It sounds more like you straight up disagree with Ousterhout?
I agree with you, though. Inaccurate comments are tentamount to bad documentation, and nobody says bad documentation is remotely good for something...
In fact, that's sometimes the biggest difference between different libraries/frameworks, and the one with better documentation almost always wins.
IME, single-line comments that deserve to stay are ones warning about unobvious context, like why a certain function call has funky parameter prep, or why a var is being treated differently, or even just a healthy reminder that 'this' math statement does actually need all those type casts.
Of course, if I find myself simply stating only what the code is doing, I'll look for things to restructure/rename (because why the F did I feel the need to write a comment if it's straight forward?), but they're useful far more often than certain types ("code should be self-documenting!") like to admit. Hell, some code ends up looking funky solely because it's using a weird language feature or working around a language-specific issue and those usually-obvious things still sometimes deserve comments!
Just like how simple, elegant psudo-code can explode in to a mess when dealing with the real-world edge cases, sometimes simple code does deserve an explanation. Give the dev enough context to connect the simple conceptual idea to the complex state during the code's execution.
Only time I remove such comments is when they're referring to something that is already well documented somewhere. Like if it's a method call with some funky parameter requirements, but they're already thoroughly explained in the method's own comments/docs, then that might get removed. Still though, if it's funky enough that a coworker might have similar refactoring thoughts should they come through on their own, I might leave/add a comment about why the crappy statement(s) remain as they are (with reference to any docs) so the coworker doesn't have to literally re-search why the code wasn't refactored last time through. Promise it's not 'cause I'm lazy!!
Wait, a person looking for fame and fortune via glorifying themselves turned out to be a bad person?!
... Holy shit celebrity culture has cooked peoples' brains... cannot even finish my mock surprise.
Hollywood running its own rewards shows has always been the Obama putting a medal on Obama meme...
In fact, rewards ceremonies for most things are nothing but BS. Very, very few are actual rewards that seriously considered all applicable content, and even fewer serve a purpose beyond ego inflation.
Those low quality episodes are worse than a waste of time. They directly detract from the satire that South Park otherwise survives on.
"Satire requires a clarity of purpose and target lest it be mistaken for and contribute to that which it intends to criticize."
Their insistence on making fun of everything makes them no more politically significant than all of the punk bands of the 80's and 90's... A footnote in history that otherwise did nothing but make the uninformed fools clutch their pearls and a bunch of teens cheer for that which they could never understand.
That stupidity, selfishness, and other negtive persinality traits have a causational relationship with conservative politics and that they really are just hateful shit people that fall for the most obvious manipulative propaganda.
Your reading comprehension is severely lacking.
They're commenting about how the name is bad and how that X is ruined in the public zeitgeist. Yes, X the display framework has been around for decades, but Random Joe 28507 still doesn't know what that X is.
Murder requires intent. This is just more anthropomorphization of LLMs...
Probably more inertia than magnetism. The water isn't stuck to the bowl as a solid mass. Rotating with the bowl requires the water to drag on itself to move with the bowl. That takes time for enough force to transfer to really get the water rotating at any significant speed, so it merely looks like it's acting like a compass. If you keep rotating, the water will eventually catch up to the bowl's speed.
Mind, anything floating on the water could also actually act like a compass needle if it has a strong enough charge differential across it. That's not uncommon at all, it'd just be weird for spit or a collection of bubbles to have enough charge since they're bad at holding charge.
The test would be to spin around once or twice with the bowl and set it down. If it is not magnetic, the water should stay rotating very slowly and the slobber/etc will just continue to rotate a little and eventually stop and sit at a new orientation. If it IS acting like a compass, the floaters will slow down and then rotate back the few degrees the other way to stay oriented.
Personally, I'm more allergic to the litterbox dust and shit smell than fur or saliva.
Also pretty sure it's going to be subjective as to what will set someone's allergies off, as allergies are extremely subjective.
Yea he sounds like he wants to be contrarian on TDD if he's thinking that equals no design. lol
IMO, thinks like factory constructors are just typical over-engineering things. I've yet to meet a programmer (that actually became one as a career) that learns a new pattern and doesn't implement it somewhere it doesn't need to be. (hell, I'd say that's the entirety of the existence of blockchain and NFTs... outside of the money-grubbers/launderers, of course)
Why do you think TDD is so bad in Java and what makes it so easy in Ruby? My experience is mostly from Java, and there, TDD seems easy enough for a strongly typed language? At least when leveraging modern libraries/frameworks and coding practices so the pieces are actually accessible. I'm sure doing TDD with raw Java would suck ass for the patterns that don't jive with IOC-adjacent design. lol