neweroldguy

It’s tough because at scale you can always find some poor schmuck that’s a perfectly decent sort and has run into pricks over and over. “Maybe it’s me?” the poor fucker opines. And well-meaning folks like you or me will suggest the “asshole rule” — if everyone’s an asshole, you’re the asshole — and we’ll be right in general but not in this one unfortunate case.

But you just can’t tell which is which from where we’re sitting.

So, OP… probably you’re the asshole, but maybe not.

This is just a generic “old man shouting at clouds” complaint at this point. You’re not engaging with the material at all.

This is what I do unless I’m working with a large number of people on the feature branch (which is rare, usually that would be multiple branches).

You get the equivalent of “mergeless” history (just restrict your git log to merge commits) but can dig into the individual feature histories easily.

How would anyone think releasing this was a good idea?

Why would it not be? A model built on any consistent large data set could be interesting I’d expect.

But just because the data set has some semantic property, that doesn’t mean that a model built from it will necessarily generate text that had the same property (in this case, “being scientifically correct”). The real question is why would anyone think that?

Many people are significantly less technically savvy than you might expect. Every form really needs all of these conventions if you want to make your software as widely usable as possible (which is all consumer software at least, or should be).

So in fact I think it is the rule, not the exception.

Unfortunately you have to do a dumb JS dance to get these reasonable affordances. Hard to blame people for not reimplementing all this shit even if it’s critically useful for many folks.

Long stick, big dick!

But also, plenty of means, good genes. You are right, it’s real deep in there.

It’s frustrating when you catch it in your own thought processes! I honestly recall when dating seeing a physically attractive potential partner and thinking “they seem nice”…

If the only thing between business failure and business success was contact with users, there’d be a lot fewer failed businesses.

Sometimes you just don’t see it, and that’s ok. Not everything is “I would have succeeded if only…”

I found the letters shifting around as you used them to be frustrating and confusing. I also wasn’t sure whether unused letters remain or are replaced between rounds.

Nevertheless I enjoyed it well enough… the one time I got to play it

Thanks for clarifying, this is an insightful interpretation.

This is literally what they sell though. It’s like going to a restaurant and complaining that they ask you to pay for your meal.

Recently made the mistake of hiring someone with a few short stints. Each had a “good explanation”. 9 not-so-productive months later, they’re gone… Will be taking your approach in the future.

They clearly were emphasizing how expensive things are; they didn’t make a value judgement as to why. “Minor” conveyed that the work to be done is small.

This is a shit take, there’s no evidence for this person being out of touch with respect to anything

I think your concern (will I be one who is fulfilled, or one who regrets?) is reasonable, but in fact for many people the answer is “yes”. You’ll often feel fulfilled. Occasionally you’ll regret.

Also, “escape goat”, while an amazing phrase, should be “scapegoat”.

If you were happy in your mediocrity this wouldn’t bother you.

Keep using VS Code, make files open in their own window via setting. Why would you not have VS Code open at all times anyway? (As you might with an emacs server).