ThePadawan
To live anywhere where to quote OP "it [would be] unusual not to have snow for Christmas and New Year" would basically mean living in a skiable country itself, so I did do a lot of assuming there.
But then I don't ski. I wouldn't know if skiers take vacations around the world to see different snow.
[0] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wei%C3%9Fe_Weihnachten_(Wetter...
This is one of those widely spread Mandela effect-style misconceptions.
The chances of a white Christmas in the UK are around 10%, and depending where you are in the US [0], especially if you consider the population density not pictured in that chart, even lower.
Humans generally hugely overestimate how often a white Christmas actually happens due to selection bias.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Christmas_(weather)#/med...
To me it seemed like the comment was attacking its parent for investigating state management frameworks in the first place - when it in fact called out "no framework" as a valid alternative to any number of frameworks.
(I hope that made sense)
Did you mean to reply to a different comment?
I might be a huge cynic, but that seems to me to be the #1 reason to create a post-mortem document to explore how to avoid another meeting that was a waste of time like that.
If the meeting was useless because the participants weren't prepared, make a note to hand out preparatory notes beforehand. If the meeting was useless because everybody shouted over each other, make a note for more moderation. If the meeting was useless because no one had political power to follow up on any decisions, cancel the meeting altogether.
Having a meeting that goes nowhere and then taking no time to publicly settle on actions as a consequence seems incredibly neglectful to me.
I studied Eiffel in university under Bertrand Meyer, and here's his (probably unique) point of view.
If someone hands you their library code and their unit tests, you have to understand their unit tests - which involves understanding why they chose the values that they did. There's also nothing stopping someone from testing the internals of their library as opposed to the publicly exposed behavior.
With contracts, imagine that to understand their library, you only see the method declarations with accompanying contracts. You don't see how HashSet.Add(x) is implemented, but you do see "if this.Contains(x) old(this.Count) == this.Count".
You don't have to see a test where this is tested with 5 example values, on an empty set, on a large set, whatever. You can rid yourself of that cognitive load by thinking, as sibling points out really well, declaratively over imperatively.
Phase 1 was just putting up a recipe online without a giant preamble.
Phase 2 was adding a giant preamble to get that SEO.
Phase 3 is now having a "jump to recipe" button at the top of the page (I assume because, once again, it uses microdata or something and helps SEO)... but making that button incredibly unobvious. It's literally the opposite problem of those 2005 era sketchy "find the correct download button" sites.
There might be licensing/taxation/legal reasons for the region lock, or maybe no one thought anyone outside the UK would care.
Congrats!
In my (rented) kitchen, the dishwasher is next to the refrigerator, which both manufacturers advise you against.
The cupboard panels are glossy and face South, so during most sunshine hours, you are slightly blinded by reflections, and can see every single speck of dirt and grease on them.
Some of the cupboards don't have handles, instead open by spring when pressing one corner of their door - which only works reliably within an area of around 2cm x 2cm, otherwise they just jiggle in place.
Also in this case I really don't mind disclosing - I was laid off because my position was made redundant entirely.
Sometimes people just genuinely tell you things like "there wasn't enough detail about X on your CV, but we took a chance and called you anyway" - that tells me that I can improve my chances for a callback in the future by adding more detail (if I get that same feedback 2-3 times).
You're right though in that a looooooooot of hiring people also have no clue what they want to see.
I interviewed with a quite promising company beginning of December, only to immediately get the written feedback (after the first call) of
"Well I know a lot of SWE in this town and none of them are struggling to find a job - so if you've been looking for X months, surely there's something wrong with you - and anyway, we've already signed a contract with someone else in the 5 days since we last spoke."
(To be fair to them - I had mentioned how frustrating it was to simply get "no" as negative hiring feedback and asked them to elaborate if at all possible)
I take it as a "well, bullet dodged" moment, but I am not going to lie and say it didn't sting.
I encountered this sentiment most of all - 40 year old dads who were suddenly stuck at home with the wife and kids, working from an improvised home office.
When I asked about returning to the office, most of them were clearly looking forward to it, with a sentiment of "Of course working from home is less efficient and comfortable, what do you mean?".
It was quite a surprise for me, who had finally gotten away from the noisy open-plan offices and meetings where everyone shouted at each other until the loudest person "won".
Can you? Not in my country of residence.
> and for Group 1 boarding of the aircraft
That's not a monopoly - you're free to choose any airline you want if you want to pay them for extra service.
> and for an Uber to pick you up 5 minutes early on the way to the airport.
Once again, you as the consumer have a choice of supplier.
Both of those put a strong emphasis on types, but only one of those (it's Java) is the sort of language that really attracts developers that love types like AbstractWidgetBoundaryFactoryWrapperFactory.
I can definitely understand the "Citizen Kane" effect of looking at a modern Java framework and going "yeah looks just like any other language, except with types and IDE support". Java didn't get there from nowhere. It got there after 20 years of being overly verbose and frustrating to work with.
For a standard that supposedly started out as "we need a short code to refer to an airport", there is now a IATA code (QYG) that represents the concept of any railway station in Germany.
We had great ideas about scheduling and caching and task priorities...
...and then we asked the customer what they wanted, and they wanted none of it.
So we built none of it, and produced a solution that just did the stupidest thing, and did it without any edge cases, without ever crashing, reliably, as a cronjob, once on Sunday night.
Some people would be disappointed that they couldn't put this on their CV because it didn't involve FancyTech #413, but damn it, I am still proud of that stupid thing.
And those aren't even comfortable.
So this truck is bad as a truck...except for the use case where it should have been a train in the first place?
I grew up in the 90s in Germany, so every single child between 6 and 12 had these - before you became "too cool" for them and started using anything else to rebel against the system (tm).
So while I believe you that it's a good product, and I see that there is nothing obviously childlike about the design, I still can't separate it from that image in my mind.
The introduction of the additional types everywhere did turn into massive headaches based around dependency management and versioning.
So overall, I was personally disappointed in the results, but nevertheless happy to work with less "icky" feeling code.
5 stars: "it was amazing"
4 stars: "really liked it"
3 stars: "liked it"
2 stars: "it was OK"
1 star: "did not like it"
I wonder how many people, without any other context, would interpret "I'd rate this book 2 out of 5 stars" as "yeah, it was OK".