The first one is clearly wrong because no-one (oh alright, almost no-one, Toe-Jeans Georg) wears leg-wear on our toes.
Third option: The top layers are covered by a poncho and only the eight pairs at the bottom have leg-wear. This works when considering each subtree as a separate tree in its own right, up to arguing about how many ponchos are then required.
Fourth option: The top two branches wear leg-wear and those below go in footwear of some sort.
I’m pretty sure I’ve done most of these at some point or another.
It really depends whether I like you or not.
Liking my users is entirely dependent on how much work you make me do, and how difficult that work becomes because of your personality.
I’ve gotten tickets that were literally “$thing is broken”, or “help! Call me!” With no information given, not even a callback number. I’ve also gotten a rambling voicemail, in which a user describes an issue with a piece of software and doesn’t identify themselves, not provide any callback information. The CID on the voicemail wasn’t available either, and since I work with several companies doing support, I couldn’t even identify the client, nevermind the specific user.
There’s also the needy users that create tickets for every prompt, dialog, message, delay… Pretty much anything that could happen at all ever, whether it affects their ability to do their work or not.
There’s also the unavailable users, they are not available ever, at any time, for any reason. I have literally gotten critical tickets which require me to access the users workstation to fix, while it is logged in as the user, and I could call less than 5 minutes after they create the ticket, and they’re busy. Email them and they have an out of the office message, or reply with something about them being in a meeting (with no information about when they will be free), or simply don’t reply at all. After a few weeks of trying to contact them to connect and resolve their very simple (but “critical”) issue and getting nowhere, close the ticket, only to be met with a flurry of emails from them about how the problem isn’t solved. Immediately call or reply and you get voicemail and silence.
Most of my users do fine, and it’s usually a minority that are troublemakers, and I want to make that clear… But the troublemakers are the driving force for me to find ways to fix pretty much every problem without ever opening their system though remote control. I can do all kinds of things from registry edits and hacks, to writing and scheduling PowerShell scripts to fix their shit every time they log in, and deploy that by a remote PowerShell command prompt, and nothing more.
Yeah William, you might be the c-whatever bullshit, but if the issue is sooo fucking critical, make five goddamned minutes for me to fix your shit or it’s not getting fixed. I don’t care if you own the goddamned planet, I can’t fix your shit without access.
There’s also the needy users that create tickets for every prompt, dialog, message, delay… Pretty much anything that could happen at all ever, whether it affects their ability to do their work or not.‘’
This could be weaponized incompetence. “Oh I keep having issues with my computer that interfere with my work, so I can’t work and IT is incompetent and can’t help me, look at all these tickets and how long IT takes. I just can’t get any work done!”
Doesn’t that construction only work in categories that also contain their own morphisms as objects since a profunctor maps (Cᵒᵖ × C) → Set and not the same like (Cᵒᵖ × C) → C? Since the category of Haskell types special, containing its own morphisms, so the profunctor could be like (haskᵒᵖ × hask) -> hask? or I just don’t understand it.
Hom functors exist for locally small categories, which is just to say that the hom classes are sets. The distinction can be ignored often because local smallness is a trivial consequence of how the category is defined, but it’s not generally true
programmer_humor
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.