my go_to NamingCovention: ANYTHING but camel-case 🤮

Funny how he made it basically for his desktop computer.

33 years later, and Linux is dominating in every part of the OS world except … the desktop.

(I’m paraphrasing his quote – he said something like this years ago, can’t find it, though.)

(Edit: to be more fair with quotes, it might be the case that I “hallucinated” the quote. he might not have said that, or he might have just said part of it and other part would be someone else’s comment. This cio.com article is probably a better source on his position )

WISYWIG managing nested bullet point or numbered lists should be in right-bottom corner.

Tip: find -type f | xargs head (but no it’s not comfy)

but I don’t think going to “one giant metadatafile” argument helps; personally my attention starts splintering far sooner than that. Most of the time, if I’m looking at meta-data of an object, I’m not just looking at that single object, I’m reasoning about it in relation to other data points (maybe other objects in the same collection, maybe not). If at some point I want to shift my focus from created_at to updated_at or back, I need that transition to be as cheap as eye saccade. So by splitting the data to multiple files you are sort of setting “minimal tax” already pretty high.

That said, for simple projects where you want to have as few dependencies as possible, I think it’s fine; it might or might not be better than raw-dogging your own format. I’ve actually implemented pretty much this format multiple times when I was coding predominantly in Bash. (Heck, eg. my JATS framework is pretty much using FAMF for test run state 😄 .) Just be careful: creating / removing files and directories can be a pretty risky operation – make a typo in (or fail refactoring) a shell variable and you might be just rm -rf’ing your own “$HOME”. It might be one of things you want to do less of, not more.

BTW, I chuckled because you turn from created_at to cre_at for no apparent reason. (I mean, if you like obscure variable names, fine by me, but then why would you call it created_at in the first file?)

BTWBTW, I love your site, I wish most of the web looked like that; the grey gives me sort of nostalgy :D Also you reminded me that I should give Kagi a try…

what’s next?

forget the hair, but the questions must be precise and well-formed :D

seriously (ish), if the hairdresser holds my hair 2cm away from the skin and asks if this length is ok, and their finger is like 2cm thick, i don’t know if they mean 2 or 4.

bonus points if they think that your connection is lagging

but that just opens the worrying space more: what if you turned the camera back on and there it was? isn’t it better to not know? 🙃

Oddly specific example, but I believe you.

who knows if it makes me look better or like a weirdo…

both. I’ve recently realized that during our 1on1 calls my boss is “looking at me”, which always made me feel more listened, overall better.

I mentioned that on a different, informal call, like, “are you using some tricks…” and he told us he’s doing no tricks, it’s just that the camera happens to be close enough to the screen where he places the call window, and that’s a laptop which is far enough that the angular difference is negligent. So that made him look better.

(And I think it’s even better than looking at the camera; he was kinda looking at both, me & the camera.)

But I suspect that this can bite back quickly if you’re in a meeting with several people and say, for a minute you (say, Alex) are exchanging ideas with one person, say, Bob while others (Cathy, Dan) are listening. The weird part is that in Bob, Cathy and Dan’s visual experience you’re directly looking at them, which will seem natural to Bob, but strange to to Cathy and Dan since they know you’re talking to Bob right now so why the heck you keep peeking at them for so long, as if you want them to jump in to the convo or something…

If the situation was similar as I’ve described for my boss (smaller screen, further away), then it can even be affected by the way Cathy and Dan’s videos are arranged on your screen. Not all are going to be closest to the camera, only the closest one to the camera could feel an eye contact, but that’s not going to change according to who you are talking to. (There could be some technology or call UI design to help with that…)

Overall, I think with some video-calling experience people will generally adapt for the situation over time, but it may differ individually…

From where their eyes are pointing I can only tell whether or not they’re looking at the camera, but if they are looking elsewhere, I have no way of knowing if that other place is my face or theirs or anything else (even outside scope of the talk – it could be a bug crawling on their desk for all I know).

Okay this is gonna be the last thing I say on this - a lot of the struggle that women today face comes from the idea that women only exist in relation to something or someone else, like children or a partner.

The thing is, in so many ways we all only exist in relation to each other. So you’re on to something, not necessarily exclusive to sex or gender, but yes that part is hard. And much worse because it also means that others are going to try and shape that relation and the power is barely ever balanced. It does help to realize that not all people are like that, but these things are really knowable, and everyone’s situation is unique.

Eg, your role is to start a family, wear makeup and take care of your appearance so that you are perceived as attractive and therefore valued

Honestly, that part is infuriating to me as well. and I hate what it does to women. My personal feelings about what makes a woman attractive / free are my own, but I find it somewhat offensive how boldly people make assumptions about it and even start to normalize or ostracize others for following standards.

Not sure if we can do about it in general, but I do appreciate people who don’t just bow down to the masses.

the work hasn’t been done to show this is the sole cause

sure but why is it relevant? OP isn’t saying that it is the sole cause.

careful with the straw, you might accidently build a straw man out of it :)

maybe I’m too much of an engineering brain, but I just want to cry when they put fingers in my hair and ask “about this long”?

Like, I know it’s not a rocket science but come on, that’s like 800% error bar.

Once, a lady had enough emotional intelligence to explain herself whether she meant “cut above the finger” or “leave below the finger”. I will never go to any other hairdresser (luckily she’s much younger than me so we could actually pull it off). I ain’t got time for these axe throwers.

that should be the price of two visits and two mirrors.

…and a few drops of your own blood, I assume, but nothing more.

you can just say “shorter than the top”.

does this mean anything, though?

I mean, could someone even possibly say “longer than the top” and be taken seriously?

(And no, no no, stop right there----don’t even think of reminding me that mullets exist.)

Basically a cigar butt with eyes, shut up it works for me.

I was not planning to comment (i am no better) but even if I was, this line pretty much disabled me for straight 5 minutes.

I’m a ROFLcopter now…

funny how lot of comments are saying “i also look at my face while other person is talking”

what I meant when I was writing this post: looking at my face while I was talking.

…on second thought, I’m not sure, I might as well just be looking at myself 100% time.

I just love looking at myself I think I’m great haha I also like to make sure that my facial expressions are matching my inside emotions …a lot of the time they are and I like the reassurance of that… I also like to practice facial expressions and then look at myself to make sure I’m executing them correctly. But mostly I just like my face and what it does haha

… -agen.

They say, 30 is the age where you have to decide which one you like more: tying your shoelaces or hamburgers.

I chose the latter.

Now I’m almost 44 and even undoing them feels too hard. 🙃