Whenever I complain, I usually already know what needs to be done to solve the problem(if there is a solution). Venting is honestly more for emotional affirmation than anything else.
Of course, if I would suggestions or help, I would not hesitate to ask for them.
There is probably a problem that needs to be fixed, but it’s not necessarily the one they are telling you about. In fact, the problem they are telling you about is probably a band-aid to protect the actual problem, and by offering a solution, you are ripping it off.
That’s one of those paradoxes with human behavior around problems. If you put in effort to resolve the problem before it becomes significant, either no one notices, or they claim your effort was unnecessary because it wasn’t a problem in the first place.
Y2K bugs are a great example. Lots of effort, time, and money was spent ahead of time to prevent it from becoming a problem…and you get people claiming the whole thing was just nothing to be worried about at all and the expense was pointless.
Early computers had very limited resources, RAM, storage, etc. (first computer I worked with only had 4k of RAM for example) It often made sense to only use the last 2 digits of the year as an optimization in many common tasks that computers were used for, as both the 1800s and the 2000s were far enough away that most basic date calculations worked fine. Also, the industry was changing rapidly, and few people expected their software to be used for more than a few years - certainly not for decades, so focus was usually on solving the immediate tasks as efficiently as possible, without much consideration for the distant future.
However, it turned out that a lot of the code written in this period (70s and 80s) became “legacy code” that companies started relying on for far longer than was expected, to the point that old retired COBOL programmers were being hired for big $$ in late 90s to come and fix Y2K issues in code written decades ago. Many large systems had some critical ancient mainframe code somewhere along the dependency chains. On top of that, even stuff that was meant to handle Y2K was not always tested well, and all kinds of unexpected dependencies crept up where a small bug here, or some forgotten non-compliant library there could wreak havoc once date rolled over into the 2000s.
A lot of the Y2K work was testing all the systems and finding all the places such bugs were hiding.
Dates with the year stored as two digits only (say, 1995 was stored as “95”), which worked fine for things like comparisons (for example: “is the year in entry A before or after the year in entry B?”) which were just done by numerical comparison (i.e. 98 > 95 hence a date with a year ending in 98 is after a date with the year ending in 95), until 2000 were the year being store would become “00” and all those assumptions that you could compare those stored years as numbers would break, as would as all the maths being done on two digits (i.e. a loan taken in 1995 would in 1998 be on its 98 - 95 = 3rd year with that system, but in 2000 it would be on its 98 - 00 = - 98th - so negative - year which would further break the maths downstream with interesting results like the computer telling the bank it would have to give money to the lender to close the loan).
Ultimatelly a lot of work was done (I myself worked in some of that stuff) and very few important things blew up or started producing erroneous numbers when the year 2000 came.
Put energy into building robust systems organically (A lot of problems get solved because they where experienced, not because they where predicted) and then a year later you have folks asking “Can’t we just simplify this and remove XYZ? Do these problems even exist? Can you show us how often edge cases a, b, c happens to justify why this needs to operate this way?”…etc
Should have just let it fail and fixed the issues once pagerduty got involved instead 😒
so, briefly, Uno… you divvy out a stack of cards. each card has a number value and a color (or are wild here.), or do something (reverse play order, and stuf.) The card being played means the next person has to pick up 4 cards. the goal is to drop all your cards.
the “joke” is, she killed him for that. I don’t particularly find jokes about domestic violence funny.
We used to play with the house rule that draws stack and transfer until the player is unable to play some kind of deflection. Nothing like sending grandma packing with a Draw 16 stack! (Who am I kidding, granny was the one always whipping our asses at cards! 😭)
It’s not a stack. Two players are playing, the +4 also skips the turn of the player it affects. The person who played the +4 is then allowed to play any valid card such as a +4 wild.
In the event of an apocalypse and you do happen to pack a great bag of actual essentials … someone bigger stronger and with a gun is going to murder you for it.
Are they? I’ll admit, my experience is limited but it’s seemed to me even pistols are a considerable weight, especially compared to other survival/camping supplies.
Yeah, if you’ve ever done some serious hiking you know you wouldn’t want to haul around a gun. Also, imagine being in a shootout while wearing a massive backpack.
1.5 lbs, loaded, on average. Even I overestimated by quite a lot but it still wouldn’t have made a major difference.
How the hell heavy did you think guns were? Were you adding on the mental weight of being able to easily take a life? Because that traditionally does convert to mass very readily.
Depends what you consider considerable. For example Glock G19 is 855 g (30.16 oz) with a full magazine, to me that doesn’t seem much. Especially if you consider how valuable of a tool it could be. Hopefully you’d have at least twice that weight in water alone.
comicstrips
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.