I feel like the “we don’t know what this function does” meme is kinda bad. There’s no reason beyond maybe time crunch why you shouldn’t be able to dissect exactly what it does.

Despite this, the notion of a load-bearing function is still very relevant. Yeah, sure, you know what it does, including all of the little edge case behaviors it has. But you can’t at this time fully ascertain what’s calling it, and how all the callers have become dependant on all the little idiosyncracies that will break if you refactor it to something more sensible.

It has been several times now where a part of my system of legacy code broke in some novel fantastic way, because two wrongs were cancelling out and then I fixed only one of them.

Wow, I found the one other MATE user. Cheers.

Sure, but then the wait staff expects you to tip at least 20% for simply being given one, and if you don’t you’re an asshole.

Worse still, the pattern does not continue like one would expect.

• Nominal: 2x4 – Actual: 1.5" x 3.5"
• Nominal: 2x6 – Actual: 1.5" x 5.5"
• Nominal: 2x8 – Actual: 1.5" x 7.25"
• Nominal: 2x10 – Actual: 1.5" x 9.25"
• Nominal: 2x12 – Actual: 1.5" x 11.25"

There’s just an arbitrary point where they decided to take an extra 1/4" bite out of it. I’m not sure whether that’s more of an effect of shrinkage from kiln drying being proportional to the original length or an effect of industry practice to mill smaller boards to eke out more cuts per tree.

And for the record, yes, I am aware the discrepancy is not entirely explained by shrinkage. They do a planing step after drying. But the shrinkage is a not insignificant part of it. They have to round down to the nearest convenient dimension from wherever the shrinkage stops.

If longer boards shrink more, the finished boards would necessarily have to be smaller. I question whether that’s the effect at play, though, because I believe there was a phase in the industry where that extra quarter inch wasn’t taken off, and they changed their minds about it later.

I’ve yet to see any open lemm.ee prejudice anywhere. AFAIK it’s the largest completely inoffensive instance and that’s exactly what I was looking for.

can you burn a Luigi board?

The first four of them are “just how floats work”, yeah. Has nothing to do with JavaScript.

typeof NaN
// "number"

Classic, yes, very funny. “NaN stands for ‘not a number’ but it says it’s a number”. But for real though. It’s still a variable that’s the Number type, but its contents happen to be invalid. It’s Not a (Valid) Number.

The next three are just classic floating point precision moments.

The Math.max() and Math.min() ones are interesting. Seems that under the hood, both methods implicitly have a fallback “number” that it compares to any argument list you give it that will auto-lose (or at closest, tie) with any other valid number you can possibly give it, so when you give it nothing at all, they leak out. Honestly, makes sense. Kinda ludicrous it needs to have defined behavior for a zero-argument call in the first place. But JS is one of those silly languages that lets you stuff in or omit as many arguments as you want with no consequences, function signature be damned. So as long as that paradigm exists, the zero-argument case probably ought to do something, and IMO this isn’t the worst choice.

Every other one is bog standard truthy/type coercion shitlery. A demonstration of why implicit type coercion as a language feature is stupid.

I assume the reflowing solder in the oven trick doesn’t reliably work anymore in the era of the high temp solders that are common in laptop manufacturing these days. Bringing the whole board up to flow temp in something as crude as a home oven is almost certainly going to fuck something else on the board.

I recall trying to do a laptop repair with dinky little soldering iron I got at the hardware store and it could not melt a single thing on the board I touched it to. Definitely not a faulty iron because I used it to successfully solder other things. This was at least five years ago. If that little toy couldn’t do it, then the entire board would need to exceed that temp in an oven, which is probably a bad idea since the iron was still managing to visibly scorch things despite not melting any solder.

Invest in a proper heat gun and learn how to use it, or just give up and give it to someone else who has one, imo.

Windows has had the ability to flag individual directories as case-sensitive for a few years now. It’s… something, I guess.

Also, why is the website for the original comic crossed out? It wasn’t completely cropped out or hidden like most asshats do, but it wasn’t left alone either. Someone deliberately went out of their way to vandalize it but did it in perhaps the most pointless possible way? I don’t understand people sometimes.

The original, if anyone was curious.

They are public drinking fountains. These aren’t meant to be put in homes or private spaces.

America is absolutely filled with these things. They are everywhere. Public drinking access, no cups required, at an overwhelming number of public institutions. One of the extremely rare W’s of American public use infrastructure.

On the few occasions I’ve been to Europe, I’ve honestly been quite frustrated at the lack of them. I can’t just roll up to a place and have a quick drink, I’m apparently just expected to carry it with me on my person when I leave my place of stay, or buy a disposable bottle of something from a shop. Even if there are public faucet taps available, I guess I’m expected to be carrying a drinking vessel already, or stick my face under the faucet and slurp awkwardly from the falling stream?

