arzke

We're incapable of putting an accurate, standardized value on developer productivity, yet there often seems to be consensus between senior engineers on who are the high performers and the low performers. I certainly can tell this about the people I work with.

I wonder if the lack of capital letters is a clever trick to make this whole annoucement look more humane and natural. Surely it's intentional: only "U.S" deserves capitals, not even his own name in the signature.

Has anybody ever been forced anyone else to take any drug? The problem is not about being forced, it is about making an informed decision. When you don't have enough safety data you are effectively gambling with your health.

This is precisely why we have clinical studies. We want to measure the efficiency and the innocuousness of drugs. You seem to imply we should just go ahead and try those directly on the general population.

Debugging electronics to fix stuff. Some people seem to be able to repair whatever broken electronic devices we give them, which I find fascinating.

The author is clear that they're talking about "billion dollar tech companies" for an audience of those people called to them.

We’re in an industry where burnout isn’t just common - it’s expected. If you’re not pulling all-nighters, you’re "not committed." If you’re not answering Slack messages at midnight, you’re "not a team player." This culture is toxic, and it’s only getting worse. The relentless churn of projects, the constant pressure to innovate, and the ever-present threat of obsolescence create a perfect storm of stress.

No, the author is generalizing what work at a billion dollar tech company is like to the whole industry. I've never worked for a company similar to the one described in this post, and I think that the vast majority of people in tech haven't either. Silicon valley is not the world.

Either ways, unionizing sounds like a great idea.

If you eliminate fingerprinting, that is in and of itself a fingerprint.

This is why you should "eliminate fingerprinting" by randomizing your fingerprint.

This is how I work as well, and the reason I tend to write many small functions rather than few large ones is precisely because it reduces cognitive load. You don't have to understand what the canSubmit function does, unless you are interested in knowing what the conditions to submit this form are.

Ironically, the author of the post claims it has the opposite effect.

I know these ridiculous statements are from people hardly wrote any code in their lives

Some people who actually wrote a decent amount of code in their lives are sharing that opinion, so your comment just sounds like an ad-hominem attack.

Brave does this for about two years now: https://brave.com/privacy-updates/21-blocking-cookie-notices...

Based on that you mention being able to see they're associated with someone else's account, you mean that you got a unit that was not factory reset before being given to you right? (And you can't do it yourself because they're Apple-locked for theft reasons.) Not that it got stolen and now you can't find it?

The unit was brand new, however it got somehow linked to some other iCloud account the second I connected it to my phone (which is not an iPhone). Well, the message I got indicated "You cannot use FindMy because the Airpods are linked to another iCloud account" or something like that.

I discussed with the same employee who helped me initially. They called a couple of their colleagues, and because nobody there could do anything to solve the issue, they gave me a phone number telling me this was the only option left.

It was clear to Apple there was an issue on their side, and that they needed to provide a solution. This has never been disputed.

Either way, they have an obligation to meet the claims put out in marketing statements, including features like FindMy since they say on the website it can do that.

Absolutely, and I made sure to remind them this.

If you've exhausted the easy options, you can always take it to something like small claims and get at least a refund that way.

Indeed, that could be an option. I just gave up as I was exhausted from spending over 10 hours just for this. At some point, it wasn't worth the effort anymore. But maybe this is what they are expecting us to do.

Exactly. The "it works for me so it works" type of thinking is what makes people mistakenly conclude that homoeopathy works any better than a placebo.

I can't understand how Apple can possibly get away with this. Is there any chance for them to win if the case were brought to court?

One year ago, I had to contact Apple support because the FindMy feature wouldn't work on my Airpods Pro, which still were under warranty. It looked like they were already associated with another account, which wasn't mine. That made no sense as I bought them myself at the Apple store and only have a single iCloud account.

I went to the store and they acknowledged the issue, and immediately got a replacement which turned out to have the exact same issue. I then had to spend hours on the phone with their customer support. After trying everything without success, the person on the phone told me I'd get a call back in one week to either issue a refund or find a different solution.

That phone call never came. All my following messages to that person were ignored. I finally gave up, but found out I was far from being the only one they had ghosted like that. Reading these stories reinforces my belief that Apple is terrible in terms of accountability when something goes wrong.

