I think it might have to do with the broad anti-AI sentiment that seems to be present here at Lemmy.
I think it might have to do with the broad anti-AI sentiment that seems to be present here at Lemmy.
I don’t disagree, but for obvious reasons, we can’t access Google from a decade ago, since they’ve made it unavailable.
I’m not really describing an ideal state, this is a mere matter of practicality.
I’ve started relying more on AI-powered tools like Perplexity for many of my search use-cases for this very fact - all results basically warrant a pre-filtering to be useful.
My most McGyvered solution to create a bootable USB was to take a really old Android phone and make it into one. Worked surprisingly well, actually.
It’s a tool like any other, appropriate under some circumstances and inappropriate in others.
Blindly rejecting it without considering whether it’s appropriate in the context is honestly just as bad as choosing it without considering whether it’s appropriate in the context, fwiw.
No need to deal with aggressively incompetent management when planting potatoes.
You squash so all your gross “isort” “forgot to commit this file” “WIP but I’m getting lunch” commits can be cleaned up
The next step on the Git-journey is to use interactive rebasing in order to never push these commits in the first place and maintain a clean history to be consumed by the code reviewer.
Squashing is still nice in order to have a one-to-one relationship between commits on the main branch to pull requests merged, imo.
Yes indeed, and it feels really good.
Is this overfitting?
THEY KNOW, SHUT IT DOWN QUICKLY
Using curated commits to optimize for pull request reviewability is highly underrated. Liberal use of interactive rebasing to ‘tell a story’, essentially.
If you liked it, you should’ve put a test on it.
Basically, any attribute of the code in question that matters to you should be under an automated test verifying the attribute.
It comes from Google. You can read more here: https://abseil.io/resources/swe-book/html/ch11.html
This is why tests and the Beyonce-rule exist, friends.
One of the most accurate ones of this format.
Floats are heresy
Because of the possibility of accidentally performing an assignment in a conditional expression?
If yes, I agree that it’s not great.
Having an asterisk both be the type indicator and the dereference operator is one of the great programming language design blunders of our time, along with allowing nulls for any type in so many languages.
It seems that we are in agreement, no? That a lot of car commuters behave like children?
I’m not a right winger, nor acting as one.
I’ll concede that I don’t know what political affiliations you have, but you are definitely acting like many of them do.
If you’re treating adults as if they were kids
Pedagogy does not refer to teaching children, it refers to teaching in general. Teaching others when working with software is expected, and it is expected to do so in an effective manner.
Also, Torvalds is a kernel developer. He is not a teacher.
The fact that you think that developers are not expected to teach is telling that you either don’t work as one, or have only worked in ineffective organizations.
Side note: it just clicked me that you guys are being culturally insensitive and imperialistic, given that a lot of Torvalds’ no-bullshit behaviour is likely partially cultural in nature.
Now you’re just grasping at straws, and this continues the trend of acting like a right-winger which I mentioned before.
For what it’s worth, I’ve worked with plenty of Finnish developers - none of them consider yelling at their peers to be an important part of their culture.
This is not going to be universally true at all big tech-companies. There are places with perfectly reasonable WLB on top of huge salaries and fantastic perks.
These places are usually big enough that you’re going to see extremes on both ends within the same company - some departments with huge deadline pressure cultures, and some with highly relaxed work settings. It can be a bit of a gamble.