When it completed a task from the same amount of guidance and specifications that I would have spent on a Jr engineer. It did it faster and better.

I always wondered how they messed portal up. It seemed so natural of a piece of hardware to fit into everything else they do. Tying it to horizon says all I need to know.

You don't have to use them. There's a handful of nice to haves in modern releases but its totally fine and sane to just ignore whatever the committee is distracted by at the moment.

Hell, if you wait long enough, they'll just deprecate it before you can care to bother.

And that's the usual fallacy (just ignore the bad stuff).

But if you work with C++ in professional context, you will encounter it somewhere (library, teamate's PR, legacy code, LLM output, book / blog / conference ...). |

You actually need to know the bad stuff to be able to judge it and discard it.

We're talking about different things.

Im talking about your own personal coding. You dont have to use the new things. You dont have to know them to decide to discard them. In fact, the criteria to discard something is to not know it. You generally shouldn't be using things you dont know anyway.

The fact that other people use things you do not know is not a reason to stress out about the dumb pace and direction c++ is moving in. It is possible to enjoy a life free from fomo about the c++ standards goalposts.

Which is worse? std's mess or one you control? I'd take any random game engine's STL over std any day.

The reqs are likely a side effect of how the application is built and the fact that its made by a solo dev.

I find it more pleasant to do UI within the context of a video game renderer than to bother with ui libraries and native hooks.

You only have to deal with windows enough to get you a rendering context: then you can do everything in your walled garden.

Term limits.

It absolutely is. The funding for it, not the product itself.

Hard to motivate people to work on things that destroy society. Money helps.

Want to see how motivated Meta employees are? Watch how fast their offices clear out at 5pm on the dot.

What do you think is an appropriate time for most employees to end their workday?

I am a terrible person to ask. My employers get their money's worth from me: I genuinely like my work and regularly work more than 8hrs a day. I also work in a field with others who, with some exception, do the same, so its strange for me to see "normal people" clock out on the dot.

Have you considered that people can both like their work, and like other things at the same time?

Meta offices are pretty full at 5pm lmao. In fact they are still decently full at 7pm after dinner at 6. Baffles me why people just make up random crap in areas they clearly know less than nothing about.

Same.

I assumed this happens on any employer machine anyway. If not specific mouse movement and keystrokes then file access and connected devices. I honestly don't understand the outrage.

Careful. The venn diagram bubble depicting your statement overlaps heavily with the anti-vaccine bubble.

Its a bit naieve to claim that cleaning one's home will result in an extinction of enough microbes so as to be threatening to our immune system.

See: Polio

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_polio

> [...] Better hygiene meant that infants and young children had fewer opportunities to encounter and develop immunity to polio. Exposure to poliovirus was therefore delayed until late childhood or adult life, when it was more likely to take the paralytic form.[22]

Nothing strengthens an immune system like a weekly furry party or attending "tough mudders" events.

That’s because the parent claim is known as the hygiene hypothesis and has been disproven by science, in common with anti vaccine claims. The immune system has not been shown to benefit from training, but has been shown to be damaged by illness.

I'm not sure how you would disprove the hygiene hypothesis, because it is a really weak claim and rejecting weak claims is really difficult.

The anti vaccine position makes a very strong claim, namely that vaccines will cause complications that are strong enough to justify not vaccinating children, which is obviously false since a lot of the diseases that are vaccinated against have actually killed children and the vaccines have dropped child mortality significantly and the complications that are supposed to be avoided by refraining from vaccines tend to be both rare and non life threatening.

You can't make the same argument with the hygiene hypothesis, because the claim is really weak. Nobody is saying that extreme hygiene will kill you. The argument is along the lines of "lack of exposure to environmental microbes, viruses or allergens may lead to an unprepared immune system that hasn't developed a wide variety of anti bodies or is more likely to develop allergies or autoimmune problems".

I'm not sure how I would be able to argue against this claim since it only takes one microbe, virus or allergen to make it true.

The context here isn't hand washing vs not hand washing, it's aggressive ozone + UV sterilisation vs regular hygiene.

Not to mention that the hygiene hypothesis has an even weaker version still, namely the "old friends hypothesis". It seems pretty weird to equivocate this to being against vaccines.

Maybe you should qualify 'anti-vaccine claims'. Throughout the history of vaccines which have saved countless lives, some people have died or suffered severe reactions linked to a vaccine. This is hardly surprising given our metabolic heterogeneity.

'Anti-vaccine claims' suggests a taking of sides on that knee-jerk division into those who claim without evidence that almost or even all vaccines are deadly and on the other hand, those who are frankly contemptuous of any claim that a particular vaccine (evident particularly with the vaccines developed in response to the Covid outbreak) might be dangerous for certain people. Both extreme views have been on view recently and are indefensible.

The major issue here is the difficult task of identifying people likely to react badly to any specific vaccine.

Meanwhile 'Congress and Institute of Medicine Confirm Government Licensed and Recommended Vaccines Can Cause Injury and Death' and 'The 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Act was the first U.S. law to officially acknowledge that childhood vaccines licensed and recommended by the federal government, which are routinely mandated for school attendance by state governments, can and do injure and kill a minority of children.'

Let's not be pedantic. Its quite obvious to anyone not living under a rock what "anti-vaccine" means.