uk_programmer

> As one of the comments in the linked issue points out, dropping IE11 means they can also start using basic JS constructs, like Array.prototype.forEach.

Array.prototype.forEach is supported from IE9.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...

EDIT: It is the nodelist api that isn't supported in IE. Not Array.prototype.forEach.

Quite a lot of these basic JS constructs even if they are missing (most aren't in IE11) are very easily polyfilled.

Personally I think it is fine that they drop support if they don't feel the need to support it. Bootstrap 4 isn't going to vanish.

Lord of War is a pretty decent movie.

I just had a look at the dom implementation and it similar to what I have done in typescript. There is only so many ways you can skin a cat.

If you are wishing to do something similar yourself it is worth looking at hyperscript source code:

https://github.com/hyperhype/hyperscript

People complain about 30%. That is kinda standard in most affiliate style relationships. The subscription is also negligible amount IMO.

> No one said facts aren't important. They said facts shouldn't be the focus.

Splitting hairs.

> And what's with "society today"? When was society any different?

About 20 years speech codes and communication frameworks were mocked openly and treated with scorn (as they should be). Today not so much.

> There are worse things. People take a whole semester course on compilers and most don't use any of that knowledge. The majority of technical courses I took in undergrad were never used for anything at work. The communications workshop has been more valuable than those.

This is a general misunderstanding by people such as yourself why they teach you these things. The first being "this is how this works under the hood" and the second is that many other problems might have similar patterns to them. It teaches you how to think in a particular way and break down problems. But alas this was lost on you.

> And about those bigger problems at work? Try solving them with poor communication.

1) Just speak to people. like adults. 2) Be honest. 3) If someone doesn't seems to know what they mean just say "Does that make sense?" and assume you made an error.

It is very simple.

> Because you have to deal with these people at work. I mean, if you're a solo developer who doesn't work in a team, then your stance is fine. If people don't want to work with you on a project, it becomes your problem. The world isn't going to change to conform to how you thinks adults "should" behave.

It isn't about how I think adults should behave. It how the rest of the world thinks adults should behave. You are there to do a job.

> This is classic way to deny yourself of agency and put the onus on others. I once told a manager of mine to stop using the word "should" - it's a way of saying "I don't want to deal with this - it is someone else's fault".

Not at all. I've accepted there things I can control (myself) and there are things I largely cannot control (other people). You seem to framing this like I go around being verbally abusive to my co-workers.

> And you are willing to disclose this in an interview?

I am a contractor. I am brought in to do specific jobs. I don't spend years working at the same place. If I don't like it somewhere I just don't extend the contract.

I also don't particular respect lifers and company men. But I tend to keep that to myself.

> You conveniently ignored the rest of my comment where the perception this happens is fairly common. No one is acting hostile, but the outcome is similar.

Because the premise was a nonsense.

> I took a two day workshop on communications at work (not NVC). They did a survey of the class: How many people think facts, and not feelings should be the focus of a discussion? And how many felt the opposite (focus should be on feelings, not facts)

That is endemic with society today is that people don't seem to think facts important.

Also a two day communication workshop on how to talk to people. You have bigger problems than how to communicate at work.

> You've already alienated half of the population. Good luck at resolving a conflict with them.

And that is their problem. Why is it mine? If you are an adult you should be able to talk about things as a matter of fact. If you cannot you are not an adult. Some people don't grow up past 16 years old. That is their failing and not mine.

> But I'm crazy to think that half the population will spend the effort to get there. A big chunk of them don't view it as a desirable goal. It's a laudable aspiration for me to try to make them think that way, but unless I want to make it my life's mission, I need to focus on getting results now, and that means discussing their emotions, and realizing that in doing so I'm not going for an inferior approach.

Sure. You have a choice as to whether you want to work with those people or not. I don't like working with those people so I minimise the amount of time I spend working with them if possible.

> Oh, and people who say feelings are irrelevant? Let me completely dismiss them in a meeting and suggest mildly that they're perspective likely is due to a lack of competence. Most of them will not perform well for the rest of the meeting. Quite a few of them will have issues with me in the long run.

There is a difference between openly hostile (which is what your example is) and talking about things as a matter of fact.

It is more simple than that. I think it is snake oil. I believe in anti-fragile and being objective.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifragile

I don't particularly like speech codes, I don't like "communication frameworks" and I am enough of an arsehole (because I don't care if people like me, and ironically that is why a lot of people like me) to call it out. Obviously you can't go around being generally abusive, but this is another insidious thing that we really don't need in an office.

Because each library does one thing only and it is easy to understand that particular abstraction.

