@Yamikuronue but "sat across" is USA'ian and Potter is set in some sort of anachronistic English universe.
"sat themselves down" is really ugly, presumably only done on those rare occasions when one's retinue is unavailable to do the seating
@Yamikuronue but "sat across" is USA'ian and Potter is set in some sort of anachronistic English universe.
"sat themselves down" is really ugly, presumably only done on those rare occasions when one's retinue is unavailable to do the seating
@e4tmyl33t said in In other news today...:
That's one of my problems with living alone, is that half the stuff I might want to cook I either can't because I'd end up with leftovers I probably won't eat, I'm wasting ingredients, or I don't have variety.
Example: When I make Shake N Bake porkchops for myself and my daughter when she's over, it's usually one porkchop each plus half of a packet of either "instant" mashed potatoes or one of the Knorr rice side packets. However, if it's just me, I'm still making two porkchops (because using an entire packet of Shake N Bake for a single porkchop is stupid), but I'm not making any of the sides because two porkchops will fill me up (not to mention that there would be leftover sides even if I did, and those don't keep well).
I sort of agree (live on my own and know that that's not good in terms of preparing interesting meals) but will be intrusively judgemental anyway ...
you can easily do a hell of a lot better than instant mash or packet rice. Making that sort of stuff from scratch is still really quick and gives you the flexibility to make the quantity that you want (and probably a better outcome than you can get from pre-prepared gunk).
Small packs of pork chops are mostly not a good choice, buy a bigger pork cut (at lower unit cost) cook it to destruction for ages - to get a big tasty hot meal from it, then a series of additional meals (sandwiches, salads or whatever) as pulled-pork.
Cooking can be quite fun, easy, risk free and social, but falling back to ready-meals and other semi-instant packaged stuff is a trap (that I easily fall into).
@brisingraerowing said in In other news today...:
EDIT: Just noticed this was from 2014. My mom mentioned it a few minutes ago so I looked it up.
Still, WTF?
Not a WTF. It's probably not how I'd choose to spend a limited income, but if you're financially supporting vulnerable people with handouts then surely they should be allowed the dignity to spend the money how they choose?
@loopback0 said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
UK lockdown has been relaxed slightly.
@Karla said in In other news today...:
There is a long way from a couple drinks here and there to that.
But FAS is way out there - that's the point where the damage is impossible to ignore. The truly safe level of alcohol (below which there really isn't damage) is harder to define. Medical advice ought, of necessity, to err very much on the side of caution. Most people under-estimate the amount they really drink, lots of people have a fairly poor grasp of where they exactly are in a pregnancy (and one of the major risk periods is very early on).
But 'currently' invites improvement...
Could do better: The interface is currently rather sparse, but it could try harder and really make something of itself and become so much more :)
@dkf said in API design: query string nullable value:
And false would just make Baby Datatype-Modelling Jesus cry.
What about /api/nodes?for-parent=FILE_NOT_FOUND
?
Status:
Feel really old when supermarket checkout person can comfortably make joke about whether to require over-25 ID while purchasing alcohol. (am 40)
@cartman82 said in Stupid fucking mobile menu is broken on Chrome 65:
Just a sec, let me take another shit.
@cartman82 said in Stupid fucking mobile menu is broken on Chrome 65:
@cartman82 yup, broken after refresh.
that's a euphemism I'd not heard before
@boomzilla said in IBM WATSON is not really AI:
IT'S ALL ABOUT MEEEEEEEE
Yes, quite a lot of sour grapes and quite a myopic outlook, but equally IBM spouts a lot of rubbish about Watson, which, as far as I can tell, is not an 'artificial intelligence' in any interesting sense.
Most of the feats attributed to Watson appear to down to thoroughly traditional deterministic programming rather than more abstract machine learning.
@shoreline I don't know how to solve the social side of this, I end up feeling similarly aggrieved when this happens.
You might be able to alleviate part of the problem (that people are doing merges carelessly) if you're in a position where you can add new regression tests at the same time. If, at a fine-grained level, you make sure that everything you modified is tested then that can help nail your changes in place. That does add a lot of tedious test writing to your workload.
@Rhywden setting fire to wordpress is quite fun, but doesn't keep you warm
@tsaukpaetra said in The Official Status Thread:
Gah! I hate not having full sensing access to my internals. Who thought that was a good idea?!
I for one count myself lucky! Imagine how many status updates you'd post if you did. :tmi:
@chozang I doubt it, they've mostly been mixed households.
