My uncle was in that story. Decades ago, he told his boss a program would stop working in eight years (8-bit limitation, yeah, that long ago). His boss told him to ship it because they weren’t going to be there in eight years. Sure enough, they weren’t. Eight years later, their IT guy contacted my uncle because he couldn’t figure out why it stopped working, and my uncle showed him the math.
I’d do it just to style on the new guy, start with something like “ah, so humanity has lost the skills that we possessed in the days of yore…”
(TL note: this is in reference to companies refusing to up the pay for their skilled workforce, and ending up paying more to new guys that’ll have to learn it all from scratch)
Nah. Everyone knew everyone back then, and my uncle loves sharing his stories. Basically all he did was tell that then-eight year old story, which still holds up.
What are you taking about, he didn’t bait anyone. You aren’t obligated to honor a quote from someone who isn’t in your company. If I said my son is a mechanic and he can put a new engine in your car for $50, you absolutely should not expect a $50 engine.
I’m saying they should not get to the point that they walk in the door. If they call, correct immediately.
It should be corrected, by Dad, prior to a call, rather than used as a sales funnel, which is the suggestion.
Honest mistakes happen, but using an honest mistake to purposefully continue to mislead to get them in the door and then correct them is a bait and switch.
How do you get them in the door to tell them without the call? Youre advising using an error to your advantage to massage someone to be a client using a bait and switch tactic.
It may not have been thenolan, being a genuine error, but that’s your plan to take advantage of it. If they purposely gave the wrong amount, would it be bait and switch in your view?
I am listening to what you are saying. ok, so you did imply this is not the first contact. Just using a phrase to do so. Obviously you meant something different.
Walking out the door, also a phrase. Again, one that’s situational. It means they are on site. For talking on the phone, I’d say hang up. So again, implying its not the first contact.
Look, I also think it can be correctly handled, but your whole post makes it sound like a pushy sales narrative that is deceptive. Youre not outright calling for deception but the implication is there. I’m not the only one noticing it.
Maybe your choice of words is wrong, but when someone tells you who they are, listen.
Just like in this discussion, youre changing the narrative deceptively.
Now they are on the phone. They weren’t before, that stage had passed.
Sure, you are now retroactively changing your intent but it doesn’t change the meaning of your words.
You say listen to what youre saying. I did.
If you said, when they call advise of the current rate, is agree. Your version seems to be past that stage. In no world does anyone think that you would be obliged to honor the quote. So either your advice is not really advice, to do what is normal and advise them of your actual rate. Or, as appears more likely, you want to leverage the mistake using their sunken cost of time after arranging a meet, knowing in advance their expectations dont match the rate.
If everyone else gets it why is there another comment calling you a LinkedIn lunatic? Its not a term I would use, but I see their point. Your comment is one of two things: A pointless comment offering no advice as of course they would clarify. A comment to say leverage it to your advantage, using deceptive tactics.
Walk it back all you want but in context its clear to me which was the intent. Perhaps you meant no I’ll will, but it reads as exploitative. In quoting for any kind of work, but especially programming based work, there is a knowledge differential. This justifies fees, but the same knowledge differential is often used to take advantage of those with no concept of the work involved.
Dudes just saying you can be deceptive without intending it. Its not the craziest idea is it?
To avoid abusing the sunk cost fallacy, it would be best to tell the dad that is not the correct rate, and to please reach out to their friend with the correction.
No chance of someone feeling like they might as well choose youre higher rate because they are already talking to you.
In my opinion its a direct response to the advice that this can be turned into a positive, and is just pointing out that its technically based on a deceptive principle so you should not make a habit out of it.
I think its fair to consider the situation from all involved perspectives, including the Dads friend.
The guy literally explained he was using sales idioms and you are taking it like someone is actually trying to lock prospective clients in. If he told you they decided to get off the pot instead of walk out the door would you assume he’s a voyeur watching them poop?
Probably depends on the background as well. They could have hardware running (multiplayer server) that gets so little activity that there is no benefit and only loses them money.
It also doesn’t look like the game has steam integration.
Then why not release the binaries for running such server? I’m sure a group of people could figure out how to decompile and make a change so the game attempts to connect to a different master host
Well, i mean i would be all for that but in reality it might not be that easy. It could rely on dependencies that are proprietary that cannot be shipped or provided with the project.
It could alone be that the connection is hard coded in the game itself so instead of just booting up the server and being able to play you would now have to do something to the game itself too that it finds your server. Nothing really that cannot be addressed, I mean people could do that with ragnarok online private servers but not something your normal gamer could do.
Nah, more senior devs often also advocate for the quick fix, for the simple reason that the economics of a “proper” fix simply don’t add up, especially when you don’t know how much value such a fix would bring anyway. If you’re always looking to create “proper” solutions in hopes of someone in the future thanking you for it, it most likely means your priorities aren’t where they should be and it’s very unlikely someone will thank you for it.
Nah, it’s from a blog post that you cannot find via Google, no matter what combination of words you throw at it, that substitutes the documentation for how to link to a specific thing like a customer in SAP ByDesign.
Only this particular entry must’ve come across several redesigns, one of which started rendering ): as that emoji.
It isn't just JavaScript (or Java which uses the "Hashmap" name).
There are, of course, languages that don't have an equivalent structure, but for those that are sufficiently popular, it's almost certain that someone has written a library that emulates associative arrays and then fairly certain that that library, in turn, has been used in production somewhere.
I’m just poking fun that the fundamental type in JS (Object) is an associative-array/hashmap. Technically it has some fancy under-the-hood handling for pure arrays and primitive types. This is also exactly true of Lua, and a little true of Ruby and Python.
Really, most programmers would do great to start with a hash map or array list and only specialize out further when the problem calls for it.
QL was our first game and although it was a big disappointment losing the source code it was lost at a time before we understood decompiler and auto-formatter software.
The time at which the source code was lost is irrelevant for decompilation, decompilation uses the binary files. Those are the files that are out there being played right now.
Until recently decompilers tended to produce rough and useless code for the most part, but I'm looking forward to seeing what modern LLMs will bring to decompilation. They could be trained specifically for the task.
You’re missing the point of the comment you’re replying to, which is that the devs don’t understand decompilers RIGHT NOW, and it’s formatted in a tongue in cheek way similar to their current comment about VCS
I’m all for AI, but there’s gotta be a better way for machines to become intelligent. Not just “training and predicting without any thought in the process.”
You're welcome to try other methods but LLMs seem to be working best so far.
With a decompiler it should be pretty straightforward to automatically check for "hallucinations," the compiled code is still right there and you can compare the decompiled logic to the original.
programmer_humor
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.