Why do you think test times are proportional to coverage rates?
I don’t have an account there because of that reputation, and why would I now that I have access to chatgpt?
I think StackOverflow is rolling out a GPT-based service that generates answers to your questions based on SO's data.
You need to train ChatGPT to get it to output decent results. SO seems to be working to do that for you.
That is the work of a software engineer.
To build upon this, we need to keep in mind that at least in some jurisdictions the role of a certified engineer is only required in projects with relevant size, and the responsibility of that engineer is to ensure the project complies with all requirements and therefore be held responsible for any mishap. This means that it's perfectly fine if non-engineers work independently on complex tasks, provided that an engineer attests that their output is fine and takes responsibility in case it isn't and it causes problems.
Even then, you’ll still want to have in mind instances known for spam, bots, or shady content have been blocked.
Is there a list tracking these instances?
how centeralised GitHub
It's a pointless and irrelevant remark. Mozilla uses Git to track work on Firefox. GitHub provides Git repositories. I can clone Firefox out of GitHub, create an account on GitLab/Bitbucket, push the code there, and GitHub does not feature as a concern at all.
What point can you possibly think you're able to make regarding GitHub?
GitHub is enshittifying everything that has to do with Git.
Nonsense. Speaking as someone who actually hosts the same projects on GitHub and other version control providers, GitHub does not even feature as an implementation detail.
I'm starting to think you're just trolling.
You should care.
I do my best to not waste my time with irrelevant nonsense. It's silly to believe that the version control system you use has any influence on the quality of the software you deliver.
But the help and credit he got for days or weeks of unpaid work was basically nothing.
We should keep in mind that this is a one-sided account on how a mundane bugfix issue was handled. Grain of salt required.
Nevertheless, the blog author said he received feedback from members of the Linux kernel security mailing list. Even though I think he could have received more credit than reporting the issue, that was basically his contribution: he pinpointed where the bug was. He also contributed a couple of patches that were faulty and unusable, and the maintainer had to step in and roll out his own fix.
I understand that fixing a nontrivial bug is a badge of honor, and getting credit for critical contributions might have more implications than a warm feeling. However, if the submitted patches were unusable then what would be the desirable outcome? I mean, should Linux users be deprived of a bug fix because a first-timr contributor is struggling with putting together a working patch?
Now you mention it, maybe people with a better interview/offer rate are also doing a better job on not wasting time with positions they aren’t a great fit?
Yes, that's indeed a key factor. However, I should stress that some of these adverts simply do not have a position to fill. Recruiters post these ads, they go through candidates, sometimes they even line up some interviews, but ultimately they do not have a job to fill at all. In my experience this is the norm with staffing agencies.
If you're applying for positions posted by staffing and recruiting agencies, I believe you should set your expectations so that you expect nothing to come out and, even though you should do your best when applying, you should take a fire-and-forget approach to them.
But since then, i came to a revelation, than it takes years of experience to knw which wire to touch
Might be, might not be. A popped capacitor doesn't require a lot of skill to spot.
Not all jobs are rocket surgery.
Some Java version older than 8
Your format looks half baked and not thought all he way through. Take for instance the success bool. What info does this add that error_code and the request's own status code doesn't already send? And what's the point of context if it is both unspecified and optional?
It’s very weird to me that Python, as an inherently untyped language
I don't think this is true. Python is dynamically typed, but types exist. More importantly, Python is the poster child of duck typing. What is duck typing if not a way to implicitly specify protocols? If you're relying on protocols to work, why not have tests for it? If you want to test protocols, aren't you actually doing type checks?
If typing is a good thing,
...which undoubtedly is.
(...) why not make it an optional first-class part of the language?
It already is, isn't it?
But some people already have Python code that does not do type checking. What would be the point of refusing to run that code?
I think you're confusing documentation with specification.
Requirements are specified. They are the goals and the conditions in which they are met. Documentation just means paper trails on how things were designed and are expected to work.
Requirements drive the project. Documentation always lag behind the project.