My biggest issue is with how spread out the information will be. You need something other than your standard file and directory explorers. Because you want to see and work with a view across multiple levels of directories and files and their content.
Legacy means outdated. Not [necessarily] unusable or unstable or insecure or needs to be updated. But feels old or outdated. Conforming to older standards or workflows.
Wikipedia matches my understanding:
In computing, a legacy system is an old method, technology, computer system, or application program, "of, relating to, or being a previous or outdated computer system", yet still in use.
One of the fixes was deleting a sysm32 driver file. Is a Windows driver how they update definitions?
Aphantasia is the inability to visualize.
Interesting.
For some things I definitely spatially lay out elements to put them into relation. I also visualize UI when thinking about it.
When I think of code hierarchies and relations, I wonder if it always ends up spatially or if sometimes I skip/omit that visualization, and if and what difference that makes. 🤔 I guess when it's complex enough, I skip the obvious intuition and visualize to find understanding.
Julia was my scripting and util programming language of choice for a while. But it couldn't keep me. I'm not too confident in the reasons anymore, it's been quite a while ago. I think the dynamic, unsafe aspect was a part of it, but also how it felt overall, or with code structuring?
Maybe I've been pulled away by better alternatives. (Using C# also for smaller util projects.) Recently, I've been using Nushell for scripting, which is new syntax to learn, but I've been enjoying functionality-wise.
Ironic that you don't share the pointers on what's expected to be checked with us.
An employer is unlikely to waste time on deep candidate analysis. If they see you as a public code contributor, it's an upside in activity, experience, and conversation starter, and discussion points for any interviews. If they look at your code, it won't be deep. I doubt they would go through the effort of correlating from a public coder profile (e.g. on GitHub) to a Lemmy profile and then look at their posts.
Once they're at the point where that would be a reasonable investment, they already know you personally and don't care about online content anymore.
Maybe some big companies use online analysis tools though.
Anyway, I know what I'm worth as a developer/an employed. I don't think I post that kind of divisive or sensitive stuff that does or possibly should be related to my employment and work. If they see it as such, then I'm fine with it not being a match.
I actually think the public nature could and should be upsides. Related to work or not.
Did you consider OP comment harassment?
The poster licensing to the platform is not the same as licensing to the public.
This instance programming.dev ToS declares:
2.2. By submitting, posting, or displaying user content on our services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, distribute, and display such user content.
Distribution and displaying with attribution follows CC BY and SA. NC currently probably does - but may or may not (currently accepts donations).
The ToS only defines the license to distribute and display. It does not define how users and consumers of that distribution may or may not use the content.
So from this instance alone, there could be an argument of "the comment defines how it may be used".
But I'm not sure that holds given that federated distribution goes to other instances with different terms. For those that don't define how content may be consumed, it may be a reasonable argument. For those that define it in a conflicting manner, the ToS may override the content CC claim. Given the federated, distributed nature, given that you can reasonably expect such a conflict, there's a question of whether it holds in the first place if you can expect conflict invalidating it.
Either way, it's a convoluted mess, and incredibly noisy. Lemmy content has a language attribute. If there's a need for a license, it should be a metadata attribute in the same manner.
Doesn't the "scaled trunk-based development" do that too, with feature branches and merge requests? Trunk is your production-ready branch there.
Kissaki
joined 1 year ago
Yeah, I see they did mention "your languages functions". It's just, subjectively, reading awk and sed next to "easily" irritates me. Because I've never found it easy to get into those.