All I know is that, by the end of the year once the tenants have gone, several rooms often have non-functional bulbs. They assumption has to be that the occupants are happy to put up with living in rooms without lights rather than going to a local store (~100 metres away), buying a new bulb and fitting it.
It's quite odd
@boomzilla but the point is that Watson's profound insight that Bob Dylan is all about "love fades" is bullshit and way off the mark - and yet that's what IBM's marketing dept. picked up on!
Interpreting the meaning behind Bob Dylan is well outside the realms of what artificial intelligence can currently do (and, as the author pointed out, is outside the experience of many humans). It's therefore a really stupid way for IBM to show off Watson. That someone in marketing at IBM apparently doesn't understand that is quite telling.
@dkf said in Help Bites--necro edition:
What could possibly go wrong? (Answer: Excel. That's what will be the bane of your life if you do this.)
This.
If you happen to have the fortune of inhabiting a parallel universe where users don't automatically load csv files into Excel then you may be fine with fputcsv
Even then, if there's a risk that fields may contain linefeeds then it may be safer to pre-process the data to remove them (replace with spaces or something). The csv spec. does support line-breaks within fields but too many csv-consumers baulk at them. I would also be inclined to strip nulls and all other control codes.
If you need Excel compatibility then watch out for fields beginning with '='. Whether quoted or not, Excel will try to interpret the contents as a formula. Excel will also mangle anything that looks even vaguely like a date.
In general, if you need to support Excel then avoid CSV like the plague and use phpExcel or PhpSpreadsheet to output in xlsx format. That will give you scope to circumvent many of the gotchas.
EDIT PHP's fputcsv
and fgetcsv
escape_char
parameter worries me. The concept of a csv escape character is fundamentally wrong - csv uses quoted strings and repeats "" to escape quote characters. fgetcsv
is definitely broken (a bug that php devs refuse to fix) and I wonder if fputcsv has similar issues.
@pie_flavor said in Fall Creators Update, or how to fuck up the OS from start to finish:
@perverted_vixen said in Fall Creators Update, or how to fuck up the OS from start to finish:
180kg
I don't speak European.
Don't worry, you're in good company. Liberia and Myanmar are still with you.
@Unperverted-Vixen said in Work proxy:
@remi I'd rather they didn't, but I understand why they do. Besides, even if you accept that there's a reasonable expectation of personal use of employer resources (which I'm not sure I do, despite doing so to post to this site - I consider it a bonus, not an expectation), how are they supposed to know that your personal use of employer resources is "reasonable" or not if they aren't able to monitor it?
If I don't like it, then I have the option of not abusing my employer's resources for personal use and using my phone instead.
But that's a really depressing outlook. Your employer is paying you as a professional to do a defined task, as long as you full-fill your part there ought to be reasonable latitude and respect. Once they start spying that all goes out the window.
It gets even more stupid once you factor-in all the costs of some daft IT bod (or, more likely, a middle manager with time on their hands) sitting watching whether @japonicus is properly tied to his keyboard, eyes glued to the IDE and typing sufficiently quickly. Because if I wanted to abuse things then I really could, SSL snooping wouldn't be what stopped me.
If I were mucking around too much and not doing productive work then that would pretty quickly become obvious - no snooping required. In a past life, while I was still a postgrad, a porn-surfing lab tech found that out to his cost (at @dkf's WTFU co-incidentally).
@blakeyrat said in Apparently, contributing to OSS will make you a great developer:
Because those people, who BTW could not be more open source-y, have absolutely no clue what they're doing. Learning from them is not a good thing. "Yeah, I'm learning a lot about phrenology, this is going to be so useful in my career!"
None of that is specific to open source software. Closed source is just as much of a cesspool. Someone who learnt their trade at any of the companies that have made it to the front page here would acquire some horrible habits. Potentially, open source projects are open to a wider pool input, so there's more chance that some of the weirder anti-patterns might be picked up on and criticised.
@lorne-kates said in Lorne is at a giant theater performing for all of China:
There's more sequence in this room than a studio's worth of dancers in costume in green room.
E_NO_GREEN
@Gąska said in Not sure that's how responsive works:
It's like those managers who misunderstood scrum training and think developers aren't agile if they don't stand up on meetings.
How can you possibly stay supple and agile if you're sitting down the whole time.
I'm with @blakeyrat, people should stop coming up with newfangled re-definitions of perfectly cromulent words. There are very few concepts that are truly new, but if something is then make a new word for it - don't bastardise existing vocabulary (or at least, if you do, then be a bit clever about it). The new meanings of "agile" and "responsive" are just ignorant.
