So… what’s the kleenex box for?
So… what’s the kleenex box for?
I guess the technical answer would be “all of them”? It’s some Dall-e 3 images muxed together, not a real game… ;-)
For love as a standalone word, “value” is the most drop-in-compatible word. To say “i love you” is to say “i value you”.
The form of “in love” is a far greater mystery to me, and i usually just consider the speaker to mean something like “obsessed” or “infatuated”.
AFAIK, IPv6 does not truely address the router memory concern. With so many more addresses and more bytes-per-address in the tables, i imagine it’s only a matter of time till we are back to such fundamental woes as “where does this packet go”… but i suppose that is limited by the rate that people buy and move ipv6 address blocks.
“I have a very particular set of skills…”
This is worse than a boring distopia. This is a “let’s scientifically measure and control the breaking point of humans” level distopia.
TrueNAS scale helps a lot, as it makes many popular apps just a few clicks away. Or for more power-users, stuff like the linux cockpit also really helps.
To directly answer your questions…
Negative? Sounds like music to the crypto-miners. Heck, can I get paid for shorting two wires together?
Ace of spades, baby! Oh, wait…
Shouldn’t be a problem. If a common transporter can filter out contagions, surely they have a medical transporter than can repair tissue damage relative to your previous (healthy) transporter trace.
I like to think that they did… a few inches… till their shoes hit the spinny-ma-thing gravity generator below the deck.
Inertia dampeners.
I think they are intended to, and they actually do… once (child teeth). Probably just broken due to genetic decay or environment (e.g. if humans are no longer fully maturing and what we call adult teeth are actually “intermediate” teeth). I suspect a deeper understanding of the recent tooth-regrowth drug(s) may provide a clue as to why it is currently broken.
I would whole-heartedly recommend Robert Martin’s clean coding lecture series. It may be many hours of your life, but it is free on youtube and well worth the time. I don’t exactly recall what he says about testing in his lectures, but it’s probably pretty close. If nothing else, it will teach you to critically consider programming structure in the abstract (instead of following formulae), and to write code with the intent for it to be read and maintained by humans.
I think he also has a series that includes “structured programming” (like early return vs deep nesting), but was unable to find it last time I looked for it. I recall having a shocked epiphany when he (i THINK it was Martin) demonstrated the exact way to clean up a function, that started out ugly, and ended up being reduced to literally nothing (the function was removed).
I was going to post something to CL a month or two ago, but was shunned away by new & intrusive PII collection… seemed offensive and discordant with the original spirit of CL, and I ended up “nope’n out” instead. RIP another internet era/icon.
Many code-reviewers likewise devalue tests, giving only a cursory skim over the unit-test section of PRs, if they examine them at all, and sometimes code-review itself is devalued to the point of a rubber-stamp (e.g. “great, we need someone from team X to approve it too… doesn’t matter who, though…”).
If I could tell you, you would be SHOCKED at how high-profile and recent this sordid project was; it’s literally in the news and discussed in my podcasts.
I think it rubs people the wrong way because (though it looks like code) in some sense it is not programming… it’s like the negative image of a program… like a mold or specification-box that contains and fits around the code, which reverses several key principles.
It also can highlight if the code needs to be moved or reorganized, and let me tell you… the LAST thing that devs want is to interpret the struggle to write a unit test as a sign the code needs rework, they would MUCH rather keep unit tests as an after-thought; like some kind of mandated torture-ritual that produces a thing of no value.
Speaking of not valuing tests… I’ve literally seen devs blithely invert test assertions (that where clearly valid), those that made sense in context, and even some that were PART OF THE TEST’S NAME… just to brush the “meaningless failures” out of their way… as if they could not be bothered to even read one sentence to understand the “why”… uggh.
Anyway, I digress and ramble. If you really want more of me in the industry, I can provide one more! If you happen to know of any teams that need a professional-unit-testing-developer, I’m recently on the market! :)
I feel like I’ve seen this in more than one sci-fi show…