With a framework you not only have to learn how build things in the framework (which takes a lot of time to become truly proficient) I also have to build what I am already supposed to be building.

I find personally that frameworks

* Simple things hard. Hard things simple.

* Anything outside of the happy flow they present to you in the docs is a major PITA.

* I frequently find myself scrabbling around for information when I need to override how the framework works in a particular scenario.

* They nullfy much of your pre-existing knowledge e.g. I am described at a lot of places as a JavaScript guy in the team, because I get JavaScript. When I use Angular or React, most that is irrelevant. It doesn't really help me.

If I am just using well established patterns + my existing knowledge of the programming language and environment. I can normally put something together myself that does just what I need it to do and I use a library for things like date time calculations or Ajax requests or something else that is mundane.

No my own bias isn't a feeling. It is how I tend to think.

The fact of the matter that most problems need to be solved in a manner which is directed by the facts. What someone else feels is almost completely irrelevant. We need to achieve <Whatever>, we need to do the following. When does feelings really come into that process? It doesn't.

I find it completely mind boggling that "root cause analysis" has something to do with someone's feelings. It has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Unfortunately not. However I can give you some pointers.

I've basically have an implementation of Observer Pattern, PubSub and I have written something similar to hyperscript.

https://github.com/hyperhype/hyperscript

https://webdevstudios.com/2019/02/19/observable-pattern-in-j...

https://codesandbox.io/s/vqq4vvxl20?view=preview

I would send that person home and just accept that things will not get done as quickly or find additional resource from somewhere else. I solved the problem by accepting the facts of the matter (they are upset and are not going to be productive). I didn't need to go through all this other nonsense.

> In my experience feelings-type problems are significantly more numerous than technical problems to resolve dispassionately.

That is because people don't think about things objectively which they should be doing. But I am an objectivist so I suppose I am biased.

In the scope we are talking about (solving a problem). Their feelings are mostly irrelevant. Their feelings are their own responsibility not others.

Going back to the facts and going through them dispassionately is the only way to solve a problem properly.

> The WHO includes emotional and psychological in the definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence

And? They have also redefined violence to mean something else. It doesn't mean they are correct in doing so and in no way does this address my complaint.

In the link you posted the very first line:

> Violence is "the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy."

That is the definition and that is what most people think when they hear the term violence. Your link itself says it is a unconventional definition. One that I do not care for. So both the WHO and this acronym as far as I am concerned is redefining violence.

> That said, I do prefer the AKA of "Compassionate Communication"

Again. This is more newspeak. It just being empathetic. I absolutely abhor people inventing their own terms when there is already suitable word.

Why would you need to know their feelings to find the actual root cause of a problem? You need to know the facts and then make a decision based on them.

The very acronym itself redefines violence to something it isn't which is always a red flag.

This all sounds like the worst parts of working in a lot of modern offices where people don't speak frankly and instead everything is done through this sort of political office speak which is lets be honest here all about politics and not about solving problems.

When I read things like this. I find it very insidious.

> Once your app has some "click X and A, B and C should update" logic you quickly descend into a tangle of tracking dependencies by hand.

I managed to deal with moderately difficult scenarios with about 7 files in typescript. I ended up using webpack but that is a dev-dependency which doesn't really count.

I built this for me, but if you employ some basic patterns and use something that is a little more powerful than JavaScript it isn't that hard. I also very rarely ever use a DOM selectors in my JavasScript.

I don't particularly like frameworks these days because you end up spending more time dealing with the framework than actually getting things done.

> "Hate Speech is not Free Speech".

Yes this old chestnut. This has been used to trample over our rights in the UK.

With regards to IE specific code. Generally the approach I would take would:

1) Code normally and check compatibility of functions with the minimum version of IE. I then either polyfill the browser (if I understand the polyfill, some polyfills are quite large). Where I don't understand what the polyfill is doing or it is quite large (more than 40 or 50 lines) I then implement a specific work around and try to put it that logic in a separate function e.g. for dataset on Elements I have a function that detects whether data set exists and then just uses setAttribute with some regex munging as 90% of the time I only need to read and write dataset values and I rarely care about dom mutations.

2) Regarding styling. My approach is to that I style everything up and then use specific overrides for things that browsers can't do.

I also tend to avoid specific IE builds as you end up supporting almost two code bases. However I have years of intuition of what will and won't work in outdated browsers. However I appreciate that this isn't always possible or desirable depending on frameworks / libs used etc.

