1,581 karma · joined October 22, 2022
It reads like someone losing an editor war and taking the conversation to some other medium where the people involved in the process have no way to address, let alone present facts or even their case.
That's just speculation to try to mitigate a colossal screwup.
This is not the first time when Spanish railway companies are caught trying to cover up the consequences of massive incompetence. For instance, the infamous Santiago de Compostela train disaster[1] was attributed to a careless train conductor going over the speed limit to impress a girl, which was a very convenient scapegoat to both ADIF and Renfe, but in truth the root cause as that both companies failed to deploy a mandatory speed monitoring and control system, which has been standard for decades.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiago_de_Compostela_derailm...
I don't agree. This is a colossal blunder. Train clearance is a very basic trait of each railway line, along with track gauge. Ordering trains that you cannot even operate in your railway lines is perhaps the biggest screwup any railway operator can possibly make.
I'm not sure you fully understand the magnitude of this sort of screwup. Catching the problem in the design stage actually means it took the manufacturer to double-check the contract to realize his client did a gross unrecoverable mistake that resulted in their orders being fundamentally incompatible with their intended use.
The only clickbaity aspect of this article was tacking another notorious episode of Spanish mishaps which was their submarine design being fundamentally broken. It reads more like a cheap jab at Spain than anything else.
What's the rationale of providing this as a random set of code snippets instead of putting together a library?
I tried picking up Objective-C a few years ago, but the atrocious docs needlessly made the whole experience unbearable and too much of a battle to make the experience worth it.
You're willing to go the extent of accusing people you never met nor have any idea who and how they are of being incompetent at a job you don't even know just to preserve your cognitive dissonance.
> Important enough that your manager wants to secure you as part of the team.
Straight out of college I worked at a place where they handed me a 1 year contract where I was paid below market rate. When I was reaching the end of my contract I asked for a meeting to review my salary. I had a meeting but it's outcome was a firm "we want you here but we will only offer you the same pay". I sat on that and on the day before my auto renewal would kick in I handed my resignation. I was immediately pulled into a meeting with my manager where they promply offered me over 20% pay hike.
Do you honestly believe I only gained importance the moment I resigned? They were the same people who said a few days earlier in no unclear terms I was not getting a raise.
The most ridiculous aspect of your unfounded personal belief is this idea there's this universal performance evaluation law where every manager and every boss is binded to hand over rigorous pay adjustments reflecting anyone's performance, and that there is no such thing as being exploited. Back in the real world, the whole economy revolves around people trying to get more value while paying less, and there's a almost universal pressure to not only eliminate any kind of leverage from employees but also make them perfectly replaceable cogs in their machine. You are pressured to not discuss salary with your peers, let alone other employees. You get what you are paid, and you should feel happy for it. If you work hard that just means your boss is getting more returns over his low investment.
Never happens. I have no idea where you got this from, but someone fooled you really hard.
Doesn't this represent reinventing the wheel?
No it isn't. The guy's reputation is reason to give the benefit of the doubt, but either his claims are proven sound or else they are just as bullshit if Joe blow himself made them.
Why do you believe that it's desirable to push at best unfounded assumptions and at worse questionable propaganda?
If you were serious or had devoted any thought into the issue you wouldn't even consider the silliness of framing a $5billion loss as a lifestyle issue.
A chat bot looks like a great help to parse through huge volumes of documentation.
If the chatbot built around the docs outputs garbage, that is a telltale sign that the documentation was garbage to start with.
Just because people started developing clever chatbots that misfire, let's not fool ourselves into believing documentation was a solved problem and all docs were squeaky clean.
People write code that is hard to read.
English is a great language, but some people write stuff down in good plain English that is hard to parse. The same goes for any programming language. If you want to write code that's hard to read, that's what you will get.
I'm sure there is no good way of getting the news.
Which way do you feel its the best way to be notified you're being fired?
