• 0 Posts
  • 43 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 6th, 2023

help-circle

  • JGrffn@lemmy.worldtoFediverse@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Usually a React dev, have been some other stuff, but generally yeah, websites. Anything from resort chain websites to complex internal applications. Unit tests were optional at best in most jobs I’ve been at. I’ve heard of jobs where they’re pulled off, but from what I’ve seen, those are the exception and not the rule.

    Edit: given the downvotes on my other comment, I should add that this is both anecdotal and unopinionated from my behalf. My opinion on unit testing is “meh”, if I’m asked to do tests, I’ll do tests, if not, I won’t. I wouldn’t go out of my way to implement them, say, on a personal project or most work projects, but if I was tasked to lead certain project and that project could clearly benefit from them (i.e. Fintech, data security, high availability operation-critical tools), I wouldn’t think twice about it. Most of what I’ve worked on, however, has not been that operation-critical. What few things were critical in my work experience, would sometimes be the only code being unit tested.



  • JGrffn@lemmy.worldtoFediverse@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    10 months ago

    To be fair, I’ve yet had a job that actually pulls off unit testing. Most either don’t bother or just go for the grunt work bare minimum to force pass tests. Most friends in my field have had pretty much the same experience. Unit tests can be just a chore with little to no real benefit. Maybe an opensource project that actually cares about its code can pull it off, but I wouldn’t bat an eye if they never get to it.


  • JGrffn@lemmy.worldtolinuxmemes@lemmy.world:wq!
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Serious question. Why? No, for real, why? Why are these hard to understand editors still the default on most distros and flavors? Why haven’t they reinvented themselves with easier to understand shortcuts?

    I get the feeling my comment will attract heat, but I’m a web dev, studied comp Sci for years, have worked for nearly a decade and have spent over half my 30 year old life using computers of all sorts. I’m by no means a genius and I by no means know enough about this or most tech subjects, but I literally only knew how to close vim with and without saving changes in a recent vim encounter, purely due to a meme I saw in this community a few days prior, and I had already forgotten the commands by the time I saw this post. Nothing about vim and alternatives feels intuitive or easy to use, and you may say it’s a matter of sitting down and learning, which you can argue that, but you can’t argue this isn’t a bit of a gatekeeper for people trying to dip their toes into anything that could eventually rely on opening vim to do something.

    I won’t try to deny its place in computer history, or its use for many, or even that it is preferred by some, but when every other software with keyboard shortcuts agrees on certain easy to remember standards, I don’t quite understand how software that goes against all of that hasn’t been replaced or hasn’t reinvented itself in newer versions.

    Then again, I have no idea what the difference between vi, vim, emacs, and nano are, so roast away!



  • The article makes no mention to the molecules only working on cancer cells. The molecules, according to the article, attach to cell membranes, and then the molecules are jiggled to blow up the cells. That process doesn’t mention an ability to differentiate between cancer and non-cancer cells. The technique was tried on a culture growth, where a hammer would have the same results. It was also tried on mice, where half were left cancer-free, but little is said about the process, the specifics of the results, or what happened to the other half of mice.

    We all get the goal of cancer research, OP is just doubtful that this achieves it, as am I, as well as anyone who’s read good news about eradicating cancer in the past few decades. Most are duds or go nowhere even if initially promising, so…


  • The problem is the content being uploaded to these platforms serves a real and meaningful public, community purpose. Reddit has always been a knowledge base for a plethora of different subjects, YouTube has all sorts of content that has historical importance to the internet, as well as a trove of educational content that is unparalleled in size and quality.

    I take issue with that, because it’s not the company’s content, it’s just their platform. The content is vastly more important than the platform, but the companies act as if it’s theirs. They do everything based off what the community has built on their platforms, it’s their true essence and what actually attracts people.

    In the specific case of YouTube, I’d say that content is irreplaceable and indispensable. While it’s true that it is a privately owned platform and we don’t have much of a say on its direction, I truly believe the content is so important that the only viable path forward to prevent its loss, is to take said platform off private hands. I don’t believe it’ll ever happen, but it is what should happen, as it’s literally impossible to back up YouTube, just like it’s currently impossible to compete with YouTube.



  • I use mine whenever I want to use my M50Xs. I tried buds, twice. Galaxy buds and Sony XM4s, the XM4s fell into a pool and the galaxy buds were simply misplaced. The galaxy buds sounded like absolute trash while the XM4 were actually decent, but why would I prefer them over the M50X? Now I’m switching from my note 9 to the pixel 8 pro and I don’t know what I’ll be doing about the lack of headphone jack.

    My girlfriend has it even worse, her car only has AUX, no Bluetooth. I got her a Pixel 8 for Christmas, so she’ll lose the only way to put music in her car. I also don’t know what I’ll be doing about that.

    Honest take? We’ve got neural chips on our phones, we got cameras rivaling pro-level cameras, but we keep losing some very essential and basic features for no fucking reason. The headphone jack should’ve never been removed. Hell, the IR blaster should’ve never been removed, I’d kill for a high end phone with such things. Radio is another one, it’s never going away as a means of communication, but fuck me for thinking I should have an antenna for radio in a box full of antennas for everything else, right?

    Hey maybe I’m wrong about radio and it’s just unfeasible to provide good quality signal for all things in a 6 inch box. Maybe I’m wrong about the IR blaster somehow even though TVs, LED stripes, and garage doors still use IR. But it’s ridiculous to force no headphone jack as a trend that everyone just follows, all for pricier and shittier Bluetooth buds.

