HN user
On the other hand, it is annoying to be one of the people on site with a remote team in an environment where other divisions are not remote. In some cases you become the person that gets interrupted all the time while the remote workers get to be productive.
Or they could raise prices.
The attached reading material is interesting, but this question is too similar to problems where you guess the next one in the sequence and none are missing.
A rule where the numbers are increasing does not explain why 3 or 5 or 6 is missing from the sequence in that version of the question that is much more common.
You could change the amendment process at the same time the amendment was amended that you don't want repealed.
I believe one of the only ways to do that is with a constitutional amendment. Those are hard to pass.
On the other hand, when maintaining code, it is really nice when it is predictable.
Oddly enough, most of the really dirty fixes I have seen involved not understanding the library and deciding that it was a bug in the library.
On the list of annoying places to work - places that have custom versions of standard libraries like JQuery.
For something that most almost anyone can follow, there are a lot of failures out there.
Wrapping library functions is very helpful when I am doing my own project. I understand the interface and can fix any misunderstandings I had when I used the standard functions. It is great.
However, when I run across someone who helpfully wrapped the standard interfaces in the code I need to maintain. I want to burn him alive.
"'How long will that bug take to fix?' is like asking 'How long is it going to take to answer 23 across in next Sunday's crossword puzzle?' It might be fifteen seconds, it might take all day; until I have a chance to look at the puzzle I'm just pulling numbers out of my ass." .
I find this attitude to be a little disingenuous. Obviously every bug cannot be estimated perfectly, but the majority of the time there is some initial data to make a reasonable estimate with a margin of error.
For instance to name a few:
- Past experience with the module associated.
- Whether or not it has been reproduced locally.
- Similarity to other bugs that have come up in the past.
I think he is being pedantic, because that part is also exponential.
Individual cases of taking little capital and making a fortune is not all that convincing.
For instance if 40 of your friends go in to a casino and all pick a different number on the roulette wheel and one of them hits, it does not mean that it was a good method.
I don't understand why they did not call this creation the new Macbook Air.
Lucky, Mumps also has the single letter distinction.