I think I have about a 50% success rate in typing a multiline message without accidentally sending it early, having to edit / copy and delete the message and finish typing it before the recipient has a chance to read it, confusing both me and them in the process.
A similar frustration / reason for getting it wrong sometimes: in slack, the behaviour of shift+enter entirely reverses if you're inside a multi-line code block. If you normally have enter to send and shift+enter to line break, then it'll do the opposite while inside a code block.
This is useful if you're trying to type verbatim inside a block, it's less so if you have a strong muscle-memory to shift+enter and do so while in the code block and find yourself sending half a message.
I also use a mixture of teams, discord and slack, and while slack does allow for customisations, I'd always rather get used to defaults to avoid having to configure on every machine I use.
There isn't quite a consistent well agreed default for the behaviour across applications, and that too is a source of frustration.
So I've taken to typing up any long messages in a PM to myself, and then copying that out to my intended target once I'm ready.
Indeed, it was browsing settings which made me realise the root cause of why I was accidentally sending so many messages.
But changing settings on platforms which I need to use across different computers and accounts is also cause for frustration, so I try to adapt to the defaults, no matter how frustrating.
> I think I have about a 50% success rate in typing a multiline message without accidentally sending it early, having to edit / copy and delete the message and finish typing it before the recipient has a chance to read it, confusing both me and them in the process.
That won't change if you had a different dedicated key for "move one line down but don't send `enter` keycode". You'd still accidentally hit `enter` due to muscle memory.
After all, if you could get past muscle memory, you'd simply press Shift while hitting Enter.
From the wiki[0]: "It is believed to be the first compound to have formed in the universe"
They created the molecule under space conditions:
"The experiment was carried out at the Cryogenic Storage Ring (CSR) at the MPIK in Heidelberg — a globally unique instrument for investigating molecular and atomic reactions under space-like conditions [...] They found that, contrary to earlier predictions, the rate at which this reaction proceeds does not slow down with decreasing temperature [...] Since the concentrations of molecules such as HeH⁺ and molecular hydrogen (H2 or HD) played an important role in the formation of the first stars, this result brings us closer to solving the mystery of their formation."
If RewriteCond (or any other Apache directive) doesn't behave as documented, that's a correctness issue.
If you use RewriteCond as the basis of securing your website, that's a security issue for you.
If it's a security issue for a significant number of users, or if the documentation recommends using the directive for a security role, then it's also a security issue for the product itself.
I don't see how it becomes irrelevant. It's as if I have a door in the entrance to my building that serves multiple purposes, such as holding the company logo and keeping the A/C-controlled air in, and then someone smashes the door with a sledgehammer. The fact that all of the door's functionality stopped working doesn't make the security aspect of not having a door irrelevant.
A better analogy is that you decided to replace your door with a new one, and before installation you notice that it is smashed to pieces and can't be used.
I'll take that. But in this case it's even worse, as apparently they never bothered to check if the door is in one piece and just screwed the smashed pieces onto the hinges regardless. So now it's not working as a door neither functionally nor security-wise, but it took someone visiting from outside to see that the emperor has no door.
Interesting potential use case for AI: automatically rewrite the code in a book like this for python 3 vs 2. I know that’s not trivial, but seems like a very trainable use case
We don't need to cram AI into every possible technical corner in existence. It shouldn't be the first solution suggested for every problem that arises.
There are already Python 2 to Python 3 converters that don't use any AI. It's usually unnecessary.
For being a relatively new language, there are almost no "entry level" positions.
Just take a look at https://rustjobs.dev/. Most of them are well paid remote jobs, but they are asking for +3 years of "professional experience" with rust, "with a proven track record of building and deploying production-quality code", and more. Hell, iirc, i saw one asking for proof of contributions to the rust repo (eg, being a core maintainer).
edit: to be fair, i saw one position a while ago asking to be willing to learn rust
> For being a relatively new language, there are almost no "entry level" positions.
Isn’t this a fairly well-known phenomenon though?
- new language makes waves. The people who picked it up early do some impressive stuff.
- early early adopter companies either snap them, or internally make the choice to learn it too. In turn, they do some stuff with it.
- gets a reputation for being the hot new thing. Other companies “want in on it”- they want to be able to do the fancy cool things the other places did, but they don’t have the patience, time or culture to grow it themselves so they aim to hire out seniors and everyone with lots of prior experience. <——- many orgs are here.
- proliferates enough that it’s well and truly mainstream. Also known as the “hire 1000 Java devs and throw bodies at stuff” stage of hiring and availability. Python, Node, Java, PHP, etc are here.
