jcon321

yea i agree, the people who defend perfect git history are most likely not enforcing pull/merge requests. why would I care to look at git history when a pull/merge request is way more informative? they then back it up by saying how rebase is so much better than merge, but yet when you git blame a line of code that was merged and not rebased it's going to indicate the pull/merge request which is going to link back to a requirement. sorry for the harsh comments from these people about you, because imo perfected git history is actually the lazy approach instead of proper change/requirement management

walking outside, and the surf report... they cancel all the time for less wind shear

too windy outside for this to happen imo

yea imagine having to maintain a python dependency (which undergoes security constraints) all because some junior cant read/write bash... and then that junior telling you you're the problem lmao

You have no issues with handing over your cell phone to a police officer who pulls you over? I imagine you'll say "all I have to do is present an ID", but what if the officer cannot read it, so he wants to hold it? Okay you wont let him hold it, so he bends down and gets real close to your phone? You know he must verify the address against his database, so you're going to make him write down your address as he walks back to his car? Yea some people cannot afford this type of friction when dealing with police officers.

Microsoft's Ubuntu image seems to be ready. I guess I could see a reason to use regular Ubuntu 24 and then install dotnet manually, but these images have served us well.

docker pull mcr.microsoft.com/dotnet/sdk:10.0 - Refers to Ubuntu 24.04 "Noble Numbat"

docker pull mcr.microsoft.com/dotnet/sdk:10.0-noble - Refers to Ubuntu 24.04 "Noble Numbat"

https://github.com/dotnet/dotnet-docker/discussions/6801

We self host everything at our company as we're a data center - all the tools required for a modern development stack + modern environments.

It's great for learning and control - it's not so great for anxiety.

So this is only relevant to websites that do not use passwords and only do a temporary one time code... this is not 2FA correct?

What's the usecase for this? Texting your classmates right next to you when wifi is down and you didnt pay your phone bill? It requires peers to be running bitchat. So is this only going to be useful if everyone has bitchat installed?

Same, mq2 macros was my first programming language at 13

Okay fair point, thank you for that info. This makes more sense for the people who are developing prompt generation for some tool (like copilot, claude code, etc) yet I was thinking of it more from a user standpoint (like asking chatgpt, gemini, etc).

I thought this entire premise was obvious? Does it really take an article and a venn diagram to say you should only provide the relevant content to your LLM when asking a question?

I think that experiment was very cool, but I will say that the OAuth2.0/OIDC protocol is very well documented and there are tons of tools already built around it in multiple languages.

I implemented the OAuth2.0 protocol in 3 different languages without a 3rd party library - entire spec implemented by hand. This was like ~2015 when many of the libraries that exist today didn't back then. I did this as a junior developer for multiple enterprise applications. At the end of the day it's not really that impressive.

Like with a cloth right?

I agree with this. The author is just documenting how to "play the game", not how to be a good engineer.

I've brought my company's JavaEE 7 web application through NetBeans' upgrade life cycle, starting at NetBeans 8 I think. 10 or so years ago. NetBeans was great, when I first started, around version 8 or 9 - almost every "EE" feature worked. The years during transition to Jakarta were rough, most EE features lost.

However during this time I've learned a lot more about java as IDE "magic" was mostly gone. (Converting ant to gradle, better understanding of dependency management, jaxws wsdl generation, better understanding of the deployment and application container, probably more...)

I'll probably upgrade to 25 soon. Now-a-days there's never any problems when I upgrade, I guess because I'm no longer reliant on any IDE feature. At this point NetBeans is just a text editor with remote debugging capability. I enjoy it.

Well before AI, us old guys had to google our own issues and copy/paste from stackoverflow. When I was a junior I never thought about being overly reliant on "google or stackoverflow", but LLMs are slightly different. I guess it would be like if I googled something and always trusted the first result. Maybe for your question it means not copying/pasting immediately what the LLM gives you and have it explain. Wasting a few mins on asking the LLM to explain, for the sake of learning, still beats the amount of time I used to waste scanning google results.

Yea teams that have poor tracking and no PR practices.

Would you really bring your boss an offer letter? Even as top performer it seems like a bad idea to take any counter offer.

This is cool. Narration of audio books is a time consuming process! I agree with some of these comments here about how AI narration can sound robotic though and may not be too pleasant to listen to.

