Wow everyone seems to love P3 but I actually liked P4 better. I mean I really enjoyed both, but P4 was a more immersive experience for me. I should reboot my vita and play it again.

I really felt like P4 had deeper connections and relationships between the characters. It felt more real, and that made the tension in the game more exciting. I love every second of it and am still trying to find a game like it.

Don’t get me wrong, P3 was great also. The gameplay was superb and the characters were all great. But P4 still has a special place in my heart.

They’re asking for TV manufacturers to block a VPN app in the TV. Not to block VPN in general.

Yeah that’s a good point. It’s telling that inheritance is by design difficult to change unless you follow very specific rules of good OO design patterns.

I guess it’s easy to write bad code in any programming paradkgm but inheritance makes it easy to screw up.

Most of us have bad memories of over-complex hierarchies we regret seeing, but this is probably due to the dominance of OOP in recent decades.

This sentence here is why inheritance gets a bad reputation, rightly or wrongly. Inheritance sounds intuitive when you’re inheriting Vehicle in your Bicycle class, but it falls apart when dealing with more abstract ideas. Thus, it’s not immediately clear when and why you should use inheritance, and it soon becomes a tangled mess.

Thus, OO programs can easily fall into a trap of organizing code into false hierarchies. And those hierarchies may not make sense from developer to developer who is reading the code.

I’m not a fan of OO programming, but I do think it can occasionally be a useful tool.

If the work I’m doing is on a feature branch on remote or locally, why does it matter to the rest of the team? My integration steps can be done on a server instead of locally. TBD forces teams to collaborate synchronously since changes are pushed straight to trunk. Rebase or squashes are irrelevant here.

Another poster put it great: TBD is trying to solve a culture problem. Feature branches and pull requests into main is much more flexible. The only time TBD make sense is for small teams - like 2 or maybe 3. And even at 2, I’d much rather create feature branches that merge into main.

Precisely. In practice, trunk based development just means your branch is local instead of on remote.

Right across ideological lines. It seems unlikely to get politics and ideological beliefs out of the Supreme Court any time soon. The states had no standing in the first place, I’m surprised it didn’t get thrown out just due to that.

The overreach by this court has been disasterous, especially in light of the unethical behavior by justices to accept gifts from would-be plantiffs without recusing themselves.

Ehhh, I don’t quite agree with this. I’ve done the same thing where I used a timestamp field to replace a boolean. However, they are technically not the same thing. In databases, boolean fields can be nullable so you actually have 3-valued boolean logic: true, false, and null. You can technically only replace a non-nullable field to a timestamp column because you are treating null in timestamp as false.

Two examples:

1. A table of generated documents for employees to sign. There’s a field where they need to agree to something, but it’s optional. You want to differentiate between employees who agreed, employees who disagreed, and employees who have yet to agree. You can’t change the column from is_agreed to agreed_at.

2. Adding a boolean column to an existing table. These columns need to either default to an value (which is fair) or be nullable.

It’s not about what it is today but what it can be. I agree that there are a bunch of problems, but the future does look bright.

Nothing wrong with recommending a Mac. I’m not a Mac guy myself but I am pretty productive with one.