> Then there’s Zoombombing, where trolls take advantage of open or unprotected meetings and poor default settings to take over screen-sharing and broadcast porn or other explicit material. The FBI this week warned users to adjust their settings to avoid trolls hijacking video calls.

I haven't really been following what is going on with Zoom. I have been vaguely aware of quite a few security issues.

However today I was linked youtube live stream from a friend on discord of some guy trolling random school classes while by pretending to be some sort of African Warlord. While his act was quite initially amusing and tbh harmless, it certainly didn't leave a positive impression of the software in my mind.

As others have said here. This history has been retconned quite a bit. TBH people talk about the lawsuit back in 2001, my memory is hazy but outside of the internet it was barely spoken of.

IE was a much better browser than Netscape and until Firefox, Mozilla wasn't really used outside of Linux distros.

> For a long time, all projects were IE-first, then you would worry about niche upstarts like Firefox.

This isn't quite true. Many of the early adopters of Firefox was web devs and enthusiasts and typically I developed on there first (mainly because of firebug) and as I went along I checked that IE worked. However I started my career just after IE7 was released.

> It wasn't until the launch of Chrome and Safari and the resurgence of Apple and OSX that there was any plausible alternative.

No not really (at least not in the UK). I noticed things shifting after the prevalence of smart phones. Chrome came out much later than Firefox and things were already starting to shift in Firefox's favour (non-IE browsers were getting upto 30% of traffic).

> IE wasn't "extra work", it was the primary objective.

That really wasn't my experience at all. But as I said I started my career near the end of IE's dominance.

What killed IE (I am not a IE hater) is the amount of extra work you had to invest to get a site to work. I've recently done some work that had to work with versions of IE9-11. I consider myself pretty good with writing front end code that will work with IE and there are many gotchas that I had forgotten about. The debugger is painful to use even on IE11.

I work from home for about a year. I found it quite hard at first. I think working part remote is preferrable (under normal situations I appreciate at the moment it isn't). However this is what I found worked for me:

* Having a routine. Getting up to work, commuting, working, going to gym, eating dinner, relaxing etc. is a routine. I find it gives me some structure to the day. If you are working remote I would encourage you to work out a routine and stick to it.

* You need to have a separate work space and have "working hours". I have a completely separate PC and office setup for work. Once I am out of that office it helps me mentally switch off from work. A friend of mine who runs his own business rents a small office (these can be inexpensive). However I am freelancer / contractor and this can be considered a business expensive.

* Make sure you go out for a break during the day. Make this part of your work routine.

* I typically have to drive about 1hr 30 minutes to the office. So that is typically a commute of 3 hours everyday. Doing this 5 times a week is tiring and adds up to 15 hours each week. That is 2 working days. However I do like the social aspects of an office. So being able to go in maybe 2 days a week, talk through solutions work face to face helps. But obviously not possible at the moment.

Microsoft did a similar thing with ASP.NET site. There were quite a lot of old articles for ASP.NET WebForms that were really good references or if you were working with someone that was new to WebForms you could just point them to a particular article and say "read through this, this has almost everything covered on how to do this".

Very frustrating.

IIRC correctly the 1% and 0.1% frame times tell you how the frame rate varies i.e. if most of the time it is running at 60FPS and every so often tanks to 1 FPS. So some average FPS numbers might look okay but the frame rate might be tanking like every minute.

> Not in my experience, though admittedly I live in London.

Well outside of London it is generally awful. TBH London might as well be another planet when compared to the rest of the England (same goes for Manchester and Birmingham, I stay far away).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46444109

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/news/britains-pothole-probl...

I currently live near Manchester and before that Hampshire. So that is two opposite ends of the country pretty much and it is the problem there. So my experience seems to reflect that of what is reported.

>I'm sure you realize that council tax is supposed to pay for a lot of things, and that council incomes are way down over the past 10 years.

So? It has been like this since the late 90s. I remember my father complaining about it since then. In anycase the roads are awful.

> The local government should own the "pipes" and rent them out.

This is essentially what happens in the UK. BT have to rent out lines to everyone else.

Guess what? Almost all the ISPs are capped at the speed at whatever BT can provide. The only company I believe in the UK that goes above those speeds is Virgin which almost twice the speed at almost the same price as the competition.

I used to live in the countryside and until there was fibre installed the speeds were terrible (less than 2mb/s). State own broadband isn't magically better.

> Some people are down on "socialism" without realizing they love it. We have socialized police, fire, sewage, (usually) water and road repair plus some others I'm forgetting.

In the UK our council tax pay are supposed to pay for road repair. The roads in the UK are awful. There are pot holes everywhere and I've had 3 punctures last year.

