
-
I've performed a few mercy killings.
-
That sounded vaguely relevant.
-
What's up with @Zoidberg necroing threads? Not cool.
I've performed a few mercy killings.
I don't believe a thread necro is a mercy killing. More like the opposite.
-
What's up with @Zoidberg necroing threads? Not cool.
http://what.thedailywtf.com/t/admin-request-if-possible/4552
-
What's up with @Zoidberg necroing threads? Not cool.
To clarify, a spammer mentioned @Zoidberg in a bunch of old topics, before being unceremoniously banned.
-
It's good cholesterol, but it spreads like bad cholesterol.
-
Also, see:
http://what.thedailywtf.com/t/first-unread-navigation-incorrect-when-post-is-hidden/4553/1
-
That's the true cost of bot mention spamming.
-
To be fair, it would be the same situation if a regular user replied. It's just a lot more likely if a bot can be persuaded to answer.
Hence my feature request else-category.
-
Re: the opp.
I ran into this question at one point because a friend of mine who is a current CS student asked me to explain it; the best I could come up with was the "1 might compare slightly faster than 10" explanation, which I'm pretty sure isn't true of most processors anyhow. On top of that, every compiler I have access to produces the same code for any version of "while(truthy_constant)", and a brute-force stupidity comparison of them using a few million repetitions of some suitably time-sensitive code had me measuring jitter on my HDD rather than any meaningful difference.
In other words, I'm pretty sure the "senior" in this case was full of shit and either didn't know it or did and was being a jerk, assuming the story happened as told.
-
In other words, I'm pretty sure the "senior" in this case was full of shit and either didn't know it or did and was being a jerk, assuming the story happened as told.
The usual rule I use is “write clear code and assume that the compiler will do good things with it until proved otherwise”. It works really well, since the clarity helps me too.