digging

Oh, then I misunderstood that too, yes. I read "mark of integrity" as being a strictly positive thing. Your edit looks good though.

It is usually free and kind of magical to talk to a lawyer, though.

What does `this` refer to in your comment? If "hiring his son," I don't think anybody is indicating that it is a mark of integrity or honesty.

It's absolutely a mistake and a lack of critical thinking to believe that any given father would go out of his way and put his own reputation at risk for his son. Some would. I don't know if it's even a majority. But plenty of fathers would not, even if they're present in their son's life.

Edited for clarity.

The only clueless judgment is one that doesn't ask for evidence.

Super cool! Like a simpler (not in a bad way) Universe Sandbox.

I'm reminded of the astronomical-visualization app I created at the beginning of my career and abandoned. This makes me want to go back to it again!

I think it's available on Steam which would mean you could theoretically use it on Linux with Steam's Proton compatibility layer.

I don't write a lot of while loops so this is just a bit unfamiliar to me, but I'm not really understanding how this isn't the same as `do{block}while(condition);`? Could you give a simple example of what kind of work `prepare` is doing?

Being only in my 30s but also affected by a lot of usually-age-related disability has been a big struggle for me as a programmer. I don't know how typical it actually is, but I guess I skipped the "work way too hard because your body can handle it" phase that appears to build reputation and wealth early in a career. Probably it would have been different if I'd grown up more physically active; I basically hate most sports and other ways of staying healthy and didn't learn their value until it started getting in the way of the things I do love.

Regardless, it's a massive toll on my mental health. Although frequently assured otherwise, I constantly feel like a burden on my team, like I'm unreliable, for being unable to put in the same hours my older coworkers do. As difficult as it is to start now, focusing on developing my physical health is the only way forward.

Did you reply to the wrong comment?

I think asking questions is ideal. Even when I'm 99% sure a line is blatantly wrong, I will ask something like, "What is this for?". Maybe I missed something - wouldn't be the first time.

That is a very good point! You'd have to be careful to craft the messaging so that it doesn't imply you can help troubleshoot the password manager.

But something simple could work. Already you usually have a note under a password field, "Must contain at least 8 characters and at least one special character" or something to that effect. It could also have some note about "We suggest a randomly generated password from your password manager."

I'm not building this out so I don't need every hole poked in the idea, just seems like it could work.

> If it's actually better, others will start following your lead.

Not really my experience in teams that create inconsistent, undocumented codebases... but you might get 1 or 2 converts.

Totally agreed - a correctly used password manager is many, many times easier and faster to use than so-called magic links. It's not even a contest.

I'd even say magic link emails border on misuse of email; they're a fundamentally different form of communication from all other uses of email. It's not easy on neurodivergent brains to deal with that combination of pollution (magic links in my inbox) and distraction (actual emails in my face when I'm trying to log in and was not trying to check my email). Protonmail's client could really make my day if they found a way to reliably separate those 2 channels so I didn't have to even open my inbox to get login codes/links.

What I don't understand is why I've never been prompted to use a password manager by any site with a signup flow. It seems easier to normalize their use through messaging than keep acting like passwords are supposed to be something you consciously remember. Nobody should remember their passwords, except for maybe 2-3. But now we're moving toward a world where login just means more friction and less control instead...

> If you know you know

And if you don't, you... don't deserve to know?

> you're either wilfully ignorant or actively dishonest

I think "willful ignorance" is a good description of accepting impossible-to-verify anecdotes of internet comments as evidence of societal change, personally. But I'm realizing we don't have the same goals in the conversation so I understand why it feels pointless to continue.

I'm kind of confused by the question. Do you think an unverified commenter on a public website saying "all the stores in my town [not named] do X [but I didn't count]" is a type of hard evidence that I'm arbitrarily rejecting?

I don't see how it's odd at all. The kinds of changes that would stabilize housing and make growth more sustainable would threaten the interests of many wealthy people, including politicians themselves.

Still mostly anecdotal, but a better answer, and probably belongs higher up in the thread actually.

> Ah yes, increasing theft is just a fact of the "developed" world

It seems like a pretty likely outcome of high population growth!

> anyone that claims theft has increased is just imagining things

Anyone that claims an anecdote is data is just bullshitting, actually.

Um... why exactly am I looking for a highly homogenous society?

> One could endlessly go on...

