We were there 6 days ago. Mostly fine except they couldn’t change the monitor at the gate to show the proper destination. I wonder if it was this!

It should never be illegal to link to a thing. To host illegal content, sure, that should be illegal. But making it illegal to say where some thing, legal or not, is located is asking for all kinds of trouble.

I can’t find the link, but I read that some Canadian news organizations were using URL shorteners to post their own news to Facebook to get around the block.

But the sweaters!

And in politics, too!

“Sorry, Tennessee! And Oregon. And Minnesota. And Alabama. And…”

It does now–it didn’t in the past.

Looking around, I don’t think that’s true. Lots of bad things are freely said about Mozilla and the people running it.

The local Uber eats clone here has the submit order button off screen. Reuters on Android sometimes has the top bar of the webpage shift down over the content. A video conferencing site used by my medical provider won’t connect the video. The 3rd party comment section on our local news site sometimes lays out the controls off screen. The Lemmy PWA on Android used to crash on startup (recently fixed yay!!)

FF is my daily driver and 99% of things work fine, but I’ve definitely found a few sites where they clearly didn’t test it. I still have Chrome installed for those rare occasions I need it.

And I don’t even necessarily blame Firefox for this. I used to do web dev back in the day and I remember making my shit work across multiple browsers. Maybe Firefox is doing it right and Chrome is doing it wrong, but everybody targeted Chrome because it has a zillion percent of the market.

I switched to Aegis when google authenticator didn’t allow exports. It’s simple and it works.

Illegal to share? So you see a video of someone and before you can share it without legal risk you have to verify its provenance? How is this supposed to be practical either from a usage or enforcement standpoint?

If my ISP starts throttling my traffic, I’ll just switch to one of the zero other providers in my area.

I always left it open-ended and that seemed to work. Part of the interview was seeing what they’d come up with. I’m pretty sure people always brought things they’d already written.

It never happened–since they knew in advance, they had time to whip up something cool if there wasn’t anything else. It didn’t have to be massive. I just wanted to see some clean non-trivial code and a clear understanding of how it worked. Fizzbuzz wouldn’t have impressed. :)

One of my classmates years ago loved bash. They wrote a filesystem for their OS class in Bash. It was a really, really impressive and bad idea.

But how do you handle candidates who say something like “look, there’s heaps of code that I’m proud of and would love to walk you through, but it’s all work I’ve done for past companies and don’t have access (or the legal right) to show you?”

It never once happened. They always knew in advance, so they could code something up if they felt like it.

I asked candidates to bring me some code they were proud of and teach me how it worked. Weeded out people really quickly and brought quality candidates to the top. On two separate occasions we hired devs with zero experience in the language or framework and they rocked it. Trythat with your coding interview, eh? 🙂

The old C++ FAQ book was over 500 pages, and that was decades ago. Those were the “frequent” questions.

I drove deep into C, a much simpler language, and there’s all kinds of wild stuff in there that most C devs don’t know. Of course, it’s not applicable to 99.9999% of C programming, so who practically cares, but to learn 100% of C++? I don’t have that kind of time.

That said, it’s totally possible to learn enough C++ that covers 99.9999% of its use cases.

Another approach to thinking about it is that draw() does two things. 1) it draws the line that’s 1 shorter than itself, then 2) it draws itself.

The for loop happens after it draws the line that’s 1 shorter than itself.

They most definitely do.