(and stay off my lawn)
@xaade said in Distracted Kid:
@mikehurley said in Distracted Kid:
the teacher probably doesn't hound her as much as you guys maybe do at home.
That's the thing. We have to get on her a lot to keep her focused. We have to raise our voices often to get her to snap out of it. Not being mean or anything, just loud and in her face.
Teachers aren't willing to do that because they're afraid they'll hurt the kids, but if I have to pick between a cry or two and being held back a grade...
Now that I think about it, I noticed this problem when she was in daycare. She'd act out, we'd advance her to the next class and the problem would go away. She gets bored if she's mastered material.
This isn't a matter of obedience or discipline. If you resort to 'loud and in her face' then that might work in the short term, but I'm fairly sure that you'll stack up future problems.
Set up a non-judgemental situation and ask your daughter to explain what's going on. She probably won't have a solution but might have more insight than her teachers or a medic who's seen her only briefly.
You probably can't directly make early-years schooling less boring for her, but you may be able to negotiate your way around some of the problems - finding ways to (in conjunction with her teachers) extend some of the work to keep your daughter engaged. More importantly there might be compromises to be made - ways to circumvent some of the worst (most pointless/tedious) stuff that she may be confronted with. Skipping some levels in a maths or reading scheme etc, finding an interesting project for her to pursue in her free time (supported by you and the school).
I think that I can relate to some of what your daughter is doing. At seven I was passively rebellious against most of what I was expected to do at school - by which I mean that I simply didn't do it - I didn't act up I just sat and daydreamed. Given a maths or reading comprehension task that I resented as pointless or repetitious I just disengaged. Things that I could have done in ten minutes I could stretch to four hours or more.
Stubborn people like me are very difficult to contend with (I'm weird but I'm not ADHD or similar). At seven I was amenable to negotiation - e.g. one of the solutions was to let me use ditto marks rather than to write out repetitive answers long-form. That sounds trite, but for me as a seven year old it was fundamental. I can't quite remember my mindset now, but it was partly a matter of an adult giving some ground (but only a limited defined amount) on a stupid matter of efficiency. I still had to do the work but, very slightly, it was on my terms.
There are definite limits to the concessions that can or should be made to a young child - but there are some - provided that the terms are understood and adhered to by both sides.
For centuries, art has been sponsored by the aristocracy - that doesn't normally detract from the merit of the work.
I also don't see why an artist should have unfettered control over how their work is reinterpreted or parodied.
Status: two eggs hatched today :) , but the mother is a bit dipsy and doesn't really know how to feed them.
@pie_flavor said in The Official Status Thread:
@atazhaia Rust does that too. I prefer it; the for-loop's most common use is doing something x number of times (or, more commonly, i number of times) so it makes sense to have there be a semantic equivalent of that, especially since most of the time you want to do something significantly more complicated it's better to just be implementing an
Iterator
.
I don't get the current hatred of for loops by language designers. Iterators are neat and useful, but they're not a replacement for the flexibility and simplicity of C-style for loops.
From Rust's documentation:
Rust does not have the “C-style” for loop on purpose. Manually controlling each element of the loop is complicated and error prone, even for experienced C developers.
I'm sorry, but if a developer finds a for loop complicated and error prone then they need to find a new career.
Ditching plain for loops means that you have to add abominations like stride() or enumerate() to paper over the cracks.
@Gąska said in The latest npm security kerfuffle:
There is no correlation between abstraction level and performance.
That's a very bold and improbable general claim - do you have any evidence? Optimisation techniques are getting better, but I'd be very surprised if a skilled programmer couldn't usually achieve greater efficiency in a low-level language (if they spent the time and effort).
@ben_lubar said in A critical reflection on GDPR:
@pjh by the way, what does this entire thing fix apart from "users are not trained well enough to dismiss dialogues without reading them"?
The current flurry of emails about mailing-lists are a one-off. They're a consequence of a change in how personal details can be collected, so that people now have to opt-in rather than opt-out and have to be told what an organisation will do with their information. It means that in a week's time companies will have to delete millions of records of people who didn't opt in again - that's a one-off benefit. (i.e. the average user who hates clicking through legalese and ignores the emails will be opted-out by default)
For an individual this is a positive change - it will cut down on the amount spam-advertising they receive from companies they once did business with.
