They’re a member, because they find Rust useful. This is just them saying another time that they find Rust useful.

Fans of a programming language stating they like the programming language is hardly thought-provoking stuff. There are also apps written in brainfuck and that means nothing as well.

It doesn’t matter, why the present is garbage, it’s garbage and we should address that. Statements like this are the engineering equivalent of “it is what it is shrug emoji”.

I don't think your opinion is grounded on reality. The "it is what it is" actually reflects the facts that there is no way to fix the issue in backwards-compatible ways, and it's unrealistic to believe that vulnerable frameworks/websites/webservices can be updated in a moment's notice, or even at all. This fact is mentioned in the article. Those which can be updated already moved onto a proper authentication scheme. Those who didn't have to continue to work after users upgrade their browser.

The primary problem is using agile all the time instead of when it is actually intended to be used: short term work that needs to be done quickly by a small team that are all on the same page already.

I think you got it entirely backwards.

The whole point of Agile is being able to avoid the "big design up front" approach that kills so many projects, and instead go through multiple design and implementation rounds to adapt your work to the end goal based on what lessons you're picking up along the way.

The whole point is improving the ability to deliver within long term projects. Hence the need to iterate and to adapt. None of these issues pose a challenge in short term work.

It baffles me that you can advertise something as “unlimited” and then impose arbitrary limits after the fact.

I didn't saw anything on the post that suggests that was the case. They start with a reference to a urgent call for a meeting from cloud flare to discuss specifics on how they were using the hosting provider's service, which sounds a lot like they were caught hiding behind the host doing abusive things,and afterwards they were explicitly pointed out for doing abusing stuff that violated terms of service and jeopardized the hosting service's reputation as a good actor.

It’s a way of saying “these are wrong and should be deprecated.”

They aren't wrong. No one in their right mind just throws away years of work delivering a stable production project just because a random clueless person in the internet said something. It's lunacy.

You don’t need any of it, relevant experience is worth in the region of 5x-10x for every hiring manager I’ve known, and for myself.

The only time I had to brush up on data structures and algorithms is when I apply to job ads, and recruiters put up bullshit ladder-pulling trivia questions to pass to the next stage of a recruiting process. It's astonishing how the usefulness of a whole body of knowledge is to feed gatekeepers with trivia questions.

This blog post writes a dissertation about garbage collection, heap memory management, the absolute need to take courses on assembly language, and other contrived and absurd tangents.

Looking at the code, the guy gets a double-free because he instantiates two std::unique_ptr from the same raw pointer.

I'm sure the author felt very clever to pull up all these topics to write a blog post about, but in the end all they're doing is writing buggy code based on their misconception of a topic.

must have been a half ass attempt

How hard do you need to try to use a feature for it to be considered decent? Do you expect something as basic as a search to put up a fight?

He is completely right in this context, not all European countries have the same workers right as Germany.

I understand that this isn't an academic discussion on logic, but it's also not correct to claim that Europe doesn't have basic worker's rights because there might be a country or two in the dozens of countries that make up Europe that might not have explicitly prohibit a specific form of abuse.

I don’t think it’s a stupid thing to want to have code in the kernel, especially after spending all my time debugging this issue.

The way that you jumped straight onto broadcasting drama when your very first Linux kernel patch stumbled on the code review stage is a major red flag.

I would hate to work with you because I would feel that I would be risking being subjected to a very public character attack each time I had to review one of your patches.

Here’s another: most code reviews on larger companies are BS, just for show and nitpicking.

Story time.

Once I worked with a developer that just joined the company straight out of college, and had far more ambition than competency. That developer decided that code reviews where the venue where their high bar for code quality would shine, so they decided to nitpick everything that went against their poorly formed sense of taste. As luck would have it, the developer was assigned to a legacy project that was in cold storage for years and had no tests and linters, and was in a really poor state, and proceeded to leverage that to challenge each and every insignificant detail such as if a space should be at the left or at the right of a symbol. Each code review automatically received dozens of comments nitpicking whitespace changes. What a waste of time with so much noise.

I drop by the project, and noticed the churn that developer alone forced upon everyone, as that team had a rule that all code reviews should be passed by all reviewers and that reviewer made it their point to reject reviews that didn't complied to their opinion on whitespace. So the first thing I did was onboard a code formatter, and made it my point to subject the spec to an unanimous code review. That problematic developer made it their point to nitpick away each and every single setting, but it turned out some of their opinions conflicted with previous feedback.

So the code formatter tool was onboarded onto the team. Did that stopped the problematic developer from continuing their nitpicking? No. Except this time around other developers started pushing back because the opinions were contradictory and contrasted with the official code formatting style.

All it took was a couple of days for the problematic developer to go from dozens of comments per day to zero. The code formatter was still optional and not fully adopted, but the problematic developer simply ceased with the bickering.

Here's a way to convince a team to write unit tests:

• setup a CICD pipeline,
• add a unit test stage,
• add code coverage calculation,
• add a rule where unit tests fail if a code coverage metric drops.
• if your project is modularized, add pipeline stages to build and test and track code coverage per module.

Now, don't set the threshold to, say, 95 %. Keep it somewhat low. Also, be consistent but not a fundamentalist.

Also, make test coverage a part of your daily communication. Create refactoring tickets whose definition of done specifies code coverage gains. Always give a status report on the project's code coverage, and publicly praise those who did work to increase code coverage.