I feel like it’s wrong to idolize anything in the same way that it’s wrong to throw out many things (there are some clear exceptions usually in the realm of intolerance but that’s unrelated to this). Clean Code, like every other pattern in software development, has some good things and some bad things. As introduction to the uninitiated, it has many good things that can be built on later. But, like Gang of Four, it is not the only pattern we apply in our craft and, like Agile, blind devotion, turning a pattern into a prescription, to Clean Code is going to lead to a lot of shit code.

Cognitive load helps us understand this problem a lot better. As a junior with no clue how to write production code, is Clean Code going to provide with a decent framework I can quickly learn to start learning my craft, should I throw it out completely because parts are bad, or should I read both Clean Code and all its criticism before I write a single line? The latter two options increase a junior’s extraneous cognitive load, further reducing the already slim amount of power they can devote to germane cognitive load because their levels of intrinsic are very high by the definition of being a junior.

Put a little bit differently, perfection (alternatively scalable, maintainable, shipped code) comes from learning a lot of flawed things and adapting those patterns to meet the needs. I am going to give my juniors flawed resources to learn from to then pick and choose when I improve those flaws. A junior has to understand the limitations of Clean Code and its failures to really understand why the author is correct here. That’s more cognitive science; we learn best when we are forming new connections with information we already know (eg failing regularly). We learn worse when someone just shows us something and we follow it blindly (having someone solve your problem instead of failing the problem a few times before getting help).

I’m gonna be super hand-wavy with citations here because this a soapbox for me. The Programmer’s Brain by Felienne Hermans does a good job of pulling together lots of relevant work (part 2 IIRC). I was first introduced to cognitive load with Team Topologies and have since gone off reading of bunch of different things in pedagogy and learning theory.

I think a huge problem with this is trying to frame everything through D&D as well as our perspective. Fuck modern D&D and its desire to control the entire dialogue. Wizards of the Coast aside, there’s also a fantasy component here. I personally dislike requiring all races to act exactly like humans with human motives. From a specific perspective, we view the wanton murder and sacrifice of wood elves by the drow as a terribly evil thing. From the drow perspective, why can’t the opposite be true? I’m not talking about Salvatore’s one-sided writing that makes it clear the whole thing is a massive con. D&D is very biased toward human motive and perspective. Why can’t both be true? Drow are evil to us and we are evil to them? That’s a much more interesting story and completely changes the narrative around someone like Drizzt.

This is a really nuanced take on speculative fiction in general. I also strongly feel that, the way WotC writes things, removing racial alignment is very important. There is no nuance in their universe. Even when we see other races, we always evaluate their action through a human lens rather than being presented a cogent paradigm contrary to ours.

Robert Altman continues to fuck people with that sale

Wait what

virtualization is a legacy technology

AWS, GCP, and Azure run on virtualization. Do you think all these cloud providers are providing everyone bare metal? This doesn’t include containerization which is a subset of virtualization. Your average shop might not run virtualization directly unless of course your team touches VirtualBox or Vagrant or qemu or (probably shouldn’t) HyperV.

Either your understanding of virtualization is very lacking or you didn’t explain your point very well. I am really curious what you meant.

My stance has been that, just as long as I’m interviewing with someone, I’m happy to do it, up to an undetermined time threshold. A screening interview, a tech screen, and then a bunch of panels is what I expect from a solid firm. Just as long as I’m interviewing with someone, I have a lot of opportunities to learn myself. I will also occasionally do a take home if and only if there’s a novel problem I want to solve related to that take home (eg I want to learn a library related to the task) but this is very rare.

As a hiring manager, I try to keep things to a hiring screen, a tech screen, a team interview, and a culture interview. My team is small. I don’t want to spend more than three hours of someone’s time (partially because I can’t really afford to spend more than that myself per candidate or lose more team hours than that). My tech screens are related to the things I actually need people to do, not random problems you’ll never see.

My assumption is that a good dev has lots of opportunity and I am in competition with everywhere else. I need to present the best possible candidate experience. Big companies with shitty employee experience telegraph that by presenting a shitty candidate experience, which is where the employee experience begins. You can’t have a good customer focus without starting from a good employee focus.