The legislation is complex - but that's because it has to deal with lots of grotty little companies that want to do various evil things with customer data and will squirm around to find every loop-hole they possibly can. For the average EU citizen that's a good thing - it's not complex for me but it's marginally more complex for a company that wants to spam me.
For companies operating across national borders, having a common set of personal-data regulations will simplify things (rather than dealing with a myriad of slightly different national laws) so could end up being cheaper once the new processes are established.
Further, is sad to hear that the glucose (11%) was apparently produced by sweated labour and that there was no other way it could be done.
@NeighborhoodButcher said in Software marketing engineer:
Naturally, they didn't get back. I'm glad.
This comment epitomises something that's really puzzled me about many of the programmers on this forum.
Presented with an interview of the type described I would think "Great, this is a company that sees the big picture; that wants its developers to be engaged with the whole process - not just following a narrow, prescribed rule-set."
Yet so much of the time the narrow approach seems to be exactly what so many devs want. I can't understand this. I went into computer programming because I wanted to solve large complex problems . My career hasn't exactly worked out as planned, but still in my current job, for a small not-for-profit I have huge autonomy in what I do and how I do it. I relish that because it means I can meddle in everything :). Nobody narrowly tells me what to do (because most of IT is a weird arcane world to my boss) but equally it means I must have a really good understanding of what my employer needs (v's says they want).
Why is that so many in IT appear not to want to engage in anything outside their narrow technical sphere?
[@NeighborhoodButcher I'm not trying to criticise you, please don't take this comment that way, but I really can't comprehend other's world view - perhaps I'm trwtf]
@benjamin-hall said in Permuting items and remembering where one particular item ended up:
You feed it the test; for multiple choice questions the first is correct.
If only the position of the first answer matters then shift it from the list, shuffle the other items, then reinsert the saved answer at a known random position.
@djls45 said in Saving the World from Code:
There's also
goodutterly fragile ways to protect against that, even with SQL injection exposure.
!!! INJECT 0 OR username = 'mytargetvictim'
!!!
select top 1 accountName, emailAddress
from users
where userId = 0 OR username = 'mytargetvictim'
order by userId;
@magus said in Angular Dialogs:
Product, against all my protestation
Protest harder!
Forced display of a dialog box on loss of focus is a horrible idea.
@lorne-kates said in The next Juicero?:
@polygeekery said in The next Juicero?:
Yup. My FIL has that one. I use this one, which has a current-temperature display:
or
Because why wouldn't I want a remote controlled kettle
@tsaukpaetra said in The Official Status Thread:
What doesn't make sense is that in the same breath I was told that I must immediately turn those lights back off before saving all the levels. Because....
@gąska said in A critical reflection on GDPR:
Dude, are you even reading what I say? I gave you one very plausible, very dangerous scenario of so you do read it after all what might happen if Google ever stops "not being evil". Is it not valid scenario? Not evil enough? Or do you think totalitarism is literally impossible in 21st century?
Your argument seems to make a nonsequitous jump from commercial tracking to governmental surveillance. If a totalitarian state wants to monitor me then they will do so and the presence or absence of cookies or consent forms will make absolutely no difference whatsoever.
I do want to partition information somewhat and deny corporations access - but my motives would be limited to restricting the scope of intrusive advertising, and perhaps constraining what insurance companies, future employers etc know about me. I'm resigned to the fact that if the state is seriously interested in my affairs then it will find out virtually everything and might be significantly assisted by all the technology around me - but realistically there's damn all I can do about about and privacy legislation certainly won't help there.
The Nazis managed just fine without google.
@izzion said in In other news today...:
@topspin
Except (1) the lead opposition party is in favor of Remain and (2) most of the 105 MPs are on the extreme Leave side of the spectrum. They voted against the deal because it wasn’t a hard ENOUGH Brexit, and would prefer a No Deal exit over Remain.
But the leader of the opposition secretly wants to leave (because he's dreaming of a communist utopia) despite the rest of his party remaining, while the prime-minister originally pretended to want to remain but actually wants to leave (mostly because she's still sulking about some European Court of Justice rulings that went against her).
So at least half the country wants to remain (but many were too lazy to vote), ~ 2/3rds of parliament want to remain, but a couple of idiot party leaders are spoiling everything and will throw the toys out the pram rather than talk to each other.
@izzion said in The latest npm security kerfuffle:
@japonicus
But isn't the time and effort spent part of the efficiency as well?
Yes, I'm definitely not advocating that everything should be written in low-level languages - performance often doesn't matter. I was responding to @Gąska who I understood to be arguing narrowly in terms of code-performance rather than efficiency of a project.
