> trust me, they are going to be livid about this.
Just as soon as...what? How are two of the top three people named on the "Meet the team" page simultaneously oblivious to the half gig of ad downloads and on the verge of caring?
The guy you are responding to is longing for what was possible two decades ago. He is that one idiot. He even replied to your comment with confirmation!
Do we have to admit that in this sub-thread? Your sentiment is better placed where we are not currently deriding the absurd take that "both can kill you easily". There is no recovery to be had here.
Of course there is. The world isn’t black and white. I said “could”, there are many shades of grey in between. Don’t be such an absolutist, like your truth is the truest one.
sorry, I just really don't like this glib response that while I might be unnecessarily aggressive and threaten you, its not really not a problem since the likelihood that I'll actually _kill_ you is much lower than if I were the same idiot driving a car.
Yes. I just emailed him, in fact, and he responded with details, no hostility!
>your behavior is weird and hostile actually
Look in the mirror.
>A traditional link blog would highlight a short excerpt so that the reader might be encouraged to click through to the full piece.
Mine is not a "traditional link blog" nor has it ever been since its inception on August 24, 2004. You're the first person I've known to use the phrase "traditional link blog." I like it! Maybe you should start one.
?? How in the world is it splitting hairs to point out that those numbers don't make sense. It is directly relevant to the question of how many Americans want to rent. You don't need to be like this :(
By "to do this" do you mean to not use booleans? It's because the value does not represent a binary true or false but rather a means by which the item is deleted or dead. So not only would it not make sense semantically, it would break if a third means were introduced.
> It's because the value does not represent a binary true or false but rather a means by which the item is deleted or dead.
"Deleted" and "dead" are separate columns.
> So not only would it not make sense semantically, it would break if a third means were introduced.
If that was the intention, it would seem like a bad design decision to me. And actually what you assume to be the reasoning, is exactly what should be avoided. Which makes it a bad thing.
This is a limitation not because of having the bool value be represented by an int (or rather "be presented as"), but because of the t y p e , being an integer.
> If that was the intention, it would seem like a bad design decision to me. And actually what you assume to be the reasoning, is exactly what should be avoided. Which makes it a bad thing.
That is should be avoided is what makes it a bad thing? I am probably on board with the idea that it is bad design, I just don't know what reasoning you are referring to here. How would you design it?
> This is a limitation not because of having the bool value be represented by an int (or rather "be presented as"), but because of the t y p e , being an integer.
What bool value? As designed, it is an int. I'm sure that I am just missing what you are saying.
The API documents this but from a spot check I'm not sure when you'd get a response with deleted: false. For non-deleted items the deleted: key is simply absent (null). I suppose the data model can assume this is a not-null field with a default value of false but that doesn't feel right to me. I might handle that case in cleaning but I wouldn't do it in the extract.
I am always torn on a nullable boolean. I have gone both ways (leave as null or convert to false) depending on what it is representing.
In this particular case, I agree that you should record the most raw form. Which would be a boolean column of trues and nulls -perfectly handled by parquet.
> Let’s demand to reimplement every single standard widget in a way that has 50% odds of being accessible, has bugs, doesn’t work correctly with autofill most of the time, and adds 600kB of code per widget.
You're describing the web developers again. (Or, if UX has the power to demand this from software engineering, then the problem is not the UX designers.)
I as a developer cannot refuse to not build as-is what was signed off by product manager in figma.
Recently had to put so many huge blurs that there was screen tearing like effect whenver you srcolled a table. AND No i was not allowed to use prebake-blurs because they wouldnt resize "responsively"
If you don’t have an engineering manager or tech lead able to back you on saying no to a PM, there is something seriously broken with that organization.
Yes. If the UX group has the power to compel you to do what you describe through a PM, without any involvement from or consideration for the warnings of you or your managers, then the problem is not "UX dEsIgNeRs".
Look at literally every website you use. How many of them aren’t doing shitty things like what’s being described? If you want to define every single organization as ‘broken’… okay then. It’s the organizations. But I will still blame the people whose job is supposedly UI and the “experience” of users, but who mostly just want to make their own kewl widgets because they think they have exquisite taste and are smarter than the people who designed the operating system.
It really sounds like you are desperate to be included in a group that won't have you. Literally zero UX designers are involved in the breaking of autofill. That is not a thing. If autofill is being broken, then a web developer is to blame. tf are you talking about.
It took me 15 minutes to convince the UX designer on our team that autofill is a good thing for certain fields and why it is a bad idea to force-style the autofilled fields.
That e.g. a form should work predictably according to some unambiguous set of principles is of course a UX concern. If it doesn't, then maybe someone responsible for UX should be more involved in the change review process so that they can actually execute on their responsibility and make sure that user experience concerns are being addressed.
But sure, the current state of brokenness is a result of a combination of overambitious designs and poor programming. When I worked as a web developer I was often tasked with making elements behave in some bespoke way that was contrary to the default browser behavior. This is not only surprising to the user, but makes the implementation error prone.
One example is making a form autosubmit or jump to a different field once a text field has reached a certain length, or dividing a pin/validation code entry fields into multiple text fields, one for each character. This is stupidity at the UX level which causes bugs downstream because the default operation implemented by the browser isn't designed to be idiotic. Then you have to go out of your way to make it stupid enough for the design spec, and some sizeable subset of webpages that do this will predictably end up with bugs related to copying and pasting or autofilling.
That stupid thing where they make 6 separate inputs for a TOTP code is infuriating to me. I’m actually impressed though that I’m able to paste into one of those abominations without incident nearly 70% of the time, and over 50% of the time, they have gone to the trouble of reimplementing a mostly working backspace key there too. None of it should have had to be done of course, but I’m “impressed.”
Just as soon as...what? How are two of the top three people named on the "Meet the team" page simultaneously oblivious to the half gig of ad downloads and on the verge of caring?
Forgive us for not trusting you on this.
reply