I wonder if you hold this level of rigour towards your own failings and shortcomings, or if this desire is directed exclusively at everyone besides yourself.
To be fair, it's only a pair of random internet forum posters who are complaining that this is not enough. There are plenty of people in this discussion arguing otherwise.
It doesn't make sense to accuse someone of not feeling the economic impact of a downturn at all while downplaying the fact that they actually lost $5billion.
Such a strawman right in the leading hypothesis. What makes it so hard for you to face the actual criticism directed at crypto? Do you find it so indefensible that you prefer to avoid it altogether?
This blend of arguments is either terribly ignorant or disingenuous.
The definition of money is not "something that might have value to someone". Money has a very concrete definition, which lies in three key traits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money
Point out exactly which of these key functions do you believe any crypto thing complies with.
I can go to the local market and exchange a bag of potatoes for some lettuce.
A potato is still not money.
In other words, "please don't scare away the remaining suckers."
That's quite the amusing comment, given the fact that crypto-bros reiterate that crypto is somehow money in spite of if repeatedly failing each and every single trait that makes something a currency.
Now, when someone points out that fact, here we are with a newfound passion for argumentative formalities as if you can make this fact go away by petitioning the ref.
The time tax is paid by not delivering a feature. Architecture is supposed to be there to help you, not fail deadlines.
Also, it seems you completely failed to read or get what I wrote. My point was that if a PR delivers a feature without defects then your team is far better off if you accept the PR and refactor later when you can spare the time then it is if you throw a hissy fit and refuse to get the feature done if you don't get your way. You are paid to create value which is in delivering features and fixing bugs. Architecture is supposed to be there to help you.
Think about it for a second. If your architectural purity demands a hefty refactor, is that a good justification to postpone a bug fix or delivering a feature? No, it isn't.
> The problem is people don't want to expend the very minor extra amount of effort.
Except that most time it isn't minor.
You have to pass interfaces throughout a bunch of components, which require updating all sorts of tests, and result in a large code footprint.
> After a while you have a giant festering pile of shit (...)
That only happens if you're incompetent at your job and fail to do the most basic maintenance tasks in your code base.
Look at what you're trying to claim. It's supposedly easy and trouble-free to put together a PR that respects your personal notion of what the software architecture should be. Yet, the work to refactor code that breaks it is so insurmountable that you're no longer able to refactor it back to shape?
Which one is it then?
It looks like the FANG engineer you tried to badmouth had a firmer grasp on things and on what it matters the most than you do.
I disagree. Microsoft's WPF to me feels like GUI development done right. Designing UI components is a first-class citizen and even has WYSIWYG support, rendering data with observers is also a first class citizen with it's data binding feature, styling is also supported right out of the box, etc.
In theory frameworks like React sound nice, but once developers start to pour hooks left and right and add conditionals and move service client calls into trees then at least to me it quickly becomes an unreadable and unmaintainable mess.
Qt is pretty good to setup a widget tree, but it's model-view implementation feels broken and not thought through, specially with tables and trees.
Also, accessibility tools like Microsoft's inspect[1] already allow people to see an app's widget tree.
With Qt it's also trivial to put together a tree view that renders your app's widget tree.
Qt also provides infrastructure to unit test widgets.[2]
Qt also uses UI form files to allow WYSIWYG access to their UI components.
From reading the article, I was left with the impression that the author's struggles with a Qt codebase was that he had little to no experience with desktop development in general and Qt in particular, and experienced issues trying to get his bearings.
[1] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/winauto/insp...
That's wisdom, and a clear way to make everyone around you better.
I'd add that being humble should also play a role. We have tastes and insights and preferences, and it's not productive to block PRs because of subjective, non-critical aspects. A working CICD pipeline lowers the cost of pushing a change, this we can always revisit things. It's far more important to have a team that trusts each other and feels confident to push changes fast than it is to have gatekeepers whose role ends up being one of needlessly putting breaks on a team for no justifiable reason.