This post should be removed for not being humor.

Adobe didn’t really lose millions, but that’s not really funny, just incorrect.

I typically do too, or userIndex or something for nested loops, but I will accept i and j for the first two levels of nesting when reviewing a PR because they’re such a convention. I wouldn’t accept variable names like that anywhere else though and try and avoid them myself.

Outside of the for loop counters i and j, short variable names are awful. Coming back to old code written with abr var nams is like talking to someone in the military who just constantly throws out jargon and acronyms that they know you don’t know.

But so are Java style ObserverFactoryManagerTemplateMachinistTemplater names.

There’s a sweet middle ground of short, but actually descriptive name. Sometimes it’s not possible but that’s usually a code organization / language / framework smell.

Too short variable names is usually a sign that you need to use a proper ide, with auto complete, or that you need to use a proper build process that will minify your code after the fact.

Too long names are usually a sign that your module of code (function, class, namespace, etc) is too large, or that your language/framework naming conventions are too strict, or the language doesn’t encapsulate scope properly.

I feel like there’s three types of buy nothing:

1. buy it for life - people looking to reduce consumerism by purchasing high quality, long lasting items that aren’t engineered to have limited lifespans. See https://lemmy.world/c/buyitforlife@sh.itjust.works

2. second hand trading groups - people who want to reduce consumerism by creating vibrant second hand marketplaces and encouraging selling, trading, and donating of old goods. Lemmy is the wrong format for this, these groups tend to exist in geographically focused platforms like Facebook and Kijiji.

3. true die-hard anti consumerists - want to never buy anything, including any items that are remotely consumable. Hard to find these communities as these people tend to head off grid, and / or self implode.

Is there a point you can find in history where we paid doctors, teachers, and nurses close to what they’re worth and more than professional athletes?

It sounds like you’re nostalgic for a time that never existed.

Because indexing a structured field with limited values is different from indexing a “structured” document with fields that can be anything.

Damn, that sucks.

The studio head of Modern Warfare (all ghillied up), Titanfall / Titanfall 2, and Apex Legends. The guy clearly had an eye for talent and knew how to make a memorable game. RIP.

Who spends their day “browsing around GitHub”?

Fair enough, I am just being overly angry and hateful.

It’s not the same idea, as I didn’t advocated s studying them when they were authoritarian shitholes who were actively slaughtering their neighbours.

I don’t have to, I just have to name one better than Russian. Learn Ukrainian, Polish, German, French Finnish, Hungarian, Czech, Slovakian, Romanian, etc then consider Russian.

German culture and heritage was destroyed by the world wars. What remains is not what was there pre-WWII.

And I’m not cancelling or destroying anything. I’m just prioritizing cultures worth preserving over those that have been poisoned by a century of dictatorship, misinformation, and hate.

Removed by mod

I agree with everything you’re saying, but even speaking specialist to specialist, or say to a group of specialist colleagues who might not be working on exactly what you’re working on, you still often simplify away the technical parts that aren’t relevant to the specific conversation you’re having, and use specific language on the parts that are, because that inherently helps the listener to focus on the technical aspects you want them to focus on.

If you’re communicating with another scientist about the actual work you’re doing then sure there are times when you need to be specific.

If you’re publishing official documentation on something or writing contracts, then yes, you also need to be extremely speciific.

But if you’re just providing a description of your work to a non-specialist then no, there’s always a way of simplifying it for the appropriate context. Same thing goes for most of specialist to specialist communication. There are specific sentences and times you use the precision to distinguish between two different things, but if you insist on always speaking in maximum precision and accuracy then it is simply poor communication skills where you are over providing unnecessary detail that detracts from the actual point you’re trying to convey.

Their literal entire first paragraph is about scientists doing it.

No, I’m talking about engineers and scientists communicating with project managers, designers, lawyers, business people, and the many many other people who work in the same industry but do not have technical backgrounds.

It is for a white collar job where most people have degrees.

Eh I don’t really agree, depending on how simple you’re talking. Bags within bags, or dumbing things down to a grade school level, then sure, there are topics that can’t be described succinctly.

But if you’re talking about simplifying things down to the point that anyone who took a bit of undergrad math/science can understand, then pretty much everything can be described in simple and easy to understand ways.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve seen many people at the top who can’t, but in every case, it’s not because of the topics’ inherent complexity, but either because they don’t actually understand the topics as well as they may seem, or because they lack the social skills (or time / effort / setting) to properly analogize and adjust for the listener.

You’re literally just describing this meme.

When you don’t know shit you think it should be simpler, when you slightly understand it then you end up using technical terms because you know those terms apply and aren’t confident enough to replace them, and then once you know enough you get confident just describing everything as bags within bags.