Yeah, the whole observation needed the adjective American.

Long so I noticed US soaps we’re all wealthy people being miserable, while British soaps were all working class people being miserable, but Australian soaps were all working-class people being happy (after resolving some minor difficult situation).

hands touching the wall

Really.

AFAIK the ID law is a consequence of a centuries-old right that you cannot be required to identify yourself if you’re doing nothing wrong, and then even if you did do something wrong, you still can’t be required to have brought ID with you since it’s likely you didn’t set out knowing you’d be doing that today.

But the surveillance/camera thing is recent, when rights of ordinary people apparently are less fashionable.

You know I said UK but this is exactly the sort of law that tends to be different in NI.

I’m the UK England and Wales you can’t be required to carry ID at all.

If the police ask you for them, you have 7 days to present them at a police station.

(Edit: really not sure it extends to Scotland where such laws often vary, and pretty sure it doesn’t apply to NI, where they vary even more, especially on driving/licensing, so UK was inaccurate)

Well on Reddit, programmerhumor was mostly populated by people weirdly proud of how bad they are at their job, so I don’t see how Lemmy was going to be different.

I’ve worked in a few startups, and it always annoys me when people say they don’t have time to do it right. You don’t have time not to do it right - code structure and clarity is needed even as a solo dev, as you say, for future you. Barfing out code on the basis of “it works, so ship it” you’ll be tied up in your own spaghetti in a few months. Hence the traditional clean-sheet rewrite that comes along after 18-24 months that really brings progress to its knees.

Ironically I just left the startup world for a larger more established company and the code is some of the worst I’ve seen in a decade. e.g. core interface definitions without even have a sentence explaining the purpose of required functions. Think “you’re required to provide a function called “performControl()”, but to work out its responsibilities you’re going to have to reverse-engineer the codebase”. Worst of all this unprofessional crap is part of that ground-up 2nd attempt rewrite.

What do you think comments are?

These are arguments talking past each other. Sure 1 useful comment and 9 redundant ones can be better than zero, but comments are not reliable and often get overlooked in code changes and become misleading, sometimes critically misleading. So often the choice is between not enough comments versus many comments that you cannot trust and will sometimes tell you flat-out lies and overall just add to the difficulty of reading the code.

There’s no virtue in the number of comments, high or low. The virtue is in the presence of quality comments. If we try to argue about how many there should be we can talk past each other forever.

Black/white as bad/good is a clear case where there is a clear logical reason to change IMO. That perpetuates unconscious bias.

And yet there’s a big push to rename git “master” branches, which have no slave connotations and are more analogous to master recordings.

Its not like I’ll fight it, but it’s stupid.

You do? Because I don’t. There is nothing racist about the concept of master. Is a masterpiece racist? Are master tapes, Are post-graduate degrees racist? We may as well declare “work” insensitive because slaves had to work.

Don’t get me wrong, there are many terms we should adjust. I just can’t see how “master” is one of them.

Yes, there is one now! And if you squint really hard the coffee one brushes against the question.

It was about doing something seemingly unrelated and simple that helped to learn something more profound. Not seeing it in most (any?) of the answers.

I didn’t understand the question so came to read the replies out of curiosity but couldn’t work it out so searched the web for what wax-on-wax-off meant. Now I think nobody else understood the question either.

Many political questions are reasonable to disagree on but many others are also ethical ones with gaps that cannot be bridged.

I’m just an emacs … enjoyer (…?) and I just don’t understand the post. I’m pretty sure buffers here refer to something different from emacs buffers as they’re completely unrelated to clipboards. Then from a quick scan of the plug-in mentioned it seems to mimic the clipboard ring emacs has had for many decades (always?).

Basically I have no idea what’s going on here.

For paid service I like the simple “of course” recognizing that is what I’m here for and it’s normal. No faux generosity nor implication of a tolerated imposition.

You owe me

So by saying you are welcome to their action, people are actually saying the opposite? That you are not welcome to it at all? You’re saying it’s ironic?

It varies regionally. While “you’re welcome” is not at all unusual in the UK, it’s nowhere near as expected and standard as it is in the US.

I often hear “not at all” as a response, just like “de nada”. It’s also common in the UK not to respond at all, as the thanks are expected.