The other day I was updating something and a test failed. I looked at it and saw I had written it, and left a comment that said like “{Coworker} says this test case is important”. Welp. He was right. Was a subtle wrong that could’ve gone out to customers, but the wrong stayed just on my local thanks to that test.

I would have questions about how they work with a team and structure.

Are they going to be okay with planning work out two weeks ahead? Sometimes hobbyists do like 80% of a task and then wander off (it’s me with some of my hobbies).

Are they going to be okay following existing code standards? I don’t want to deal with someone coming in and trying to relitigate line lengths or other formatting stuff, or someone who’s going to reject the idea of standards altogether.

Are they going to be okay giving and getting feedback from peers? Sometimes code review can be hard for people. I recently had a whole snafu at work where someone was trying to extend some existing code into something it wasn’t meant to do*, and he got really upset when the PR was rejected.

Do they write tests? Good ones? I feel like a lot of self taught hobbyists don’t. A lot of professionals don’t. I don’t want to deal with someone’s 4000 line endpoint that has no tests but “just works see I manually tested it”

I’ve definitely had some coworkers that in retrospect we should not have hired. But I’ve also had people I was iffy on that turned out great. Hiring is hard.

I know. I have a sad story I posted recently about when I was on a grand jury. It’s simple majority.

But there’s also no voir dire. I don’t think they asked me any questions except like “do you live here”.

Have there been indictments yet? Grand jury could nullify, which would be hilarious.

One: Peter Thiel is a horrible person and I hope Saint Luigi visits him.

Two: They could chose to change their behavior and be much safer. Stop profiting from exploitation and suffering. You don’t even have to go all the way to being a “good person”. No one’s going to assassinate the guy who quietly lives in a 3BR apartment and spends his afternoons at the museum, even if he’s living off high interest savings accounts.

Yeah I don’t understand why he didn’t lay low for longer.

Eric Adams is a giant turd.

The little old lady next to me says hello and sometimes let’s me know if there’s a package waiting for me.

The people on the other side I don’t know. They don’t seem especially friendly or unfriendly, but I’m happy to live and let live.

I see no need to install an app for what is essentially a web site.

Are these experts also concerned about the capitalist hellscape we live in? People aren’t loving the murder because it was murder. People love it because the guy who got shot was a huge asshole that profited from needless suffering.

All this hand wringing is bullshit

I think corporate America has ill will towards us.

Does this mean they got a grand jury to issue an indictment already? If so, disappointed that jury didn’t refuse to indict.

Guilty people need legal defense too

Why are they removing these?

Remember that jury nullification exists. If you’re being asked to convict on something that’s bullshit, you can just say not guilty and the court can’t tell you that you gave the wrong answer.

This is a double edged property. It can be used as easily to shield some guy smoking pot from jail as a hate crime.

Just don’t tell them you’re nullifying because they’ll remove you.

They really are spending a lot of resources on this guy that they wouldn’t spend if the victim was poor.

I hope they never find him.

No. I never really used it much. Facebook is bad and everyone should delete it. Staying in touch with friends can be done with email, chat, or federated services.

Big, centrally owned platforms aren’t a good idea.

Reddit did some API nonsense, and that was when I left there. I was already off twitter, and never used facebook stuff.

I need somewhere for my meme and internet highlights supply, and lemmy has been ok so far.

I’ve had that argument presented to me and gone with “you would rather they suffer? Maybe die?”

If they’re nominally Christian it’s kind of an easy shot (good Samaritan, sheep and the goats), but I have to avoid making them feel like shit (because their position is shit and they deserve to feel bad). But by framing us as both believers in some of jesus’ teachings, they can see me as in-group and might actually listen. I’m not really a Christian scholar though so I’d probably lose an argument with someone who’s ready to bring down some prosperity gospel or actually knows any scripture.

Even without Christianity, engaging on “why should they suffer and die over the happenstance of their birth location? If the situation was reversed, what would you prefer happen to you?” Making it about them is usually a good move.

“Well I’d go through the proper channels”

“Cool. Your asylum claim is denied. Now what?”