If capitalisation is used to indicate the start of words then it could make sense for a webserver to serve ExpertsExchange and ExpertSexChange. But yeah having 16 possible versions of “main” would be horrendous.

Maybe they could be called AIgorithms instead of Algorithms.

Sure but if you’re doing rooty stuff all day then sudo you’re sudo not sudo going sudo to sudo type sudo sudo sudo every sudo fucking sudo time sudo you sudo want sudo to sudo do sudo something. And yeah it sudo caches it for sudo a bit but sudo it’s still too sudo much.

Yeah it always feels like “negative logic” to me. If it’s not this and not that then don’t do the other… Does my head in. Next time I’m going to use a lookup table “x…f.bf…fb.f…” then mod15 the index. f=Fizz, b=Buzz, x=both. Nice thing about this is that it’s easier to change with the requirements. Want to shift the second fizz right one? No problem “x…f.b.f.fb.f…”. Good luck doing that with the standard approach. Add Gronk which collides with Fizz, Buzz or both at various times? Also no problem - just extend and modify the LUT accordingly and change the mod.

I can already hear people asking why x is at the start. Arrays are indexed from 0. FizzBuzz starts at 1. 15 mod 15 is zero. Loop N from 1-100, switch on lookup[N%15], case ‘f’ print Fizz, case ‘g’ print Gronk, case ‘p’ print FizzGronk and so on. The only “nice” original feature you lose is when both %3 and %5 fire at the same time and it prints FizzBuzz without any extra code.

The previous candidate to me at a job a few years ago left the room in tears after not being able to write Fizzbuzz. On a laptop with Visual Studio installed, on their own in a an empty room with nobody looking over their shoulders. The same company said they’d had so many candidate, including university graduates, who simply couldn’t code, that they were almost giving up on it.

(Integrated) Copilot already does it. Me: “Question”. Copilot: “Answer, and here’s half a dozen ads for that thing”.

Merge gives an accurate view of the history but tends to be “cluttered” with multiple lines and merge commits. Rebase cleans that up and gives you a simple A->B->C view.

Personally I prefer merge because when I’m tracking down a bug and narrow it down to a specific commit, I get to see what change was made in what context. With rebase commits that change is in there, but it’s out of context and cluttered up with zillions of other changes from the inherent merges and squashes that are included in that commit, making it harder to see what was changed and why. The same cluttered history is still in there but it’s included in the commits instead of existing separately outside the commits.

I honestly can’t see the point of a rebased A->B->C history because (a) it’s inaccurate and (b) it makes debugging harder. Maybe I’m missing some major benefit? I’m willing to learn.

Oh hello mister fancy pants with your abacus. We carved notches in rocks and we were happy with that.

Standardising on EST is fine; it’s just UTC plus a constant. If they flipped between EST and EDT, now that’d be insane.

“regrex” They should definitely be known as that!

I think it’s the fact that I can’t see the errors on my vagina.

Oops I thought you were going to be ragging on an early jazz genre.

NOT PROPERLY YOU DON’T

I once looked in Event Viewer and was gobsmacked by the number of wiruses and hackers in my compyooder.

Microsoft are NEVER, repeat NEVER, going to call you about your computer.