3
PaidSockPuppet 3 points ago +3 / -0

Get woke, go broke.

This is what happens when only one goal registers on the radar, to the detriment of all other concerns. Now, where have I seen that before?

7
PaidSockPuppet 7 points ago +7 / -0

From the Tucker segment "... you can't even say what you think without threats of violence." I can relate to that. Had an extended family member threaten to punch me in the face because "he knew my opinion on a range of different things and disagreed with all of them." Not withstanding the fact that I've barely shared my opinions with him or others, I find it a sign of the times we are in. Never have I been physically threatened by a family member for thinking the wrong thing, until now.

2
PaidSockPuppet 2 points ago +2 / -0

The NPCs showing about 0.023% of the self-awareness that they should be showing, but it's a start. Wondering whether the end there was the show getting pulled from air?

3
PaidSockPuppet 3 points ago +3 / -0

"electric and more efficient vehicles" - is that a tacit admission that electric cars are not necessarily more efficient than current ones? With the heavy metals that go into battery production I'm not sure they are that much better for the environment.

4
PaidSockPuppet 4 points ago +4 / -0

Have a family member, where the parent is bi-polar. All the kids are fucked up in some way, including a daughter with some form of GID.

6
PaidSockPuppet 6 points ago +6 / -0

I think the same irony applies to the "Democracy Dies in Darkness" tag line they have there in the header.

Up is down, left is right, front is back.

5
PaidSockPuppet 5 points ago +5 / -0

Let me guess. He accidentally, violently cut off his own head whilst shaving?

4
PaidSockPuppet 4 points ago +4 / -0

It would be nice if any of that shit I just read was based on facts or science, but it clearly isn't. Just because some dumb cunt can say it, doesn't make it so.

21
PaidSockPuppet 21 points ago +21 / -0

To force a gene therapy upon people where even the CEO of the company that makes the shit, now says it's ineffective (took the dumb cunt a while to catch up). Makes perfect sense.

2
PaidSockPuppet 2 points ago +2 / -0

I agree.

A large library represents a large attack surface and likely on features that are not even required.

Case in point; I developed an API for my company's products for logging. Some of the newer employees couldn't fathom that I would write anything to do with logging. After all, there's many different libraries out there already. This is true, of course, but my API acted as a façade for the functionality that we actually needed. Thus, we could have unit tests that proved the functionality that we actually needed, worked the way we expected. Any library could be used to implement the different behaviors.

The benefits; we were not tied to a specific library or implementation. In some cases we would implement our own functionality. We were always covered for regressions. We didn't have to worry about some open source guy making a change that violated our functional requirements, or introducing a new bug. Our client code didn't have to give a shit about different implementations, due to the abstraction.

The downside of this approach was that if a library implemented a great new feature that we decided we wanted, we would have to extend our façade, but actually that's not such a big deal. It's consistent with our philosophy of not coding for the future (that future may never come).

Another down side is that even though we essentially abstracted away the possible use of features that we didn't need, if a security issue was identified in a library component, our new age build processes would require upgrading, even if the feature with the security issue was not being used. To that end, the isolation we achieved through the abstraction was still subject to involuntary changes of underlying components imposed by carte blanche security policy. But at least we still had automated tests to ensure that our own feature requirements were met.

Having that ability to sleep at night is key for me. Having to worry that some open source library is going to fuck something up, or make a design decision that fucks up our products, is not my idea of fun. But apparently many think it's the only way. I think maybe I have been in the game too long!

2
PaidSockPuppet 2 points ago +2 / -0

The media telling people what to think about whether the media tells people what to think or not.

6
PaidSockPuppet 6 points ago +6 / -0

As a programmer myself I’ve always been surprised by how heavily developers rely on large libraries for even small features they could code themselves. They’re just lazy.

This. Apparently not having any control over source (and therefore quality, bugs and security) is great, when you get "free security fixes". I would personally rather the ability to know when something changed, why it changed, and have complete control over the quality side of things, but apparently I'm a dinosaur.

view more: Next ›