neura

To answer your question directly: If you're grepping through source code, you generally do not care about caches, backups, personal workspace configs, node_modules, "compiled" output (JS projects generally "compile" to JS and if you're looking for something in source files, you probably do not care about the bundles you're outputting, just the source), etc. You generally care about your source code, which is the stuff that's not getting added to .gitignore.

Since we're talking about an open source project, try to keep some empathy for developers that are solving their own problems first and not trying to solve everybody's problems. It's a configurable option, anyway.

People generally develop tools for their own needs. I'm not saying "hey, if you want one that uses the defaults you believe are best, create your own", but just keep some empathy for open source developers. :)

Believe so.

updatedb is expensive to run and is usually run by a cron job, whereas something like mdfind on macos uses spotlight, which is kept up to date with all filesystem changes (or at least reasonably fast).

Anybody know of something like that for linux?

If you happen to be using macOS, there's mdfind, which uses the spotlight database which is always kept up to date, unlike locate/updatedb, where updatedb is expensive to run, even if you've run it recently.

I have yet to find a good solution for linux CLI... something that uses an internal database that is kept up to date with all directory structure changes.

Maybe someone else has seen something cool for this? :D

"I bought a seven-dollar pen because I always lose pens and I got sick of not caring." -- Mitch Hedberg

IIRC this is how TurboGears started out.

I feel that's mostly true, but there may be many other similar factors. If you make "affordable" housing ("for who?" is the correct question), then you have more people that can't afford to spend as much, while pushing out the people that spend more.

Someone else stated it simply as "undesirables", which I think is the quick summation of your statement and other similar reasoning. It all comes down to "I get that people need a place to live, but they can find that somewhere else" or "we've got a good thing going here (for me, the politician)".

It's simple. Most video conferencing apps that I've used will let you know that your mic is muted when you try to speak and your mic is muted.

If you think they're doing something else, then don't use it. If you think you don't have a choice because your employer requires you to use it, your choice is not in whether or not to use the software. If it's something you care about, there's always a choice.

Is this any more "scummy" than Peña blaming the police for not stopping him when he was clearly breaking the law? He's not directly blaming the police for his injury but the implication is clear as day. If they would have cited him for breaking the law, he would not have been injured. He goes so far as to claim they saw him and knew he was breaking the law.

I don't have a lot of experience working with data/ml teams, so this is good to know. Thanks. :)

Ran into this very thing writing software for customer support teams. There's a Data/ML team within the company and there was a lot of talk about getting them to help plan the software to add abilities to "learn" what customers wanted with their support requests. The reality of the situation is that you can just take a step back and look at the pain points for the CSRs, the highest cost calls and where the time is spent servicing the customer. In the end, it's pretty clear that we can just do a few queries up front to realize that "oh, this person ordered 2 items of the same size in their last order and haven't returned one yet, it's very likely that they want to return one" or any number of other common scenarios that were found and then prioritized based on a simple cost/benefit analysis.

Could the Data/ML team have done something cool and likely complex to show clearer patterns and maybe get something in place to continually refine that data? Probably. Would it have saved more money for the company eventually? Unknown. Would it have cost substantially more money to design and implement? Pretty sure.

I'm sure there are plenty of quotes out there that are very similar to this, but kudos in stating what most of us (software engineers) already think, with such clarity. I laughed. I cried. I remembered that this is never going to change. ;)

I hear what you're saying.

I would argue that review boards, licensing, etc are only relevant because of the stakes. How to enforce it becomes irrelevant if you can't sell anybody on the idea that it's important in the first place.

Even the strength of your statement "...I don't think it would hurt the industry to have..." doesn't sound like something that any part of government would be willing to get behind.

There's just such a huge leap from "decisions civil engineers make can kill. people" to "decisions software engineers make can annoy people".

Still, you're not wrong that the field might immediately get better in some ways, but I believe we could also go down a lot of paths that would lead to the widespread concept of "stifling innovation so that people are less likely to be annoyed by buggy or hard to use software". I'm sure there are also much stronger arguments in favor of your idea of a better world when you narrow the scope down to specific types of software or use cases.

This is what I've noticed in (as far as I can remember) all of the comments here that outline their career change. The career change... it's always _to_ programming, but never _away from_ programming. I sometimes feel burned out and like I'm solving the same problems over and over for different people, teams, etc. I mostly enjoy my work and usually the people I work with. I do end up reading comment threads like this one with some frequency and realizing not many people switch from software engineering to altogether different careers. I don't count switching to engineering adjacent roles among the things I'd be willing to switch to because my reasons for leaving are definitely not my lack of passion for technology and learning, but almost always trying to find/build a team I enjoy working with and not having to do the same non-programming things over and over again to improve my environment (people, workflow, pressures, etc).

I really wish there was a way to hop paths that didn't involve making ridiculously less money for many years, while likely having to deal with many of the same problems.

I frequently lament not choosing to go into marine biology, even though I know now that it would have been a far more challenging field and would still have (likely) resulted in far less income. Had I just started on that path, I believe I would not have cared much about the possibility of making more money in another field that I would have been skilled at. The last bit is clearly an assumption as you can't actually go back and do it all over to realize the possible outcome(s), but I can't imagine a life journey were I didn't enjoy programming, even if it wasn't my career focus.

And so here I am, in a place that I mostly still enjoy, dreaming of what could have been, assuring myself that I'm doing the right thing for myself and my family. It would be one thing to completely upend my own life (I still have the belief that I could do it if I were the only person affected), but to completely change the trajectory for my family and possibly the financial stability we enjoy... I guess that leaves me in the category of "overall happy enough" because my family more than makes up for my perceived benefits of getting out of the tech industry, which if not already clear, I love more than hate.

