Or just racist.
Or just racist.
I think this depends on the crowd. Unfortunately, the intelligent crowd and the crowd with money and power is not exactly the same. Though hopefully there is overlap.
I think this points to a large problem in our society is how we train and pick our managers. Oh wait we don’t. They pick us.
If a TODO passes code review, more than one person fucked up.
Which is “ok” as wages will start to go up over time (for some). But some wages don’t climb as fast and some people are on fixed revenue (old people, disabled people).
So it requires readjustments
THIS.
All the rest of this conversation is pedantic nonsense (on both sides, I might add).
It’s like if the law decided that only fire brick red as defined by this website is red : https://html-color.codes/red
And then someone on lemmy said “the court said your car isn’t red”. And then we’d have to spend a half hour and an incredibly long post to explain how courts sometimes use different definitions for words that people use in normal conversation, and to be careful how you interpret that.
Bottom line is Trump did what everyone else is calling rape.
Sorry for the late reply, the lack of a red envelope makes me not notice replies.
People on election day have to decide if they go voting at all. This is a big deal, it’s what most of the campaign in the ridding is focusing on changing (you want to make sure all of your voters go vote, that is top priority in an election).
Having a party that is a bad fit for you is demotivating and likely to reduce turnout. That is what I mean by “likely to vote”. It’s not the right wing option that people will go for. It’s the comfort of staying home and not bothering to vote for a “lib” if you’re a progressive, or for a “commie” if you’re a lib. For some people, the NDP is already too far right…
So yeah, some of the support of the NDP would transfer over to the liberal party, but definitely not all. And that’s not to mention all of the crazy people who can go from NDP to tories at the drop of a hat (voters have shallower roots than the base, or have irrational hatred of specific politicians or parties) or who would just vote Bloq Québécois or something else.
I mean you assume that a significant number of NDP voters would vote for the libs if they weren’t there (or maybe vice-versa). I’m really not sure of that.
Or if the debates weren’t managed by a private entity owned by the other two parties.
Canada has first past the post voting, and 3 active parties. My province has first pas the post and has 4 major parties (with a 5th one that is close but can’t get a representative in). I’ll agree that ranked voting at least would be a lot better.
Generally, you can replace some comments with variable names or comment names. Which means you must already be in the habbit of extracting methods, setting new variables to use appropriate names, and limit context to reduce the name (Smaller classes and methods means shorter names can be just as expressive, because the context is clearer). It lowers the number of wtfs per minute you get reading code before you even need whole sentences to explain why things are done in a certain way, because the names can be a powerful hint.
But realistically, you end up needing comments for some things anyways.
This. Especially if your team does not follow SOLID principles (as then someone fixes a bug in a base class method that shouldn’t be shared. This fixes an issue in a subclass but introduces one in another. Rinse, repeat.
Yes and no. I mean sure, if you are going to leverage this to gain a significant edge in the market, that works.
If you add a tool to the project, that you need to understand to maintain some parts of it, which adds to the learning curve of someone joining said team, then the gains have best be worth the effort.
We adopt so many librairies/plugins/tools over time that adding more complexity than you need this way is just terrible.
Yeah, but it’s easy to overuse it. If your for loop is much longer. For a few lines I’d agree, don’t bother using something longer.
Code should scream out it’s intent for the reader to see. It’s why you are doing something that needs to be communicated, not what you are doing. “i”, “counter” or “index” all scream out what you are doing, not why. This is more important than the name being short (but for equal explanations of intent, go with the shorter name). The for loop does that already.
If you can’t do that, be more precise. At the least make it “cardIndex”, or “searchIndex”. It makes it easier to connect the dots.
Being facts does not prevent them from being non sequiturs.
Except that instead of an authoritarian government using it to totally control the learned populace, they are showing you ads.
We’ve still got a way to go before 1984. If it did happen, you wouldn’t be able to discuss it.
It has a rocky start, and a lot of cruft from that era sticked around.
There are also a lot of horrible legacy projects from the pre-ES5 era which are a pain to work with. Often older projects were coded either before people knew how to do javascript right, or before the devs who wrote it knew how to write javascript right.
Russia is in Europe and probably thinks that’s cute.