“You have to listen to your gut. If something feels off, you’ve gotta listen to what your body is telling you and get out. If you don’t, you’ll end up regretting it.”

Next time you’re feeling some discomfort in a situation, slow down and take a deep breath. Check in with yourself. Where is your edge? What level of discomfort feels challenging but not overwhelming right now? Can you lean in and try something difficult? Or have you already leaned in too far and need to back off a little? Act accordingly. As the situation progresses, keep checking in with yourself.

So the difference seems to be the notion that "a little discomfort is okay". You still need to place your tolerable discomfort cut-off point somewhere, right before it feels overwhelming.

I kind of agree with the general content of the post, but find it somewhat simplistic with a focus on oneself. I see conversation more like a dance, a delicate balance where you should be aware of your own feelings, but also other people's. Some people feel comfortable over-sharing with someone they barely met, which can create quite intense discomfort. My understanding is that this tends to be more likely in people who struggle setting boundaries in their relationships. I'd assume some neurodivergent people would struggle with this as well, as they might find it challenging to sense this balance.

How true is this when they devices are increasingly hostile to user repair and upgrades?

Not sure what you mean exactly by this, but to me their Self Service Repair program is a step in the right direction.

At a surface level he’s acting a real asshole in a bunch of ways, but he’s surprised us with some seriously useful stuff on a number of occasions

These aren't mutually exclusive.

Have you tried using Copilot's @workspace command in the chat?

I am not a native speaker, but I noticed that in Australia people sometimes replied to the question "Do you mind...?" with "Yes", actually meaning "No" (they don't mind).

It happened enough times so that I've asked a few people why they were replying "yes" instead of "no", to which they couldn't give me a clear explanation. This really surprised me at first, but then I understood that the words didn't matter as much as the tone of voice.

Is that something common in Australia? Or in any other country? Or was that only a non-representative sample that happened to make the same mistake?

"The last responsible moment (LRM) is the strategy of delaying a decision until the moment when the cost of not making the decision is greater than the cost of making it."

Quoted from: https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/software-architects-han...

I thought that a pure function could not have side effects by definition. Would you mind sharing your definition of a pure function?

Yes I did. You seem to assume everyone is using a "framework like React". I am not.

Referential transparency is related to the concept of "function purity" (in the sense that either one usually guarantees the other), which you will often hear people talk about as well.

Isn't referential transparency (the property of a function that allows it to be replaced by its equivalent output) a consequence of function purity? In other words: could a pure function not be referentially transparent?

Also, I remember Robert C. Martin describing the functional programming paradigm as a "restriction upon assignment". I kind of like this definition as the rest seems to flow from it: if you can't assign, you can't mutate. If you can't mutate, you have pure functions, which are referentially transparent.

Actually, the docs says it's perfectly fine to use @apply for highly reusable components like buttons and form controls: https://tailwindcss.com/docs/reusing-styles#avoiding-prematu...

That is to start with prior evidence. Rather than making your estimate, start with "How long did it ACTUALLY take the last time someone did something like this?" and only then modifying the estimate for circumstances.

This requires to have prior evidence within your team to start with as not all teams have the same velocity.

Which is the section I am quoting from.

The only way you know that <input /> is acceptable and <div /> isn't, is learning and remembering which elements self-close. It sucks, but that's the way it is.

People remember which elements self-close by repeatedly seeing them written as self-closing tags. So while it indeed makes no difference from the browser standpoint whether you're closing your self-closing tag or not, it can be valuable to beginners.

I totally recommend their course. It does a fantastic job explaining the specifics of LiveView in a clear way.

I hate code generators with a passion. They obfuscate the inner workings of the library.

I can argue the exact opposite: you can just look at the generated code to understand what is going on. No magic involved.

For example, if I need an API, I will pass `--no-assets --no-html --no-live --no-mailer --no-dashboard` and the generator still creates a static files folder and static files related code.

To me it sounds more like an issue with phoenix rather than with codegen in general. I would expect the static folder to not be generated if we pass the "--no-assets" flag.

Is there any reason you wouldn't want to use SvelteKit now that is has reached version 1.0?