JavaScript
Why is the JavaScript in the screen shot all in caps? It's case-sensitive. You could eccentrically decide to have your variables that way, but reserved words and global values like "window" won't work.
2807 publicly visible posts • joined 28 Jun 2010
Best of luck, Andrew.
And although I'm eight years too late, I nearly bust something when I read about the Mystique school of Javascript development, where coders are forbidden from ever checking the return value of a function.
Most of the comments here centre on the responsibility of local or central government to repair potholes. But when you try to claim for pothole damage you learn that their responsibility is actually to exercise some kind of diligence. In other words, if they can prove they've inspected the road within living memory, tough luck.
I drove over a hole in the M25 that was sufficient to destroy a 2-week old tyre by cutting it through to the webbing. You'd think this an open-and-shut case - it's not like you can dodge potholes at 70 mph. The response to my claim was "we're not liable because we inspect the road surface and take care of it", with no indication when it was last inspected, and no suggestion how the hole magically appeared. Perhaps it's something to do with building motorways out of cheese.
What boggles my mind is the thought of a console that executes commands the moment they're entered, without waiting for the user to click 'run' or press F5 or whatever.
That's what consoles do. If it's a console rather than some kind of GUI there won't be anything to click, and function keys probably won't do anything. This is so you can use them in a plain-vanilla terminal.
That said, some databases distinguish between the statement terminator (usually ';') and the action command (e.g. '/' at the start of a line in the appalling SQL*Plus or, IIRC, '/g' in MySQL). But that wouldn't help in the present case as the paste buffer would probably contain the action commands too.
Not disagreeing with your post, but I have to take exception to "tree homicide"*.
Paper is made from trees that are grown as a crop. When we use less paper, the result is fewer trees, not more. Nobody suggests we should save wheat plants by eating less bread (though in my case that might be a good idea).
* That should probably be "arboricide".
One of the departments in the company where I worked many years ago used to copy all their spreadsheets on to floppy disks which they would then lock in a filing cabinet. The data they were copying was stored on a VMS file server which was subject to a rigorous nightly backup. The backup tapes were kept in the sort of fire safe that would probably survive a nuclear strike, and copies for long-term archiving were stored off-site.
But it's so comforting to know you have a floppy disk in a tin drawer.
In my world virtually all crashes are caused by human error... That is what these vehicles are being designed to reduce
The main types of human error that cause crashes are inattention, distraction, overconfidence, intoxication and impaired visibility. What doesn't cause many crashes is complete misinterpretation of the context. That's because we're using a perceptual system that's had millions of years of optimisation for our physical world, and driving in an environment that's been modified to accommodate the limitations of our perceptual system when controlling motor vehicles at speed.
Everything I read about autonomous vehicles makes it clear that they are a long way from this degree of general perception. For example, experienced drivers can infer the direction of an invisible road ahead by checking the line of telegraph posts or trees, and on country lanes at night they become aware of an oncoming car by the loom of its headlights long before they see it.
It's the sort of idea that could only have been dreamed up in a country full of grid-pattern towns and wide, straight highways. In 1911 somebody drove a Ford Model T up Ben Nevis to prove its capability. I can think of plenty of drives in Europe I'd like to see an autonomous car complete before I trust it.
Companies that outsource development to monster consultancies are both lazy and deluded.
Deluded, because they imagine that the consultancy has special access to a massive pool of talent that the company doesn't have. The opposite is true: read the comments here to find out whether people like working for consultancies.
Lazy, because they can't be bothered to run their own project.
I know! For that kind of money you can get into a a portable (laptop) workstation.
It's curious that bling never made it to real computers*. Back in the heyday of desktop workstations I used to wonder if there was a market opportunity building managerial PCs with mahogany cases and brass keys (that being the fashionable office style for the upper echelons at the time).
Of course, the real mark of status was to have a workstation that was never powered on. Your assistant printed any incoming emails and you dictated responses. Does this still happen? We know Trump does his own tweeting, but that's probably because of his amazingly powerful brain.
* Unless someone knows otherwise...
The trouble with repeated confirmations ("Are you sure?", "Are you really sure?", "Have you actually thought this through?" and so on) is that they don't actually induce careful consideration. It tends to be more a case of Y-Y-Y-Y-ohshit".
A better approach is something like "Please type 'I REALLY WANT TO FORMAT DRIVE A:' to continue", with appropriate mechanisms to disable command recall and copy/paste. Even better would be something that changes every time it's used, but that would be tricky to implement on CP/M.
I would rapidly take offence at a system designed on the premise that I was guilty of criminal intent and needed to be stopped.
So you'd never take a job where you need a pass to gain access to the office, then have to log in to use computer systems, and even then you can't access much of the stored data? I don't give much for your chances of finding employment.
