quails8mydog

Sounds like if the OS doesn't track anything else about the user, then it won't receive any other signals and will just use whatever was typed in at account creation.

If websites accept this as age verification it could provide a very easy way to bypass it.

In fact, looking at it again, point B specifically says if the "developer" has information rather than the "system" has information. So really sounds like if the developer isn't collecting logs that they can access themselves this wouldn't apply to them.

That's not been my experience living in the UK. Whe I've asked for directions people either give correct ones (as far as I remember) or say they don't know. When people ask me and I don't know, I say I don't know.

They're not, but the point is that users can see the 403 due to network errors. If vpn + networking work then the user can access the resource through the private interface. If there are issues with network routing or VPN then they end up on the public interface and get 403. So from the user perspective the same action can result in success or 403 based on whether there are network issues.

I wonder if people are talking about the same things in these discussions. 50 people working on the same deployable in the same repo is going to create friction. Similarly, having a few people work on 50 deployables across 50 repos will create challenges.

You need to scope services appropriately. A single small team shouldn't break their application down for the sake of doing microservices, but once you have multiple teams working on the same codebase splitting it up will probably help.

I think this is exactly it. It's easy to see that there's a chance to improve things while ignoring the ways it could make things worse when they won't affect you. Should you quit the job you don't like? "Of course" the friend will say. But then you might just end up with a job you hate more that pays less, or even no job. Whether the outside perspective is helpful probably depends on how much your own perception deviates from reality. Though people do have a tendency to prefer the status quo until things change, so maybe you should always prefer the "change" option when you aren't sure.

Maybe splitting them is helpful, but why would you have to do them sequentially? Many of the things that reduce income inequality also help reduce poverty. Poverty isn't "low-hanging fruit" and it's something people have been trying to eradicate longer than we've been alive.

Saying "let's not even think about B until we've 100% sorted A" is just a way to ensure B never gets done.

I think part of the reason is the embrace of an "each package should do exactly one thing" by many in the community, often taken to a ridiculous extreme. Possibly better now after left-pad and other similar incidents.

And anyone who calls that method may find themselves dealing with the implementation details of Entity Framework and whatever db provider you're using because it's a leaky abstraction.

I thought cqrs was a code pattern where you segregate query models from command models, rather than something that specifies where the data is read from or is written to.

Yeah, in my admittedly limited experience the grade I assigned in a live code test (slightly more than fizzbuzz, but no tricks or algorithms required) matched up very closely with real world performance.

I even have knowledge of some of the fails as people higher up the chain decided to hire them anyway. They didn't do well from the feedback I received.

Coding tests aren't filtering for people who work hard, they're filtering for people who know how to code. Whether they will work hard on the job seems like an orthogonal question?

Yes. The article does quote the complainants saying that they tried contacting steam and only after getting no response for months contacted the payment providers. Steam could have delisted in Austria but didn't.

Seems like this is the sort of thing the tooling should do for you. Maybe have a few preset prompts for different contexts. I shouldn't have to type in a magic phrase to get it to write code that follows basic professional practice.

I don't think discussing further is going to be very productive given how entrenched your views are.

Just for the record in case someone stumbles across this in future. Chris Middleton worked freelance for the BBC and was let go for making a parody song criticising the winter fuel payment cuts. The figure criticised is ostensibly left wing, but repeatedly criticised for being too centrist/right wing compared to where Labour usually stand and his previously stated position. That's what happened here, the person fired was criticising him from the left, i.e. their political stance was too left wing for the BBC (or maybe the BBC doesn't allow strong political stances in any direction).

I wasn't even talking about enforcement, I neither pay nor fall afoul of the terms.

I can't find any evidence of BBC employees calling it "far left", all I find when searching for that is right wing people calling it far left for not agreeing with them enough as well as some more "scientific" analysis that seemed to show it having a right wing bias. Most news bias raters put BBC as centre or centre left (it probably is centre left by US standards).

Looking at the top 3 stories now, two don't have any obvious political slant, Australian elections and arrest of terrorism suspects, whereas the 3rd is about local elections and starts with lots of quotes from Reform UK about how well they're doing. Perfect opportunity for a far left org to insert criticism, downplay, or just not report on them, but seems like pretty straight down the middle reporting.

I think the important concept that "readable and modular" is trying to get at is how easy is it to continue working on the code in future. There's definitely codebases that are easier to work on than others, even when the domain is the same.

I'd say that readability, which often boils down to consistency, and modularity are ways to do this, but they aren't the only ways. And as you say, sometimes there's a need for "unreadable" code, so not everything can be easy.

People aren't forced to pay for the BBC though. Public funding is through a TV licence rather than tax, with the licence being "required" only if you watch live TV or use the BBC streaming service. Given the other streaming services available it's very easy to watch TV without it. I've never paid.

Not really sure why skewing left would improve trust ratings either, unless you're suggesting that people on the right don't trust any media, or only trust media that is right wing coded. The BBC is definitely not a left wing outlet by the standards of the UK.

I agree that it's an interesting question, that's why I spent so much of my free time reading it.

I'd also agree that using AI for sentiment analysis could be a good approach, I'm not an expert in the area, but I believe this is one of the things AI is best at. But it needs an extra step to translate that into bias. Establishing a sympathy baseline is my initial idea, but I haven't tested it and maybe there's something better.

Whether something is biased is less about how any given individual(s) feel about what's been said and more about if the different viewpoints are presented honestly. Though it can get really difficult to identify except in the most extreme cases. As you say, it's not just what's said where the bias occurs, but also in the choice of what not to say.

I read the 1st third (it's really long) and while the data analysis is interesting, the conclusions say a lot more about the biases of the author(s) than those of the BBC. Fundamentally you can't use sympathy as a measure of bias without first establishing a baseline for how sympathetic the views and/or groups of people are. The report mentions that Palestinians might be more sympathetic because they're the ones being blown up, but then discards this by pointing out that the BBC is supposed to "ensure broadly comparable treatment of the Palestinian and the Israeli viewpoints" without acknowledging that maybe they do and one viewpoint is more sympathetic than the other. The least sympathetic group according to the report is Hamas, so according to it's logic they're the group the BBC is most biased against. Not a reasonable conclusion. There's plenty of other indicators that this report started with a conclusion then tried to gather data to support it, but I've already spent more time on this comment than the report deserves.