@Gąska said in The latest npm security kerfuffle:
It's a null hypothesis. The burden of proof is on the other side.
I'll conceded the point on pedantry, but still don't remotely accepted the lack of correlation which goes against common experience.
@Gąska said in The latest npm security kerfuffle:
And what about average programmers? You know, the kind that writes 90% of the code in the world?
I suspect (though you might dispute it ) that use of low-level language also has some correlation with expertise. Inexperienced (or even average) programmers are far less likely to work in low-level languages professionally. That most code is written in high-level languages (or that many programmers are less than competent) doesn't affect the correlation between language-level and raw code efficiency.
@xaade said in Making Britain the safest place online in the whole multi-universe!!:
@japonicus said in Making Britain the safest place online in the whole multi-universe!!:
'liberal' doesn't mean 'people I don't like'
This attempt to regulate and tax social media is not, by any stretch, a liberal measure. It's a reactionary step by a Conservative government, pandering to a minority of their right-wing supports who are ignorant and scared of anything that didn't exist when they were young.Did you actually read it?
It's about forcing social media to police their content so no one gets offended by what they call "bullying". If you don't think that includes "trolling" or "disagreeing", I have an island to sell you.
Yes I read it and I agree with you that it's crap, but it's a conspiracy by a conservative government - whereas for some reason you're using this as a pretext to bash 'liberals'.
@PJH said in In other news today...:
Seems UK plod should be allowed nothing more technical than a whistle and a truncheon.
Scary club-wielding suspect seen with un-monitored communication device === terrorist.
And possibly a (plastic) knife.
+ knife ( )
@thecpuwizard said in How do I deal with people who throw away my work?:
While I agree boomzilla 100% - there is also the likelihood that they will throw away your automated tests also :(
Making a mess of merges can be down to incompetence, but if they throw away tests then that's pathological and you've got much bigger problems. I don't think that's likely though. It seems better not to assume malice (if only for your own sanity).
One way to mitigate is to minimize merges! Remove gates, keep them simple (for those cases where branches absolutely need to be used in the first place, have them be quick (why is it more than 30 minutes before your changes are merged in?
Avoiding large complex merges sounds great, but requires everyone else to co-operate.
@anonymous234 said in Stanford dumps Java as introductory class:
@japonicus Well, if you're trying to teach a specific thing (e.g. data structures, a certain GUI toolkit, mathematical simulations), all the obstacles you find before getting to that specific thing are bad obstacles that you'd ideally want removed.
For example: Jeff @wood said "we keep the Discourse development stack complicated because it weeds out the amateur programmers". But knowledge of a specific development stack is not the same as knowledge of databases, algorithms, UI or good development practices in general. They are obviously correlated because developers must learn all those topics to be good, but they're still separate.
I'm not quite sure how that's a reply to my earlier post but anyway
The Stanford course under discussion was 'Programming Methodology', so yes, from a perversely narrow perspective you could argue that this could be taught using any language (or no language). It's described as a basic introductory course, with no prior knowledge required.
For the students who go on to become software engineers it's immaterial what language is used at this stage, but for the rest (possibly the majority on the course??) it seems more helpful to pick a language that they could conceivably encounter and use in the wild. Javascript or python fit that better than java and it doesn't really matter that neither is well designed.
So in an algorithmic course, you should try to weed out students by testing their algorithmic skills, not testing their ability to understand C strings, Java class inheritance or Fortran compilers.
It distresses me that you appear to see 'weeding out students' as the purpose of a university course. If that's the objective then I'd advocate insisting on machine code written in binary on ticker tape.
@Gąska said in Hmmm.. Part 3 - Where did the Microsoft Stack disappear?:
@TimeBandit you really think all that Facebook wanted was 40-60%? They could've doubled the servers instead, and get the same result.
On most benchmarks PHP7 and HHVM are very similar. HHVM benefits from a better implementation of strict typing and Facebook's put together some nifty development tools, but otherwise there's not much practical difference between the two. The mere existence of HHVM was hugely important as it shamed core PHP developers to get their act together, consequently PHP isn't in a bad position now.
No-one's going to pick PHP (or any scripting language) for speed, but mostly that isn't the top priority - cheap(er) developers and rapid prototyping are a significant benefit both for Facebook scale operations and for typical shoe-string startups and small businesses. That's why PHP is still popular.
Modern PHP isn't inherently bad. Bad developers can shit in any language and good developers can write maintainable PHP (not that I don't despise it sometimes...)
