Feedback:
Format your README better. And don’t be a condescending jerk and say “wikipedia is your friend”. If you can’t explain what you’re doing here we’re going to question your solution. You don’t have to write a white paper, but enough to show you actually understand the concept enough to explain it in brief then you provide links to detailed refefences.
Comment your code. Meaningful names are great, but you should be explaining complex concepts and algorithms within your code. This provides clear intent to people using and maintaining your code if implemented directly.
Yes, an article written by a podiatrist, peer reviewed by a podiatrist, and completely cites their credentials, sources, and reference materials.
Just because you don’t think it’s credible, doesn’t make it not credible.
I mean, you could have easily searched “how much do feet sweat per day” and verified this yourself.
But ok, here’s one of hundreds of the results from podiatry clinics that say roughly the same thing.
Feet sweat. A lot. Like a pint (450g) of sweat a day or more if particularly active or you have larger feet.
So for me, daily at the least. On particularly active days, multiple times.
And the jobs are rarely worth the stress of picking apart the terribly designed, chock full BizDev rushed ads-on features due to foolish promises, and a manager that’s stressed out due to how few experts they’re are that’s going to try and micro-manage you because his skip-level is breathing down his neck about when something is going to be fixed.
No thanks, not again.
Co-pilot is amazing and terrible at the same time.
When it’s suggesting the exact line of code I expect to write, amazing. When it can build the permissions I need for a service account for a TF module I’ve written, amazing
However, it will suggest poorly formed, un-optimized code all too often.
That said, knowing when to use/not use/modify the suggested code has greatly improved my productivity and consistency.