Fuck, I’ll look at code I wrote like a month ago and be like, “what was I thinking?”. So I try to fix it, run into some stupid issue and be like, “oh, right.”
And this is why comments are useful on code who’s purpose or reasoning isn’t super obvious or even looks counter intuitive.
It’s not internal, but there are other private address ranges beyond 192.168.0.0/16. 10.0.0.0/8 is another common one. Container platforms like to use 172.16.0.0/12.
If it’s your only layer of security, it’s not good. But when a website doesn’t tell you whether or not an email account exists when you try a username and password, it’s still obscurity (you’re not confirming one way or the other) but it’s still a useful level of security. IPs are generally not given out for a reason. Most people don’t even realize they don’t get hacked simply because they aren’t targeted. That you even route local traffic via the internet is interesting to begin with and makes me wonder if you truly are prepared for a targeted attack. Maybe you decided it’s not worth the effort but maybe you don’t know how. I don’t know. But nonetheless, you’re making yourself more of a target.
If you hard code their services into your product, sure. But you should be abstracting away from that. Then it’s just writing new plugins instead of redesigning everything.
? I mentioned it twice. And you sounded like a manager a little bit in one comment, and then a lot in the followup reply to it. To the point it sounded like you were defending it. Making claims that developers aren’t allowed to make the choice you were saying to make. So it was really weird. I don’t even know how your stance makes sense from your point of view.
Edit: and thanks for ignoring anything of actual value to reply to.
That sounds like bad business. No application is 100% unique in everything. Code reuse saves time. If you are unable to bring anything from one app to another, you’re doing it wrong.
Let me guess though, I was right. You’re a manager not a developer.
This is a shitty response. You won’t make money if you design the app poorly and can’t maintain it.
Second one. Just realized there were two. Being close together and the first being long enough to get trailing “…” it all just looked like one big link when I first saw it. May just be Kbin displaying it that way.
In my world we prioritize one.
Weird. In most cases priorities change as the situation demands. The application doesn’t matter when it comes to maintainability. Tech debt will take down any application if you keep ignoring maintainability at the expense of just delivering more and more. You sound more like a manager than a developer.
You’re setting up a theoretically boogie man that no one said exists and then setup the extreme opposite point of view. You’re annoying the people that are actually sane. You’re being dogmatic in your one views and too extreme.
deleted by creator
maintainability is arguably not a value-added for the end user. But still absolutely important. Robustness of code is arguably not visible to an end-user, until it fails. And that’s very important. Features are great, but quality is still important and is basically the mortar between the bricks that are features. Only caring about features leads to poorly written applications.
I’m sorry. Whoever wrote that should give up trying to write articles. It’s poorly written and will never convince anyone to change their mind. It’s shit. “I know how to convince people they’re wrong. Insult them. Setup a ton of strawman arguments. Genius.”
Whoever wrote that is bad and should feel bad.
Only a few libraries announced dropping support due to their requirement generics. It’s not that big a deal. TS is still popular.
Isn’t that almost what they suggested except starting at a different size and doing a binary search basically? You’re just starting the binary search after the first step of cutting into 5 lengths instead of 2.
Sorry, I guess we just disagree on whether torture and killing is cruel. You think it’s not. I do. More people think so every year, so I’m just glad as humanity as a whole continues to advance and not stay within primitive ways of thinking. Moreover, the amount of land being dedicated to it is so vast, that eventually it’ll have to give simply because there are so much better ways to use the land. Regardless, something that’s bad for the environment now is bad for the environment always. That’s how that works. You haven’t provided any reasoning why it suddenly becomes isn’t. Your argument is still that you’re ok with harming the environment a little.
And things like racism, sexism, etc are all personal morals. Saying to keep it to yourself while you have your own is simply not an argument. It’s a value judgement on another living thing. I’m not here to hear all the debunked and poor logic though, so I’m not really interested in debate and won’t respond again. Not saying you can’t provide your response, its just I won’t care.
Wow. I immediately assume a lower IQ for anyone who uses that word.
Even if industry changed, no, meat production should still go away. It’s still bad. There’s no acceptable level of bad we should just ignore. This is discounting the entire ethical points of animal cruelty inherent in the system.
I didn’t say we should not fight for better regulation. I did say we shouldn’t give up doing our best. If you disagree with this, you’re just arguing you shouldn’t be held responsible for anything. With that attitude, why would you expect a company to not say the same especially if it’ll cost them so much more. You’re depicted exactly everything wrong with the industry.
Mitigating some substantial percentage of that population growth would be one way to better environmental conditions in 2050. It would also have more impact than virtually any other climate policy. (More on that later.)
From your own sources.
Edit: it’s kind of weird your source for “it’s a myth” is an article saying it’s not but that talking about it just leads a bunch of people to the wrong conclusions about the speaker due to poor past examples.
Overpopulation is a climate issue and I would argue the mindset of trying to promote owns legacy by having more than one, let alone more than two children is definitely something that needs to be addressed. The climate impact is real. You can’t just be like “I deserve to spread my seed as far as I can.”
Knowing the cost of something is important and having children does have an impact on everyone else.
For someone who gets paid hourly, I’m only willing to go so far with unpaid work past when I’m supposed to stop.