@Rhywden said in THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:
@jinpa said in THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:
@Rhywden said in THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:
If the people in the program knowingly file a false violation, they will be given a civil fine of up to $100.
I can see why you highlighted that. Aren't there criminal (as opposed to just civil) laws already in place against that sort of thing?
Since parking in the wrong spot is not a crime, I don't see why that should invoke criminal laws instead of civil liabilities.
Malicious false accusations sound criminal not civil (in the same vein as 'false arrest' etc.)
The bigger issue is that, being USA, the neighbours will just start shooting each other.
Apart from that the rest of the proposed rules re. pedestrian/bike lane provision sound very sensible.
@fbmac I preferred your original
'These things should be hate limited'
Current status as of July 22, 2020
Windows 10, version 2004 is available for users with devices running Windows 10, versions 1903 and 1909, who manually seek to “Check for updates” via Windows Update. We are now starting a new phase in our rollout. Using the machine learning-based (ML-based) training we have done so far, we are increasing the number of devices selected to update automatically to Windows 10, version 2004 that are approaching end of service. We will continue to train our machine learning through all phases to intelligently rollout new versions of Windows 10 and deliver a smooth update experience. The recommended servicing status is Semi-Annual Channel.
@Gąska said in WTF is happening with Windows 10? And nothing else:
@topspin that part actually makes sense. They're making statistics on what kinds of problem what kinds of PC configurations have, calculate compatibility score based on this, make tiny patches to fix things, then deploy W10 to new computers that are predicted based on their spec to have high compatibility score. Machine learning is a perfect tool for that.
Machine learning seems a lazy and appalling fit for this task. An update will either fail or succeed and for a well-defined and explicable reason - there are no probabilistic vagaries involved and, if there's any hope of patching them, reasons-for-failure must be precisely understood, and therefore exactly testable for. The criteria for blocking an update are therefore going to be similarly well-defined.
In this context the whole 'machine learning' thing is marketing bullshit.
@heterodox said in The Official Status Thread:
Kids aren't generally smart enough to be discreet about such things; if that happens, you should eventually find out about it.
Where's the fun in being discreet? Half the point of such things is to be able to show-off about it (while going through the motions of hiding what you've done).
Edit: and that usually means playing to the adults in the gallery, as your peer group probably lacks the technical insight to fully appreciate the nuances of what's been achieved. :)
@thecpuwizard said in Assessing performance--it's not just for programs:
Short answer: ROI
Decades ago I worked at an electronics engineering firm. The VP would call each person in once a year specifically to talk about "We have paid you, what have you earned us?". Despite how it sounds, it really was a great experience. Espcially because of the openness to making changes to improve that form both parties perspective.
I couldn't disagree more.
Reducing the assessment to monetary (or equivalent) terms risks chronic short-term-ism and low-risk quick gains to the detriment of long term planning or any sort of high-risk blue-sky (likely to fail, but potentially hugely beneficial) projects.
It favours selfish, individualistic sales-bods over low-key team players (who can't easily point to their individual contribution, but may be a critical part of overall success).
I don't know the answer to @Benjamin-Hall's question though - it's something that also bothers me. Probably something based on feedback/assessment by your peers. In general, most people have a fair idea of who around them is competent and pulling their weight and, unless you work with a bunch of psychopaths, your co-workers will be happy to give credit where it's due. Your colleagues are also best placed to give feedback on proposed changes (obviously everyone has their own axe to grind and turf to defend - so the value of some responses might be suspect).
@antiquarian said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
https://sites.psu.edu/siowfa15/2015/09/18/is-driving-faster-safer/
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Says that only 30% of the accidents that are fatal are accidents in which the driver was speeding. This does not mean that the speeding actually is the cause of the accident. A study conducted by the Florida Department of Transportation says that accidents that were caused by speeding is actually 2.2%.
Speed can have a profound effect on the consequences of an accident even if it isn't the cause.
What proportion of that 30% wouldn't have been fatal if the driver wasn't speeding?
The linked article is a depressing example of stats quoted out of context (compounded by the use of references that are now either broken links or lead to articles rendered un-readable due to obnoxious browser hijacking adverts - which doesn't exactly inspire confidence).
@e4tmyl33t said in The NodeBB Style Guide, alt. title: Sloppy Sloppy Sloppy - The Nobody Looked At This Before Shipping Story:
@blakeyrat Probably because then they'd all look similar and people would be able to use knowledge for one app in another, and they wouldn't be "unique".
and it would no-longer be art