The toll roads (the few of them that exist in the UK) don't have anyone on them. Take 30 minutes a day off my journey time in the car and the road surface is perfect.

The porn ban didn't happen. Even with the "don't go to the pirate bay or we send you a nasty letter" legislation, they stop bothering doing that because nobody paid any attention and threw the letter in the bin.

You didn't address anything. It is absolutely infuriating with people like yourself that say they addressed a complaint and they clearly haven't (I've re-read the thread several times) and then tell me to go and read some marxist pamphlet.

This is ridiculous. Goodbye.

> This is still a misunderstanding, sorry.

No it isn't. You are constantly using the term value when you should be using the term cost. The monetary value of something is largely subjective and is dependant on whoever is purchasing, the cost of something is objective.

To someone that cycles everywhere the price of petrol is always too high because a bicycle doesn't need petrol.

For example there was Head and Shoulders shampoo. When they first introduced it nobody bought it because it was too cheap. People just assumed it didn't work. When they increased the price people started buying it. Tell me how the LTV explains that? It doesn't.

The LTV doesn't explain the price of Art, It doesn't explain the second hand market. There are all sorts of things the LTV doesn't explain.

> In your hypothetical, the price of oil would nosedive for a while as long as there was over investment in getting it out of the ground that would be wasted if it wasn’t sold low. This is just a higher supply. But at some point, the lower demand for plastics, etc would use that up, leading to a steady state - one in which oil would again be sold at its value, its labor cost. It can’t be sold for less long term because otherwise the people digging it up and selling it would make a loss on doing that.

What happens if plastic is replaced by something else?

> also yes, capitalism drives down the labor cost of things through innovation or lowering workers’ living conditions. yes that lowers their value (labor value) according to LTV. that’s fine and not only consistent with but essential to LTV and results in, yes, lower prices longterm.

Yes that is because the labour market itself is subject to supply and demand. If there was no oil tomorrow, there would be no need to pay for the oil derrick workers. Their worth in that market would be nothing. They would be out of a job.

As I said in another reply here. Go to Total Jobs in the UK (it just happens to be the site I use) and search for C# developer in Manchester. The going rate for ASP.NET developers in £350-450 per day. The rate for Angular JS is £500-750 per day (the last time I looked). Why is that? It is because many companies are building single page applications and there are less Angular JS developers. So to attract talent they have to raise their rates accordingly.

I can program in python. There isn't one single Python job in my area (that is advertised at least). If I knew only Python I wouldn't be able to get a contract because there is no demand for it.

> But at some point, the lower demand for plastics, etc would use that up, leading to a steady state - one in which oil would again be sold at its value, its labor cost. It can’t be sold for less long term because otherwise the people digging it up and selling it would make a loss on doing that.

The materials that produce plastic are a by product of crude oil refinery. So in this scenario plastic would get very expensive to produce, people wouldn't pay for it and manufacturers would just find another material to build things with. If it is uneconomic to drill for oil, they would just stop drilling for oil.

LTV doesn't explain any of this. Market forces do.

> two further things. first, yes, LTV doesn’t talk about temporary supply-demand price drops. that’s not the point of it or in its scope or what it’s useful for. that’s fine. it has many other different useful conclusions unrelated to determining the exact price of a commodity at a given time under given market conditions.

Right so it doesn't explain things accurately. When things aren't accurately described by theory, then the theory is incorrect and must be either modified or you have to find an alternative explanation.

LTV doesn't explain it (as you have admitted). Market forces do.

> second: I mean this in good faith. you have expressed the same misconception a couple times now. Please read Wage Labour And Capital, it’s a short pamphlet written for 19th century working class people. It’s very readable and if after reading it, you still think LTV is invalid, you might be able to express why more clearly. However I think you might be surprised.

I don't think I really need to. You have continually ignored that things are only worth what people are willing to pay for them and haven't addressed it. Additionally you can't seem to distinguish the difference between the price that something is sold for and the cost of its production.

Pretend there was a new power source was invented tomorrow that didn't require oil, was as energy dense, was as portable and was 100 times cheaper. The value of oil would decrease and you might not be able to sell it at the cost or at all. Oil would become worthless again as cars, powerstations would be replaced with ones that used this new energy source. There wouldn't be any demand for it. There would still be a labour cost associated into extracting oil that was never sold.

Even if you didn't accept that as realistic. Sure competition would drive down the price. However people would be finding ways to produce it for cheaper. They may pay people less, they might find way of producing it with less people involved.

LTV can't explain any of this. The labour market itself is driven by market forces.