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 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.
Now I want to become a scientist so I can name something after a pun.
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
deleted by creator
Those are really stupid managers.
If you don’t have docs it’s a tough competition between having your more knowledgeable devs re-explaining what they know X times to X new hires, or letting new devs figure it out on their own which is both costly in terms of their time and more importantly, risky as hell.
Bad managers love risk though. Since it usually is a choice between speed now and risk later, it only blows up in your face later, and quite spectacularly, and everyone looks like heroes while they are putting fires out on overtime.
That said good managers probably don’t tolerate that shit from bad managers under them and can sniff out a firefighter culture pretty quick.
I guess what I meant to say was, managers that value doc do exist. If they really do, they’ll let you know.
That is different than for layoffs, which generally is less about rooting out toxic people and more about lowering costs. And people know it usually.
That said, anyone causing trouble for management or viewed as not pulling their weight will be the first on the list since management won’t have to justify firing them.
Expect this from corporate and political types alike.
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.
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.
We need a new paradigm for social media. And no, I’m not satisfied with Lemmy either (privacy issues).