Most QA titles have very little to do even with QA itself. If QA doesn’t start at ideation, you’re not doing QA.

Same weird non-sequiturs chain that foobar2000 author uses.

They could’ve honestly said “I don’t wanna”, and that would be the end of it.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t this allow one to represent virtually any resource as a mail inbox/outbox with access through a generic mail app?

I’m working with a specialized healthcare company right now, and this looks like a way to represent patient treatments data as an intuitive timeline of messages. With a local offline cache in case of outages. Security of local workstations is a weak point of course, but when is it not…

Don’t compare someone’s highlight reel to your behind the scenes.

I once convinced someone that they are actually doing a great job by sharing my struggles and showing that they are not an impostor. They now outshine me and will go to even greater heights.

And while that one episode of dealing with burnout and impostor syndrome is a drop in the ocean of their persistence, it’s a great illustration to how misleading comparison to others is.

PS: Also, if you have ADHD, you’re nearsighted in time. That doesn’t only mean “you can’t plan well”, it means “your life looks like a hazy blob, where others see a complex scenery”. And that can be devastating when doing a comparison. Be kind to yourself, be kind to others.

I’m giggling like a kid that finally got the candy from the top drawer. It’s beautiful.

If you push tickets - software developer at best.

If you iteratively solve problems by learning, building models, and trying hard to break said models until a sufficiently robust one remains - welcome to engineering.

If you’re a software engineer, you’re applying an engineering process to the field of software development. Adding a shopping cart to a blog can be a perfectly sound solution to the problem at hand.

Engineering becomes more important at scale, but scale itself doesn’t define engineering.

Sorry, but you don’t get to claim groupthink while ignoring state of Apache when Nginx got released.

Apache was a mess of modules with confusing documentation, an arsenal of foot guns, and generally a PITA to deal with. Nginx was simpler, more performant, and didn’t have the extra complexity that Apache was failing to manage.

My personal first encounter was about hosting PHP applications in a multiuser environment, and god damn was nginx a better tool.

Apache caught up in a few years, but by then people were already solving different problems. Would nginx arrive merely a year later, it would get lost to history, but it arrived exactly when everyone was fed up with Apache just the right amount.

Nowadays, when people choose a web server, they choose one they are comfortable with. With both httpds being mature, that’s the strongest objective factor to influence the choice. It’s not groupthink, it’s a consequence of concrete events.

Don’t learn Elixir to replace Ruby. Learn it to enjoy OTP and BEAM.

I would love to join a cool company that’s willing to accept a dev that can transition fast. However, most of Elixir job listings I find are gambling or crypto. And I ain’t gonna touch those.

When people say “pointers are hard”, they mean “I have no idea where the star goes and now an ampersand is also implicated”.

They still can’t hyperfocus on an irrelevant topic on a five times removed tangent. ADHD for life… literally.

That’s not how evolution works. Traits don’t evolve “to be useful”. Anyone who claims a goal to evolution has failed to grasp evolution.

Evolution converges on local maxima by selecting for traits that are good enough to continuously propagate through the filter of individuals death. For sexual reproduction, if a trait is not bad enough to continuously reduce carriers’ presence in a mating pool, it can and will remain.

It’s survival of not inadequate enough.

Eh, there’s plenty of socialism in practice. But English speaking discourse is dominated by fans of dictators that actively hunted socialists in twentieth century.

Good news, TDD is methylphenidate of software development!

Wealth itself is a stronger predictor for future wealth than individual performance.

That quote of mine doesn’t talk about success, nor wealth itself for that matter. You’re ignoring everything in the message to argue against a statement that was never made in the first place.

Please reflect on the fact that until you joined the discussion, we didn’t talk about equating success to luck.

Afterwards, you will likely notice that your jackpot argument reinforces mine.

Millionaires often worked for their money. Billionaires often worked for their first millions too. Problem is, difference between a billion and a million is about a billion.

On the other side of the argument, the amount of people that work harder and smarter than any given billionaire and have nothing is simply staggering. If it wasn’t down to luck, they’d all be billionaires.

So yeah, it is dumb luck. Randomness is not uniform, and someone ends up being close to the time and place of a local spike.

Turns out, I do need therapy.

They are left to the fascism, that they equate everyone who doesn’t agree with them, in a very special way - both are ultra right, but tankies are on the left of a spectrum orthogonal to the one the rest of us usually employ.

Oh, I’m not an academic, just an ADHD poster child. Historic weapons keep appearing on my radar for the past few years and I repeatedly find myself spending time on researching what I’ll never practice.

I try to find and share sources for that reason - they allow others to skip incorrect assumptions I made along the way.