Personally, far from resenting information security features that restrict my capabilities, I mostly value them. It's tiresome to have to jump through hoops to access anything sensitive, but it's reassuring protection against inadvertently damaging or revealing stuff.
unless they cough up corporation tax based on the spirit as opposed to the letter of the law
That's not how the law is supposed to work. It's a set of rules. Follow the rules, and it's legal, break the rules and it's illegal. If the laws don't say what they mean they should be changed.
It's also worth pointing out that the reason these multinationals don't pay tax here is because they transfer their profits to places where the tax is lower. I'm not saying we should reduce taxes, but governments can't be unaware that every percent increase has a measurable effect on the amount of profit that's exported. An intelligent government* would calculate tax rates to optimize revenue.
*The present behaviour of politicians on all sides, and the civil service mandarins who advise them, suggests that such a thing is an impossibility. Paying tax to this lot is like handing a tenner to a drunken beggar.
Back in the 60s, my dad was Chief Engineer at Ferranti Semiconductor Division. He unwisely brought home a glossy book of amplifier circuit designs, and I badgered him to source components so we could build one.
My recollection is that the output was something like 25 Watt RMS per channel, which was considered quite powerful back then. The book also contained a design for a 100 W/channel power amplifier, but it wasn't really suitable for home use as it needed a 3-phase power supply.
@Doctor_Wibble while you're shuddering at the unhygienic features of the toilet, allow me to remind you that the average computer keyboard is more unhygienic than the average toilet seat.
(Typed while eating lunch at my desk, on a keyboard that is visibly filthy. The joys of being a contractor! Oh well, that which does not kill me makes me strong.)
Anyway, the purpose of inference is that it makes code terse which can make code easier to maintain and less prone to error.
Up to a point. You're looking at a statement like:
val|var|let|const something = someObject.doStuff(foo, bar, baz)and you need to know what the something is. So you have to find out what someObject is, then look at its methods to see what this signature returns. If the type was declared, you could save time and, more important, distraction from the task in hand.
IDEs are sometimes helpful, but it rather depends on the language. IntelliJ with Typescript - not very helpful. With Groovy - WTF is all this undeclared stuff that seems to appear by magic?
One of the things that all the cool languages have to have is type inference. Don't bother declaring a type - the compiler can work it out. Once on this slippery slope they start to allow you to omit anything else that the compiler can work out.
This is all very well when you're writing code. It saves keystrokes and gets the job done quicker, although tapping keys is, in my experience, not on the critical path when coding. But it's a real pain when you're maintaining or debugging someone else's code, because you have to do the inferences yourself.
Daily stand-ups are OK if they're kept short and waffling is discouraged. I suspect that one of their benefits is that having to report on what they're doing keeps developers' noses to the grindstone.
The most time-wasting of the agile ceremonies is the Sprint Review - what went well (nothing especially), what went badly (same as last sprint), bits of paper commending team members (cringe), Post-Its invariably falling off the wall.
Does it ignore English-speaking humans more than it ignores Spanish-speaking humans, or vice versa? Or are all humans ignored equally?
Because they think long term
So they developed Edge, then dumped it when nobody was interested. Really long-term thinking.
a one-stop-shop full install for Jane/ Joe average, and not many tinker with "scary" installs
If that's true, how come most computers end up running Chrome or Firefox? Do the browser elves carry out secret overnight installations?
I recently used the passport scanners at Stansted. Although it was a quiet Monday afternoon there was a queue because everyone waited for the three scanners at the end of the cattle-pen and ignored the twenty available ones further down.
I too was told to "seek assistance", and was told to use the next scanner along, while the passenger from that scanner, who also had to seek assistance, used mine. It worked, but I've been struggling to imagine what kind of software feature responds in this way.
Enumerating things I hate about self-service checkouts is a tired old theme, but I can't resist.
They ask to weigh your bag, then invariably refuse to believe that anybody could possibly have a bag that heavy. I'm using the standard jute bags that every supermarket sells.
Spoken instructions delivered in the kind of naggy voice that might be used by a woman losing patience with her brain-damaged husband. B&Q is a notable offender.
"Scan the next item" just as you're about to do so anyway, thereby reinforcing the impression that you're an imbecile who might forget what you're doing.
And of course the old favourite: "Unexpected item in the bagging area". Interestingly, some supermarkets seem to have decided to the whole bag-weighing business.
...what Oracle did to IBM and DEC many years ago - providing a more affordable product...
Not as regards DEC. We were happily using the RdbVMS database when DEC sold it to Oracle. We went along to a meeting at Oracle, where the explicit message was "Rdb is now going to cost you a lot more money".
I think instinctively, living creatures do not want to needlessly attach foreign bodies to their head, especially eyeballs.
One of the annoyances of my glasses is that they slip down your nose. I never knew I was supposed to connect them to my eyeballs. I can see that might make them more secure.
The Huawei smart glasses in the picture seem to be sunglasses. Do they include a radar detector to stop you walking into things indoors?