Discord performance is inversely proportional to the number of servers you’re in. Until Discord addresses this, it’s a shit tool for this use case unless you participate in a tiny number of servers in one facet of your life. Unlike chat tools like Slack that allow you to focus one server or community tools like forums, Lemmy, or VCSaaS which don’t consume resources when you don’t use them, Discord just tanks everything. Since you can’t easily hop in and out (something community tools let you do because, you know, you’re not constantly polling the server), you can’t self regulate.

Every single gaming community, coding community, project, store, hobby group, friend group, and professional group (study group too) has their own Discord. It’s a goddamn nightmare because Discord does not prioritize basic community functionality. Voice and streaming kick ass, but I need some server management and resource optimization.

Something that’s really important to understand about Republicans in Texas is they believe in small government so long as it’s their government. In theory, city and county governments should supersede state policy in the same way state policy should supersede federal policy per their defenses. However, that only works so long as city and county policy are in lockstep with state policy. Travis County and Austin almost always have some suit coming from Paxton. All of their was made super evident during 2020 COVID when the state wanted cities to decide things unless you were in Bexar (San Antonio), Travis (Austin), and a few others because those counties took COVID seriously based on their data. Here’s an early escalation where Paxton makes it very clear that the only authority cities have comes from the state executive.

In my personal swearing, I try to limit it to things that apply to everyone. Fornication, defecation, and damnation are things everyone can do (but might choose not to). Gendered or targeted swears have the possibility of perpetuating toxic traits, so I personally stay away from them. Fuck, shit, damn, all good. Other things get slippery so I try to avoid them myself. Granted, even that is a blurry line as I’ve highlighted I’m fine denigrating walnuts and trumpets elsewhere in this thread. I also don’t force that somewhat provincial view on others because it’s a personal standard. I might talk about why I try to avoid gendered swears, but that’s on me not on you.

I’m not convinced this person has had any kind of social interaction beyond making purchases in years. I’m equally convinced this person has lived infinite lives in their head with every female service that made the mistake of smiling.

I recognize I've been very cis/hetero normative here. I liken this to removing friction from physics. There's no such thing as actually frictionless physics in the real world (as far as I know)… but friction is derived from principles that are easier to see from the imagined frictionless case.

Okay so in order to explain how the world works you have to remove gay people because the principles are only visible if you remove gay people. Or if you have gay people this whole theory seems like a house of cards?

@Aboel3z@programming.dev do you plan on ever interacting with the community or do you post your links to drive Medium engagement?

Cox Enterprises isn’t some random company. It’s one of the largest privately owned companies in the US. They are somewhat capable of doing things like this.

Having experience with Cox Enterprises, it’s just a massive amalgamation of disparate acquisitions that have never been remotely brought together in a meaningful way so it is a slightly dubious claim. This would require much more coordination across entities than I feel is possible with the CMG I knew of pre-pandemic.

I think all of your analysis about Kiwi Farms is right. Absolute fucking cesspool that doesn’t need to exist.

I don’t think Tier 1 providers should police their content because I don’t think Tier 1 providers should police any content outside of direct government intervention (which is a different can of worms). That’s the argument here. Giving Tier 1 providers room to police this content gives them precedent to police other content and suddenly Lemmy is blocked because of some random reason.

The root issue here is net neutrality and that might be the discontent. Look at it from a phone perspective instead. Do you think the operators of the phone backbone (not individual providers like Verizon or Mint) should be able to turn off phone access to a chunk of numbers because a group of individuals are misusing those numbers? Why do you think the backbone, not the direct provider, should be able to take those actions? Should the backbone even be listening to those calls? Or should some other sector be handling that abuse, like the FTC going after VoIP robospam?

If you think the phone backbone should police people making phone calls, then you can reasonably argue another utility backbone like internet can also police. Both the EFF and I fundamentally disagree with that premise. Because we do not have net neutrality, it is easy to mask that distinction that this Tier 1 provider would not be able to do this in other utilities.