But would you pay for it?
My employer’s paying for my access, and I only find it a bit useful here and there
Maybe my company gets a great discount or something, but if they would pay me the subscription cost to give up Copilot, I wouldn’t miss it
But would you pay for it?
My employer’s paying for my access, and I only find it a bit useful here and there
Maybe my company gets a great discount or something, but if they would pay me the subscription cost to give up Copilot, I wouldn’t miss it
You can reference envs from the host in docker compose, so code it in instead of manually passing tribal knowledge in: https://stackoverflow.com/a/73826410
Simpler to keep everything in one compose file if you can, under a test
service that doesn’t build unless explicitly named
Un-weird that env var and use the normal, boring feature of defining environment
under your test
service
I’ve often been able to alias drun='docker compose run --rm --build'
and simplify down to:
drun test
Should be able to encode all those wayward args into docker-compose.yml
or Dockerfile
and only use vanilla docker commands – that’s the whole point of containerization
In the US? IMO only possible in exclusive environments similar to saunas at spas or membership-based clubs/gyms
I think your ideas are too non-practical/specialized/advanced/low-level for your stated goal of 'digital literacy". They read more like college intro/followup course material and are too esoteric to be readily absorbed, esp by generic teenagers, even if they’ve self-selected to be “lightly interested”.
One of the best tutorials on really “grokking” git
concepts, and it’s online and interactive: https://learngitbranching.js.org
For programming, start with buildings things for yourself. Be practical, start small, and iterate, regardless if you consider the previous iteration was a success or failure. I’ve heard good things about https://automatetheboringstuff.com/ (in Python) in this regard.
Can address it by writing code that doesn’t depend much on indentation, which also makes code more linear and easier to follow.
In recreational climbing, skin calluses and surface abrasion aren’t usually much of a concern compared to tendon health. Skin heals light damage quite easily.
However, it’s not uncommon for a new (or experienced) climber to develop their muscles beyond what their own tendons can take. Since it takes tendons so long to strengthen, it’s common to need managing the risk of finger pulley tendon injuries in climbing.
Also, I do not know how these nuances apply in your context of your medical condition.
Call their bluff!
If they’re SO concerned and want help signing bans for imaginary problems into law, there are plenty of real issues worth trading for in exchange.
E.g. from now on, schools nationwide are additionally funded to both prohibit litterboxes for students that identify as cats and provide free and healthy school lunches.
Idgi – is it saying that every game is either named “X” or “Y’s X”?
There’s the practical distinction between “everyone can do it with some dedicated intent” (so few actually bother) vs “everyone can do it on a whim”
Seems it depends on which elite/establishment, going by Wikipedia’s definition: “populism” is the political stance of “the people” against “the elite/establishment”
So by that defn, both of these examples qualify:
wanted to add something to the end of a for-loop, but had too little indentation
To address this, I prefer reducing length & depth of nested code, so the for
/while
is rarely ever not visible along with everything inside it. Others have success with editors that draw indentation lines.
opening up new/anonymous scopes
I occasionally use Python nested functions for this purpose
I find it’s possible to operate Python as a statically typed language if you wanted, though it takes some setup with external tooling. It wasn’t hard, but had to set up pyright, editor integration, configuration to type check strictly and along with tests, and CI.
I even find the type system to be far more powerful than how I remembered Java’s to be (though I’m not familiar with the newest Java versions).
All methods? Of course not. Just methods like these.
I really dislike code like that. Code like that tends to lie about what it says it does and have non-explicit interactions/dependencies.
The only thing I can really be certain from that is:
doAnything();
if(doAnything2()) {
doAnything3();
}
I.e. almost nothing at all because the abstractions aren’t useful.
I agree with the author overall, and I think it can be more straightforwardly stated. IMO it’s the idea that wrong abstractions are even worse than other ills like duplication or god classes/modules. It’s also reminiscent of “modules should be deep”.
I prefer that, though (it’s in my calendar, but I don’t have to accept). I really can’t stand Outlook’s email-based calendar workflow.
Dedicated incremental static type checkers for dynamic languages already exist. In particular, Pyright for Python is fantastic and in many ways surpasses the type systems of classic typed languages