However, for anyone who is, or knows a family member/friend with a certified disability, or is a veteran, there is a free program to listen to a vast collection of audio books (with real narration) provided by the US Government. Check out https://www.loc.gov/nls/ (Braille material too!)

I did my best to make the case from a technical (bug fixes and features), business (vendor X won’t support us on this version), and customer (customer wouldn’t be happy if they knew we were running version X) standpoint.

I feel your pain then.

In reality I know what you mean, but not a good look for you imo. Imagine that upgrade causes an issue upstream and someone has to explain who approved it. There's always a way to get housekeeping items approved, sneaking it in isn't it.

All I know is government contracts, but I've been pretty successful at estimations. Much like the top posts in this thread, none of it is for free. Most of the time requirements come in a few sentences, maybe a paragraph, rare cases a document. There's no estimation until the requirements are flushed out in some type of use case which has some bearing on the technical constraints of the system. (The client pays for this, and provides feedback.) The next step is planning, which is where estimation comes from. (The client pays for this.) In terms of planning I do strive for maximum 16 hour chunks which helps accuracy. For estimations that I have low confidence in, I'll have conditional chunks that may be used. All of this is transparent to the client.

If the client asks for an estimation before the above steps it's known by everyone that it has no official meaning, because everyone is aware of the above process.

How does this generally work? I've played with openai's API and I can send it questions and get answers. Is this app just parsing new additions to commits and passing in the whole code block as a prompt, with an additional line saying "please review this code"?

Additionally, how is this app able to handle so many potential requests to openai? Are they already paying for a bunch of tokens in anticipation? Or do you pay for how many tokens used per month? (The openai pricing is a little confusing since there's so much you can do.)

Thanks for any insight

No need to be so harsh, they're not proclaiming anything just explaining their routine.

I agree though that testing the feature branch on the develop branch is not the same thing as that feature branch living in main, because some other feature branch in develop branch may be indirectly affecting the original feature branch.

No joke, "C for Dummies" - it's more teaching you CS101 concepts, less about "C". Tons of examples to go through and the attitude of the author is very helpful compared to a lot of other styles out there.

I was failing my computer science classes first semester. Towards the end of the semester I sat down in the library for a few days and just went page by page typing every example and compiling it. Aced every IT class I had the next few years. I attribute that book to making everything "click" for me.

Once you understand the beginner concepts that book shows, then you as an individual would know where to look to gain improvement.

How to Win Friends & Influence People

but I'd personally reconsider that career change

"by the time something is big enough that someone feels like they need to notify me, my first options of mitigation have already passed"

That's a communication issue which managers believe is rooted from remote work. I'm on the other end of your example, and there's a reason why people aren't telling you problems immediately, perhaps reflect on that.

I fail to see your misunderstanding of what I stated. Rebasing is all about a pretty git-log, a pretty git-log is all about looking up why/what something changed. Everything I stated is about why you don't need a pretty git-log to know why/what something changed... Hope you don't talk to people at your day job like that.

Squashing commits of a feature branch via rebase is not the same thing as rebasing a local feature branch with the intended remote target.

Anyways, squashing is almost worse. Imagine doing a git blame on a line only to see a large commit of x amount of other changes with a summary about the global feature instead of an individualized commit referencing the line changed more closely. I am interested in those myriad of useless intermediate commits as you put it.

For a 1 man team there is no point. Even for a 1 man team with a local and remote repo there is no point, because your local branch is always the same as the remote branch.

For a 2+ man team that does not protect the remote repo (i.e., don't require merge/pull requests, and you can commit/push directly into remote branches), then there is no point because... When you go to push a branch and remote complains about changes existing on remote, so you must pull first. You issue a pull and that does a fetch/merge into your local (commits are overlaid in order by date committed - some people complain about this and is why they rebase (commits from remote are back filled, and then your commits are inserted)).

For a 2+ man team that does protect the remote repo, and does require merge/pull requests then an explicit rebase or merge is needed, sometimes. At the end of the day you should be creating a merge/pull request from a source branch that has all of the changes as the remote target (at that point in time) to help the reviewer/approval only see your changes. If you updated your local branch via a rebase then the commits related to your changes are all in order, if you updated your local branch via a merge then the commits related to your changes are interlaid between other commits that happened around the same date). But really that's only a problem if someone cares to use git-log and not the 100 other ways to review history.