I’m just baffled public drinking fountains don’t seem to be common elsewhere, to the point that there are several people in this thread questioning what they even are. I would consider them basic infrastructure for any civilized society.

The fuck? No…?

The US is clownish and backwards in a lot of ways but this is not one of them.

It hardly changes things, but I feel like Mario & Luigi: Dream Team deserves to be on that list, too. The concept and execution of Dreamy Luigi was awesome.

Someone looking to specifically break this website’s captcha wouldn’t have a hard time.

But bots using off-the-shelf captcha solvers will be screened out en masse, because how many of them are equipped to correctly answer this stupidly specific question? That’s the obscurity.

Patrick Warburton is the only one on that list who was actually on board with the film in its small budget phase. The rest came aboard after the Weinstein Company stepped in to be the distributor.

Picking up movies that were already finished for cheap and then using industry connections and capital to forcefully inject more star power into the voice cast is apparently something the Weinsteins did several times. They did the same thing to The Magic Roundabout (marketed in America as Doogal).

Funnily enough, getting the Weinsteins involved with Hoodwinked! in the first place was a chance encounter made possible by Robert Rodriguez’s wife.

The scenes of Clooney as the President in Spy Kids 3 were allegedly shot by Clooney in a day in his own living room with a camcorder he just had lying around.

It’s basically a power strip:

but specifically for cables that carry Internet traffic instead of electrical power.

A more direct analogy would be a telephone switchboard (which is why it is called a “switch”), basically a computerized version of those old-timey operator ladies who used to sit in a room waiting for you to make a phone call, and they’d physically move a plug connected to your phone and plug it directly into the phone line of whoever you were trying to call. That, but for computers trying to talk to one another over network cables instead of making telephone calls.

No homework in detention sounds absolutely fucked.

There were a couple times in high school I actually asked to go to detention after class, just to do homework. Because I knew it was a quiet, distraction-free space where I could concentrate on a time-sensitive task. Baffled the detention supervisor, she probably wondered if I was having a bad situation at home I was trying to avoid, but no, just wanted to protect myself from myself. And it was very effective every time.

Python is the only programming language that has forced me to question what the difference is between an egg and a wheel.

I recognize three kinds of comments that have different purposes.

The first kind are doc block comments. These are the ones that appear above functions, classes, class properties, methods. They usually have a distinct syntax with tags, like:

/*
 * A one-line description of this function's job.
 *
 * Extra details that get more specific about how to use this function correctly, if needed.
 *
 * @param {Type} param1
 * @param {Type} param2
 * returns {Type}
 */
function aFunctionThatDoesAThing(param1, param2) {
    // ...
}

The primary thing this is used for is automatic documentation generators. You run a program that scans your codebase, looks for these special comments, and automatically builds a set of documentation that you could, say, publish directly to a website. IDEs can also use them for tooltip popups. Generally, you want to write these like the reader won’t have the actual code to read. Because they might not!

The second kind is standalone comments. They take up one or more lines all to themselves. I look at these like warning signs. When there’s something about the upcoming chunk of code that doesn’t tell the whole story obviously by itself. Perhaps something like:

/* The following code is written in a weird way on purpose.
I tried doing <obvious way>, but it causes a weird bug.
Please do not refactor it, it will break. */

Sometimes it’s tempting to use a standalone comment to explain what dense, hard-to-read code is doing. But ideally, you’d want to shunt it off to a function named what it does instead, with a descriptive doc comment if you can’t cram it all into a short name. Alternatively, rewrite the code to be less confusing. If you literally need the chunk of code to be in its confusing form, because a less confusing way doesn’t exist or doesn’t work, then this kind of comment explaining why is warranted.

The last kind are inline comments. More or less the same use case as above, the only difference being they appear on the same line as code, usually at the very end of the line:

dozen = 12 + 1; // one extra for the baker!

In my opinion, these comments have the least reason to exist. Needing one tends to be a signal of a code smell, where the real answer is just rewriting the code to be clearer. They’re also a bit harder to spot, being shoved at the ends of lines. Especially true if you don’t enforce maximum line length rules in your codebase. But that’s mostly personal preference.

There’s technically a fourth kind of comment: commented-out code. Where you select a chunk of code and convert it to a comment to “soft-delete” it, just in case you may want it later. I highly recommend against this. This is what version control software like Git is for. If you need it again, just roll back to it. Don’t leave it to rot in your codebase taking up space in your editor and being an eyesore.

The meme format implies she catfished you with the promise of “Netflix and chill” at her house only to pull a gun on you.

In particular, she wants you to review and merge that goddamn pull request she made to your open source project repo two months ago that finally fixes that one really annoying bug.