Wow... that's a lot of text and felt more therapeutic than anything to unload that. :) So frequently I'm reading these threads and keeping my thoughts to myself. If nothing else, I hope that maybe some others who believe they're in the same boat take note that they're not alone in this and I have at least 2 close friends who feel very similar to this (though I rarely admit, even to them, that I feel this way about my career).

whew

Or, on the other hand, I've seen companies offering to enter you into gift card drawings to relate your positive experience with them on glassdoor, etc. :eyeroll: To me, glassdoor and the like are similar to Amazon reviews, you can't trust them, but it sometimes feels like the only way to _possibly_ get the information you're seeking.

I think this quote really shows exactly the point you're making.

"I bet there is many an undergrad CS student who doesn’t really understand the algorithm they are trying to write a program for. They read the requirements once, and then begin to code. Code it seems is the only tool at their disposal."

Also, if they don't understand the algorithm they're trying to write a program for, they missed the point of the lesson. This is an education problem, the student probably thinks they're not there to do anything other than get their degree in the easiest way possible, so they find an existing algorithm and copy/paste it. It's the whole reason why in math focused classes, you're instructed to show your work and that it will be part of your score.

In response to the article writer's point, how and why would you teach someone an algorithm without the modern tools to implement it?

Also, don't give them apples, only oranges!

misused feature

> I wonder why anyone would want to have a popular project in the first place.

It's literally the second item in the ToC of the article.

> Why Bother? Popular Projects = More Contributors = Better Project

The author does go on to talk about how it becomes a challenge, dealing with people that are the opposite of helpful, as you also mention many people are, but the point still stands. The more popular the project, the more contributions, even if many are in the form of bugs/complaints, those are still useful. If the ratio of complaints to actual code contributions is even remotely consistent, the more complaints, the more actual code contributions. :shrug: To each their own, but at least read the article before criticizing.

Server not responding appropriately. Well, technically, for some endpoints, it's just not responding at all. In the client side javascript, you call a function and pass it a callback and the callback is never called because their API never responds. No timeout or anything, just never calls your callback. The method is used for getting permissions for a user so you know what other calls are available to them. The docs for the method show no way to get the status of the call other than the callback passed in. https://developers.facebook.com/docs/reference/javascript/FB...

One problem here is that the specific way in which the API is down right now (for an app that I work on, at least) is that when you make a login request through the JS-SDK, to get authorization to use other features/APIs, it never responds. The listener is not unavailable, but the API never responds, so from our point of view, we call their JS SDK login function, which takes a callback, the callback is never called. The best we can do is set our own timeout that gets deleted in the callback and if that doesn't happen before the timeout callback is called in the callback, we go down another path, either displaying an error or doing some other fallback code, but this login method is almost always used to get access to another API, so it starts with a user wanting to do something that some time later they'll be notified that they can't. That's just a bad user experience with no other way around it, if they can't quickly return an error.

Also, _WHY_ do these large scale API providers think that just letting the connection hang is in any way acceptable. Their load balancer, cache layer, proxy, literally anything in front of their API can return an error immediately instead of just waiting for the API. Even just returning a 504 for gateway timeout (which is probably the right thing to do) would be better than just sitting there and never returning anything.

The problem here is that the JS SDK encompasses all of their products. They don't have a different script or bundle to download for each thing. You just configure your code to point to their JS SDK url, with some params for which version you want, how you want to use it (xml, json), if it should use cookies or some other tracking method. Then it sends you what they think you need based on those params along with your app id so they can see your app configuration, all in one bundle.

This makes it very complicated to say what is actually down or unavailable, which is why I'm guessing the status is "degraded performance", not "down" and they're not calling it an "outage", because technically other parts of the SDK are completely unaffected.

To say that anything in particular is down, they'd have to list a set of API endpoints that are down or a set of very specific features. This is to their advantage though as [1] as already noted, they don't have to say that their SDK is "down", since it's technically not and [2] other people are still going to argue that "hey, it's up for me".

End result, they don't really care how anybody else feels about it. What are people going to do, move to another platform? Stop using facebook to generate traffic and thus revenue? :eye_roll:

Is the implication here that seeing that they have a degree is better than what "lots and lots of places" do?

Personally, I think a degree doesn't say much about a person's ability to do what is required in the job.

Maybe we should just get better at giving skill tests in interviews.

depends on the gun... some people have interesting ideas on hunting.

Please, please tell me this is a true story. It's amazing.

I can't be the only person looking at the top of the article, thinking "but if you just add the descender and ascender values together (the total height of the character, not the block space that it occupies), you get almost 32."

I'm guessing if you even slightly tweak the way the measurements are being taken, you'll get 32. even if you just assume "always round up", you get 32.

This is one of the strongest cases of manipulating data by providing a bunch of data points to obscure the one point, enabling belief in "well, they provide all this data and none of it is 32, so they must have a solid point here!"

This misleading opening really just makes me want to avoid reading the rest of the article. I hope there wasn't any real information hiding behind that facade. :x

Can you even imagine? Lost your phone? Did you make sure that you were logged in before you lost it? Did the thief reset the phone and log you out? Oh, guess you can't find your phone now. Sorry.

Being completely honest and sincere here, I started responses to a couple of the comments, but decided for both that I didn't want to deal with the possible bashing, downvotes, etc for providing even a reminder of what the point of the original article was and that this issue of men not wanting to give critical feedback because of possibly getting dragged through the mud.

I'm not sure if this is irony or just sadness.

Another way to look at this is if CDNs don't allow Google, nobody is going to want to use them. Their content doesn't get indexed and anybody doing a search is going to get directed to someone else that doesn't put their content behind a CDN with that level of protection. That or someone like google will just solve the problem themselves and be both the CDN and the indexer, bringing them one step closer to complete ownership of finding anything on the web.