    We used to be able to fit all this shit into phones back then, there’s 0 reason to exclude them over size constraints now. If the reason is “butt fastah phowns”, my 5 year old note 9 still feels more than snappy enough. Maybe we should spend more time making our shit efficient in order to use less space for heat dissipation, as well as better battery life or less battery size for the same battery life. Seriously who needs the kind of computing power found on phones nowadays? Is it really worth it to sacrifice basic QOL functionality for more speed?



  • You’re absolutely right and it is something I sometimes fail to account for since it nourishes hopelessness in me. I do, however, believe that such empathy is developed and not something you’re born with. You see it in varying degrees by how much someone cares for their families, friends, their community, and really even themselves. Some just care about themselves, some care about their peers but not their communities, and some don’t care about themselves but would bend over backwards for others. Empathy for lives beyond our own species is something that would be nurtured just like empathy for other humans is.

    When I talk about our options as a species, I am inclined to believe that most of our species leans towards having empathic feelings for lives beyond our own species. It may just be a matter of hope that I’m reflecting on my comments, but it is also an evolutionary advantage for us to develop such empathy as we further develop our abilities to morph this world to our needs and wants, since we do depend on other species for almost everything.

    Maybe I’m intertwining the necessities of our species with our individual feelings over those necessities, but I would believe this moral conflict would surface for most of us, with the level of such moral conflict varying greatly from person to person. My previous comment mostly wonders of the possibility that a great number of us start to develop such moral conflict over more than just domesticated species or cute mammals or such.

    With regards to the trolley problem, you’re right. By me profiting from the atrocities of others, I’m a part of such atrocity. It’s a fact of more than just harvesting farm animals. It affects our economies, our climate, our biodiversity, our social norms and behaviors towards outsiders and minorities, as well as our digital lives. It’s a cop-out to just wash my hands from such actions and only hold myself responsible for my direct actions regardless of those of others that my benefit me, and that’s why I said it was a cognitive dissonance, one that I just have to live with of my own choosing.


  • I understand that people, especially children, are malleable into believing and doing horrible things, and it’s a fact that this will happen to many under Hamas or as a consequence of the ongoing conflict regardless of Hamas, but it’s also unfair to those hostages to assume that they’re already murderers. It’s a tragedy waiting to happen for multiple dimensions of reasons for many people involved in this entire conflict (wouldn’t you be radicalized if you saw your entire family covered in rubble or being treated like trash by other groups of people?), and it’s extremely unfortunate, but we can’t just instantly label them all as bad apples for something that may or may not happen to them, or that may or may not describe them currently. They’re still children, we can’t cast the dice on them, or we’re no different from those radicalized beyond common civil morality.



  • On one hand, animals are animals, so one should either object to eating all or not object to eating any.

    I feel like this is a sort of ironic dichotomy we humans find ourselves in due to our evolutionary development that lets us reflect on our actions, along with our empathy stemming from our understanding of suffering of life in general.

    On one hand, we are omnivores, we eat plants and animals, it’s not that we decided to eat animals, it’s that we’ve evolved to do so. Vegan diets end up relying on supplements and lots of hoop jumps to achieve the same results an omnivores diet would have. That, while commendable on those who try, shows us quite clearly that we’re going against our most fundamental evolutionary traits.

    On the other hand, we understand we are causing suffering to other beings in order to sustain ourselves. No matter how humane out treatment of such animals may become, it’s still something that we will struggle to accept, or that we will ignore outright to not have to struggle with the thought.

    It’s a terrible situation to find ourselves in, because that’s literally the solution life itself has come up with, we steal nutrients and energy from other life, period. Yet we understand we are denying other life forms their chance to life, and a lot of the time they suffer while being denied that chance. But what other solution is there? We haven’t come up with better solutions, and we may never do so. We defined a certain threshold for what we deem acceptable, some of us move that threshold, but none eliminate eating life entirely, because it’s not possible. Plants are still alive, fungi are still alive, bacteria are still alive, insects are still alive, and we never ever stop to think about them like we do our farm animals, we only stop to think about life that resembles our own. And that’s, unfortunately, necessary to not starve ourselves out of the equation.

    I wonder if we will ever solve this riddle for ourselves. Will we simply accept this forever as a given that some animals just have to suffer for our sake? Will we start growing our own meat, and declare the threshold to be “organisms without a complex neural system”? Will we be able to forego depending on other life entirely and develop our nutrition in factories or through biological modifications without even relying on other cellular organisms? Where will we draw the line next, and will we be able to satisfy our moral qualms?

    I can’t be for or against any of this, all I can do is hold my own actions to my own moral line and accept that everything else is just how things have to be due to the cruel reality of being alive. I’m unable to kill, and I’m convinced I’d first die than kill even a chicken to survive (or if I do, the guilt will eat me alive), but I eat chicken every day and I will continue to do so until the day I die, even though there’s a strong cognitive dissonance there, since I can’t really do much about it without compromising my own nutrition in some way, I can’t go against the very rules of life. It’s truly a cruel joke that life has played on us, forcing us to depend on taking life from other organisms to stay alive, while also allowing us to empathize with other life forms and enter such a dissonant state of mind. That’s just the torture of life, I guess.




  • We can agree about piracy being detrimental for sure! We just disagree on how detrimental it is vs corpo’s own actions.

    Regarding the donations, it’s “give whatever you want, even 0, and inly when I say we need new gear”, so I wouldn’t say it’s lost revenue since barely anyone donates and it all goes directly to covering part of the cost of new hard drives. I’ve asked for donations twice so far, and none of the times have seen enough donations to cover for 100% of equipment expenses. Just thought I’d clarify on the “donations” thing :)