Yet, apparently one will instead sidestep the discussion entirely. Frankly the more you've tried to answer the question the less you actually answer it...

I don't see how "rapidly transitioning from a high-trust to a low-trust society" or "she's got 2 bikes stolen ... this would be inconceivable to me during my time living in the same town" reflect failures in Canadian government at all, really.

Has societal trust actually increased anywhere in the developed world? Sure, our governments have had their share of failures, but it would actually take an extraordinary vision and effort to increase societal trust as technology and population advance.

Is it possible your sister had a shockingly unlucky semester? Or that your world model was simply naive and wrong 10 years ago? Hard to say since the anecdote isn't really evidence of anything.

Of course that's the reasonable approach, but in reality the US gov't finds mind control useful, and wants to be able to exert influence over it, rather than allow a foreign gov't exert influence over it.

That line made me stop and think. At first I thought it was an exaggeration, but then I realized it was exactly true - however, I don't think the author understands it fully.

If someone offered to sell me that pill, I wouldn't say, "Ah, but you were kind of brusque, I don't think I'll buy it." I would say (well, think, actually), "I don't think I trust you that it's this easy and safe, so I won't buy it."

The key is trust. The insight the author missed is that we more easily trust people who make us feel good, among other things (attraction, social standing, etc.).

> Shelly in Wichita is not going to buy what you’re selling, no matter how good the deal is, if she can clearly hear in your voice how much you hate your job and, by extension, her.

I think this again misses the point. Shelly doesn't necessarily think you hate her, but she has no reason to trust you. If your product was good, and people were better off for buying it, you probably wouldn't hate selling it so much.

> So if it's after the middle of December, start wishing people a "Happy Solsthelion"

> ... it's a great way to form the ice.

The best part - although perhaps untrue in a room full of HN commenters :)

For me it was not confusing; I don't think a newly discovered taxonomic Class would make mainstream news. I was expecting something higher-order and the discovery delivered!

You don't think a tool saving 10% of your time is worth learning to use?!

Anyway, this gets off-track. The metric is (time wasted on problems that only exist without typing) / (time it takes to configure TypeScript). Regardless of what your 10% figure is, learning TypeScript and configuring it for a project takes less time.

> If you're prone to making easy to avoid errors in your code, then maybe Typescript will save you time. For me, that is not the case. YMMV.

Putting aside the dig, it sounds like you're working alone, so use whatever you want. It matters a lot less when you control the data structures and hold the entire program in your own head.

Yes, but, I'd argue it's trading one type of endless, tedious work for a different type of concrete, meaningful work.

Honestly, yes, I'm curious to hear that perspective. The negative responses to "TypeScript makes JS programming fun and easy" are always pretty ill-formed, and I really want to know if there's a genuine argument against it in any complex application. (My suspicion is that no, there is not, but I'm trying to be generous and curious.)

As someone in a similar position, may I take a tangent? I'm curious what you transitioned into out of programming. The stress of feeling "always behind" is taking its toll on me, and I wonder about another career change often.

Agreed; with 3rd party APIs I type down to the level of the properties I actually need. And when I use a property but don't care what the type is, I use `unknown`. That will throw an error if the type matters, in which case, you can probably figure out what's needed. Although I agree with the article that sometimes fudging the rules is acceptable, it's extremely rare that a 3rd party API is so difficult it's worthwhile. And enforcing `any` as an error means you have to be very intentional in disabling the linter rule for a particular line if that really is the best option.

I loved this paragraph:

> This dichotomy gels really well with the way my brain works. I’m able to channel short bursts of creative energy into precisely mapping the domain or getting type scaffolding set up. And then I’m able to sustain long coding sessions to actually implement the feature because the scaffolding means I rarely have to think too hard.

It's why I keep begging my team, every time there's a new codebase (or even a new feature), to stop throwing `any` onto everything more complicated than a primitive. It is exhausting. It forces me to waste energy on the shitty, tedious parts. It forces me to debug working code just to find out how it works before I can start my work.

They tend to take the quickest solution to everything -- which means everyone else has to do the same work over and over again until someone (me, invariably) sits down and makes a permanent record of it.

In doing this they ensure that I can't trust any of their code, which is counterproductive for what should be obvious reasons. Every time I work on established, untyped (or poorly typed) code, it's like I'm writing new code with hidden, legacy dependencies.