I could imagine a leadership or viewpoint change in how they reported when/what was down.
I've seen so many times where Company A will complain that their vendors aren't accurate enough about uptime and how Company A notices first that their vendors are down, but then they themselves have a very laggy or inaccurate status page.
We want our vendors to be accurate to the minute on these, but many CTOs don't care to admit when they too have problems.
It's all individual. That's like saying writing only happens when you know exactly the story to tell. I love open a blank project with a vague idea of what I want to do, and then just start exploring while I'm coding.
I would be astonished if there isn't an automated tool to check for that at the push of a button. I would be mildly surprised if there isn't a compiler flag to check for it.
I’m surprised I don’t see this mentioned more. This is spooky action at a distance at its worst. And it’s not even limited to error handling. Any multi value assignment works like this.
Judging from the context, the user interface was fine in the days of limited resources (a 16 kiloword PDP-11 was cited) but then modern computers have the resources for better user interfaces.
They clearly didn't realize that even more modern Unix kernels would require hundreds of megabytes just to boot.
Pretty much everyone uses Discord now. It's not about forcing her, it's about using a chat program you use already. If you two happen to not use Discord to talk to each other surely there is some other app which you use to communicate with each other.
Errm. No. Not everyone uses Discord now. When making general statements like that it always helps to keep a bit of perspective: am I or am I not involved in a crowd that on average is more likely than other such crowds to be using piece of software 'x'?
At any one point in time 'everybody uses IRC', 'everbody uses ICQ', 'everybody uses Messenger' and so on would have all been equally false.
Almost everybody who is not a child in the developed world has a mobile phone. But not all of those are smartphones and there are still large numbers of people in the world who don't have any of this, nor do they have internet access (about 40% of the people, some because they are too young, some too old and some for other reasons), which is a pre-requisite for using something like discord.
By the time you're done with taking all this into account you end up with a paltry 140M MAU, a far cry from 'pretty much everyone'.
school: there were various discord groups most people joined
work: Most of my communication with coworkers is over discord
fun: all online communities I'm a part of have a discord server
>But not all of those are smartphones and there are still large numbers of people in the world who don't have any of this, nor do they have internet access
Everyone I know IRL has access to the internet and except for some kids everyone has a cellphone.
By everyone I didn't mean literally everyone. I meant that if I want to chat to someone or about something 99% of the time discord is the place where that happens because that person uses discord or a discord server exists for that topic.
> I meant that if I want to chat to someone or about something 99% of the time discord is the place where that happens because that person uses discord or a discord server exists for that topic.
But that's a completely different thing than what you originally said ("Pretty much everyone uses Discord now.").
I is the operative part here. Personally I've never used discord, and I don't know anybody IRL that has to the point that they have asked me to join and if they did I would probably refuse. I have enough comms channels as it is.
It is important to realize that when you speak in generalized terms you are usually just speaking for yourself, so better to phrase things that way.
And here it's email first, phone second, sms if I can't be reached immediately. And I guess there are as many variations on that as there are people, with the number of comms options comfortably exceeding 33.
This is yet another generalization that doesn't hold true for the vast majority of the couples that I am aware of.
(scope = me) != (scope = the world)
Your bubble is unique to you, even if it seems like that's the whole world because you haven't seen much outside of your bubble (almost by definition) that does not mean that you are going to be able to generalize outside of your bubble from data collected inside of it except for the most obvious of cases.
Did my master's full time while working full time. Never had better grades before or after, but sacrificed a lot and nothing stuck. Can't remember barely anything I learned during my master's.