Are you thinking about daylight savings time? I’d agree there, but timezones absolutely make sense, and we’ve always used some version of it. “See you at noon” has a sort of built in timezone, as does sunrise and sunset. We (all human societies) relate hours to the day in a similar, albeit more regular way. If you did away with timezones, you’d replace a minor inconvenience with a monstrous one. Everyone uses what, GMT? Naah

I do have some experience. What you are talking about are all internal hurdles, and what I was referring to as the hard problem to solve.

Incurring an expense in order to compensate for a service rendered, which is what the company would need to do in this case, is not difficult.

If you deal with amounts that need special consideration, there are people who do this for you for money. I believe that the correct approach is to show up, and sequentially slide individual banknotes from a densely packed stack in their general direction.

There are two common types of laser printers. Those that have special paper that react to heat, such as receipt printers, would fit the description.

The other laser printers… Hm, I don’t think your description is accurate either. It’s more that the laser electrically charges ink particles so that they jump on to a separate roller that gets rolled on to the paper.

I’m no expert though.

All of the other things you mention can be solved with money. In terms of the things that are easy and hard, this very much the former.

The real hard part here is whomever in charge of making the actual decision, to expense a pittance.

Failing that hard to not know what is, and isn’t knowable, is a good reason to not give a single f about what they think

Absolutely. Those you suggest there are good examples.

Good enough that, instead of “is/isn’t” programming language, it would be more a “ah, so, how do you define that then?”. Now that I’ve had some sleep, one could argue that I could have been nicer and suggested that approach for HTML as well. After all, it’s just words that mean stuff, and transfer a concept between people, that translate to the same (ish) idea. The moment the latter isn’t the case, it’s no longer very useful for the former.

Most disagreements, I find, are just cases of different understandings. Discussions worth having is when both are correct but different, and both want to figure out why they differ. So, on second thought, I think I was appropriately rude ^_

Both LaTeX and roff are Turing complete, but they are also DSLs with a somewhat narrow “domain”. Sounds exactly right that these blur the lines between what is/isn’t. You could even argue that claiming one or the other is just one way to express how you understand that difference.

That’s such a weird point to make. Is it because to you, it seems like the line drawn is arbitrary? I cannot imagine any other reason. Certain words just mean certain things.

Markup languages are exactly as much “programming” as you marking a word and hitting “bold”. Which is to say, nothing at all. People are wrong all the time, and I have a very limited amount of fucks to give when it happens.

As for Scratch, it is a programming language. So, why would you think it’s a logical next step for me to say otherwise? Next, you’ll say something remarkably dumb in response. Resist the temptation, and do something more productive.

Not really. If so, you might as well consider the stuff you can use to format a comment here on lemmy, as “programming”. That’s conceptually more similar to HTML as what programming actually is.

quote

some title

Ooo hyperlink

Etc.

With just little bit of formatting, it would communicate the information infinitely better. Why don’t people make the minimal effort, once, when not doing leads to each and everyone having to figure out what the fuck it’s actually trying to say.

Apologies. I’m grumpy after a three hour meeting.

Zig is a pretty interesting alternative to C

Pretending Rust means no more exploitation is stupid.

I guess? Are you alluding to someone or something in particular?

Only losing a week on a major change is a good sign. I wish the people who started the project had that same attitude with regards to clarifying requirements. They also did the opposite of designing a flexible solution. No thought to the actual problem, picking a contrived problem to “tackle”. Full on blinders on event driven architecture, split a simple thing into multiple nano-services, yet tightly coupled by sharing the same model which is de/serialized at every step, and then throw in application level filtering on the events… no schemas, no semantic versioning.

waiting for solid requirements

This is exactly the situation. Except that my team consisting of consultants just “started”, instead of trying to scope out the constraints and larger picture. I joined a month or so after.

Six months, and the result so far of their exploration is a fairly uninteresting happy-path use of some technologies, barely related to the task that had unclear requirements. Turns out the work done is unsuited for it. Boggles the mind how much resources are wasted on such things.

Feels extremely unrewarding to have worked, relatively hard, for half a year, and the fruits of my labour is… getting to the point where the actual problems are solved. Which one could have done from day one, if one had started in a team without wrong preconceptions, or, no team, for that matter.

It was the job switch that landed me in that situation. A change from a small company where about 70% was actual productivity, to a large corporation, in a team where there was severe issues with planning and working on the correct problems. So far it’s been 6 months of… well, wondering if I’m missing something, or a bigger picture somewhere, to trying to turn the ship in the right direction. If it’s still like this in another 6 months, I’ll consider a change of scenery.

I’m down to 0% the last 6 months. It’s miserable.

Still doesn’t mean “massed” is correct, and it’s weird to use here. Never understood why one would go out of one’s way to present an incorrect argument.

Edit: feel free to downvote me. It doesn’t make me any less right, or the parent comment any less incorrect. Weird, but hey, there are worse things to be wrong about.

Processes can make their own processes. If you know of such a secondary process, you might still want to terminate the one at the top.

Something like that?

It’s fascinating how some SPAs come about. Often consultancies who win some bid to implement X features. Since “good user experience” is hard to quantify/specify, it ends up being a horrible end result.

Zalaris is one such that I’m in complete awe of. Set up user flows that are expected to take 30 minutes to complete. Yet, don’t keep track of that state/progress withing your own SPA. Click the wrong tab within that SPA, and state is reset.

It’s, just fascinating.

Can you point to a way in which the actions, policies, or rhetoric of the Israeli government meaningfully differs from those of Novemberpogrome-era (Krystalnacht-era) Nazi Germany?

They spoke German.

Here is a list of some practical uses so far:

• Get a notification on the phone when the washer is done.
• Charge the car when electricity is cheap
• Turn on humidifier if sufficiently humid and no motion near it for a while
• Automatically lock the front door at night
• Toggle lights with a shortcut key on the keyboard
• Change target thermostats for different rooms and different time of day.

Also nice to learn about the house:

• Breakdown of electricity usage. (How much actually goes to heating, car, etc)
• Answer questions like “When did I really go to bed last night?”. Etc

This has got to be the most peculiar downvoted comment I’ve seen on lemmy so far. A principled disagreement with collective punishment? Weird.

Edit: what am I missing? Or have I stumbled into a part of lemmy that is totally fine with stuff Nazi Germany did, and present day Israel and Russia are doing?