null

"I become very stressed or anxious about something" - "I think I can't blame the stress on any particular task" So what are those aparently quite concrete something s that you then cannot point out in particular? This sounds like a contradiction. Can you please elaborate?

@iandotkelly sorry for asking a question here, my bad

@iandotkelly an empty glass?

@Walt the scene shows that there's no easy anything here. Eggsy needs to distract Arthur to swap the glasses. There's no other such distraction previously happening. So how did the poison go only into one glass?

@iandotkelly yes, your comment was faster than mine =)

@iandotkelly one of the training missions (with only 3 candidates left) is to engage with a young women in some night club environment. Each of the three has a drink which turns out to have some substance in it which causes them to be captured and tied to a railway track to check their loyality. In the night club, Eggsy makes the same statement about how the his drink tastes a bit shit. The scene with Arthur reflects on that, but the way Eggsy makes the statement now shows how he is making fun of how Arthur thinks he (Eggsy) would fall for the same trick again.

@iandotkelly I was looking at the statement from a viewers perspective, which makes a connection to one of the training lessons.

@Walt of course he lied (see the spoilers) but the glasses are empty at the beginning of the scene. Where did it come from? How could Arthur slip anything in there if clearly Eggsy's skills in this kind of thing are far superior? How did Arthur pull this off?

It seems that perfection is attained, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to take away. comes to mind when reading such code.

@RubberDuck how is having the pattern already implemented making the pattern obsolete? It's still the design pattern being implemented. Different sets of language features might lead to different implementations of the pattern, but the pattern itself is still there. Patterns are there to ease communication by giving names to reoccurring strategies that's commonly used. Point in case, the .NET classes are called ObservableSomething<T> which makes it easy to understand their purpose, because it uses the commonly known pattern name. A pattern is an idea, not an exact implementation.

"I aim for the whole file to fit on the screen, and set myself a non-negotiable [...] 200 line limit to files" how can you fit 200 lines on your screen? Do you use the monitor in portrait mode?

Why did you create 80% of those tools without getting paid? Also, what has being explicitly asked to create those programs (or not) got to do with it? Not everything you do at work is being asked for. You get a task and it's your job to decide what tools to use, how to use them, etc. "I do have a copy of those files in my Google Drive." as this is partly property of the company, I would talk to somebody at the company if this is ok. Mixing up private and company time was a very bad idea, because ownership and rights can become problematic.

@Crowley the difference is that slaves have a value. If you were in a nazi working camp, you had no value. Your life estimate was predicted to be only a few days.

The argument for optimisation "If you only care about the users being happy today, you're going to have them banging on your door tomorrow.", seems to be a contradiction to the one made against mobile devices "If mobile devices are not a major player for the application(s), spending too much time is a waste." It looks like performance is not a major player or problem at the moment, so optimizing would be a waste of time, while users might be banging on the door tomorrow to use the software on mobile devices. The team needs clear requirements and goals overall.

I'm not sure if the edit helped. The answer is stating that there's a biased judgement against women for having children. Then, the last third of the answer is a biased judgement about what gender of users voted on this answer in which way. That last paragraph doesn't really add to the answer in a meaningful way and in some sense even shows the behaviour the answer is criticizing. No need to get into any meta discussion about who voted on this how and why. It remains speculation anyway.

I'm not sure how this is handled in the US, but where I'm from, men can pause their careers for kids just the same. I guess a married man should then also exclude his marriage status from CV, because his wife could become pregnant and he could stay at home? Please note that your general assumption of how the information is interpreted is stereotypical itself. Are all men in HR thinking this way in the US? Are there no women working in HR? From industry, I know companies that work hard to be family friendly and explicitly promote themselves as such. Universities do the same.

Why is it ok then for a politician running for office to include this? In some sense, your answer in combination with your comments implies that politicians running for office are not professionals.

Don't tell the coworker, email it and include a date when you were told to stop helping.