I know people who go by nicknames in some places because their name is apparently censored.

“we need more resources” is bounded by the rate at which you can incorporate new teams members without absolutely destroying your productivity, or having a bunch of untrained fools running around breaking things (of course the later is standard at many places already, so I guess it doesn’t always matter).

The right answer is usually : “No”. Or at least “Prioritize”. Or “This is what we need to get it done” at which point they might start to get software takes time to make decently, and they don’t want software that doesn’t work decently in the first place.

We need a new paradigm for social media. And no, I’m not satisfied with Lemmy either (privacy issues).

Never touched it? A website? What about updating frameworks for security issues?

The closest I got to this kind of job., is the closest I got to running away. I’m much happier elsewhere now.

This, to a point.

Other things help :

• Unit test to help catch regressions. If you are confident in your test catching a good portion of bugs from refactoring, at least you feel confident refactoring. Worst case, at least you ensured your code is testable. There is nothing worse than refactoring untestable code.
• Self-documenting code and when it fails to self-document, comments or refer to a wiki page.

If you do it it’s not ok and you should feel guilty all of your life. But if we did it it’s totally ok.

Actually you should still feel guilty all of your life because one of your ancestors sinned or something. And I’ve made you a sinner by definition.

– God, priests and other representatives of God, probably.

This stuff depends on context.

If it’s the first time someone is told this, sure. If someone is asking not to be constantly harassed for having done this once, then that person is right. Once they’ve been told once, it’s plenty if education is the goal. If the person knows to tell you not to tell them that, they’ve been told once. If someone is asking that the guy who leaked the nudes be acted against, then that person is right. If someone is excusing shitting behavior because the victim should have protected themselves better, they are blaming the victim, shame on them.

Since you seem to be surprised people got offended or hurt, I will try to decode this interaction for you. Based on seeing essentially this discussion online over and over again.

I mean my take on this is the original post is essentially saying :

"Please be understanding of women turning you down in less than ideal ways (ie: Ghosting, etc.), they are afraid for their safety because they keep hearing stories of violence from men angry that women did not do what they wanted them to do. "

Then you essentially say :

“There are many good men too”. It’s also very easy to read into what you say “And we should be talking about how they don’t get talked about or remembered” even if you didn’t mean to say it that way

This is besides the point. It indicates that you either did not decode the original message right or lack empathy for the situation. I mean, it’s very likely the first, but the second is why people can get angry at a reaction like this. If you want to start a discussion on a different topic, why does it need to be in this thread?

What we haven’t even mentioned

There are a LOT of things we haven’t mentioned. I don’t understand why you feel the need to change the topic a second time in a thread asking for empathy.

Now I want to become a scientist so I can name something after a pun.

You realize you only get told what to do by vegans because you hang out where they hang out. If you keep coming here and arguing with them, you probably are here because it serves your own needs somehow…

Exactly. Religions that survive and get promoted are the ones that can thrive in the society they are living in, and that generally requires fitting into the political world of that society.

Religions that criticize the powers that be either overthrow them then become complicit with the new leaders over time, or they get marginalized. Priests had to deal with kings, one way or another.

Arguments on purity bore me, one way or the other.

Less ecological impact is better than more ecological impact. Less suffering is better than more suffering. Cheaper food is better than more expensive food. Somewhat healthy diet is better than a diet Lancet is warning you about (ie: too much meat, especially red meat) Using less resources to feed more people is better than using more resources to feed fewer.

Every step from a modern western diet with way too much meat (the one Lancet warns about) to something more reasonable brings benefit basically in relation to how much meat you cut. You can argue that we can’t reach the absolute, but it strictly does not matter. If you try to reduce meat and succeed as much as you reasonably can, things improve. You don’t have to be a part of this, but surely you realize this is the case?

If a TODO passes code review, more than one person fucked up.

1. Those apps are simple
2. Those apps target a wide audience, hence have more budget as a result
3. Those apps are made by large, well oiled (you’d hope at least) companies. You don’t want my honest opinion on most small software development boxes. This industry grew faster than mentors became available for the newbies, so many devs including seniors still don’t know what they are doing.

How are those conspiracy theories? They are consensus you disagree with that people are sensitive about? Where is the conspiracy? Just that most people disagree with you?

A lot of these “theories” that you disagree with have no conspiracy in them. Mate you’re just angry that most people disagree with you.

This is our only hope for climate change.

Things get better when solar out-competes coal and other fossil fuels. We’re just missing the deployment rate right now I think to be able to just stop fossil fuel use from growing.

But we could have reduced consumption instead and done this much, much faster. The economy might have needed to shift to deal with this and a lot of old industries should have been shut down within only a few years, but it would have had a major impact. Instead we wait for new industries to grow alongside the old, while still growing the old!

Basically if billionaires can capture carbon, they will probably use it as a way to make governments pay to clean the air, which is essentially an ongoing tax from a private entity to a public one, which could conceivably go on forever (or until people try to nationalize it).

THIS.

All the rest of this conversation is pedantic nonsense (on both sides, I might add).

It’s like if the law decided that only fire brick red as defined by this website is red : https://html-color.codes/red

And then someone on lemmy said “the court said your car isn’t red”. And then we’d have to spend a half hour and an incredibly long post to explain how courts sometimes use different definitions for words that people use in normal conversation, and to be careful how you interpret that.

Bottom line is Trump did what everyone else is calling rape.

Yes, you horrible criminal monster.

Looking back, I probably shouldn’t have been doing that. Definitely illegal.

You know that stuff you post on lemmy is probably on databases everywhere for like, forever, right?