I'll be the idiot who doesn't get the joke.

I recognize that programmers often start counting at 0.

I'm not sure how this connects to 0 being lonely, since that means it's getting used. Even if the programmers are lonely, I still do not get it. Can someone explain?

OP should try the !opensource@programming.dev community instead.

Also, just for fun, it is technically programming, just not the computer kind ;)

Broadcast programming is the practice of organizing or ordering (scheduling) of broadcast media shows, typically the radio and the television, in a daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, or season-long schedule.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_programming

Radio programming is the process of organising a schedule of radio content for commercial broadcasting and public broadcasting by radio stations.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_programming

So I guess social media post programming is the process of organizing a schedule of post content.

Name would not be enough to stop me from using it but TiddlyWiki absolutely sounds stupid. It's probably a play off "tiddlywinks" but that also sounds stupid. It's something I'd cringe saying. I might unabashedly type out my recommendation with the name to a friend or send a link to it, but would try to dodge saying the name in an in-person conversation.

This hurts spread. One of the primary ways I find new software is by word of mouth from friends in-person (somehow I have an easier time ignoring or brushing off suggestions that are texted to me, and I take ones made in-person more seriously. I have no idea why), and I usually end up sticking with whatever they recommended.

Also, what do you mean, OP, by "do you have perfect recall or an average human byte"? Are you thinking of information in terms of bits and that people can only keep a limited amount of things in working memory at a time?

The trouble with this is where do you draw the line? What you say is totally true and makes sense sometimes. The question is when is it actually that situation? I can imagine two situations:

• one where the disliked opinion is "the Nazis were right", and where the kicked person will probably argue back with

opposite of their own CoC terms such as tactful, respectful, safe and inclusive. Instead the opinions they don’t like are weaponized using the other negative terms they list such as anti-social, unhelpful, trolling, controversial etc.

as a way to try to legitimize their position, express their negative feelings at being excluded (because even if you're a bad person, being excluded feels bad), and make the ban look to others like "oh, just a power-trip by bad management" and totally unjustified. Note that they might legitimately believe it is unjustified, that they probably are not twirling a mustache thinking in strategic terms of "how can I legitimize my position" and are just expressing their hurt feelings—but those are the things that happen when you make that argument.

• one where the disliked opinion is "I don't like dogs", which absolutely does not warrant a kick except maybe in a panel of judges of a dog competition or something, where the part I quoted is a good representation of the situation—people are being intolerant when they should not be, the kicked person's grievance is legitimate, and there might be a case of just personal dislike or power-tripping affecting the decision. When they argue with

opposite of their own CoC terms such as tactful, respectful, safe and inclusive. Instead the opinions they don’t like are weaponized using the other negative terms they list such as anti-social, unhelpful, trolling, controversial etc.

it is actually probably valid.

There are some actions/opinions where the view on whether it is the former situation or the latter situation is… controversial/unclear. I always wonder what happens when it is that kind of situation and how to deal with it.

This feels like me wanting to learn Hare because I like rabbits, which I bring up because someone left this reply for me and I think it applies to you too:

That is such a sweet reason! Whimsical decisions like this can be some of the best. Life demands a bit of whimsy every now and then.

Hey, thanks for the suggestion! I was considering firing up a VM just for Hare, but thanks for bringing this option to my attention.

How do I get better at understanding API docs without a tutorial to walk me through the basics of how the library works in the first place? Once I have an idea of some of what the library does and how a few commonly-used functions work I can somewhat handle the rest, but getting to that point in the first place is pretty hard for me if no getting started or tutorial section exists. And so I'm very intimidated by a lot of libraries…

I cannot help but see this as a diaper pattern…

Your comment made me curious, so I looked around the website and found this.

Our dataset documents Texas death row inmates executed from 1976, when the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty, to the present.

On one level, the data is simply a part of a mundane programming book. On another, each row represents immense suffering, lives lost, and in some cases amazing redemption and acceptance. In preparing for this dataset, I was deeply moved by a number of the statements and found myself re-evaluting my position on capital punishment. I hope that as we examine the data, you too will contemplate the deeper issues at play.

Just a warning for folks who might not be in a good mental spot for seeing this in their SQL tutorial right now, or even just if it wouldn't be to your personal tastes. It's not your average school exercise but with morbid flavoring, the site really integrates its data. It provides a lot more information about capital punishment than you strictly need to solve the database problems. That works nicely with their intention of "Exercises should be realistic and substantial".

Likewise, the exercises here have been designed to introduce increasingly sophisticated SQL techniques while exploring the dataset in ways that people would actually be interested in.

I'd understanding actively pressuring someone to share their salary being a faux-pas. Admittedly, just sharing your own may make some people feel pressured to share theirs out of reciprocity, but just sharing your own salary generates nowhere near the same amount of pressure as outright telling someone "share your salary or you're a bad person on the side of The Man!"

I hope the amount of people sharing their salary increases and talking about it becomes normalized.

Source article for the curious, and an unpaywalled copy on archive.is