I'm not sure about you, but there were no cellphones in my school days, so we got our distractions by chatting or doodling or doing virtually anything else except focusing on class. Kids don't concentrate during lessons, they never have.
Well, maybe today things are different when kids are all drugged up with Adderal and Ritalin, and any minor disturbance causes a SWAT team to show up.
In the US, the idea that the federal government could issue such a ban would be preposterous. It's a matter of principle. The state shouldn't be regulating these kinds of things, it only makes a mockery of itself.
A lot of these points are highly subjective and therefore dangerous points of friction. If you're going to start having a discussion about the "business need" when some presumably competent developer needs something they have already written merged, there's going to be a problem and it's not the code in question.
Again, I'm presuming competence. Code reviews can help with tutoring new arrivals, but at some point they need to graduate to a responsible, self-directed actor. At that point, chances are their code reviews will get signed off with a superficial "lgtm" anyway.
> The reviewer gets to see a another dev's code along with a good description of what that change does so if there's an emergency someone on the team might actually know where to look.
In an emergency, you need developers to be able to figure things out regardless of whether they have seen something in a code review or not. Knowledge of a code base is built much more efficiently by actually working on it and, to a lesser degree, reading the code. With the time you save not doing reviews, you can let people write tests or do refactorings to build that exact skill directly, instead of having it be a side-effect.
In most "modern" environments, with constant online updates, where shipped defects are not that costly anymore, code review is a net loss. You can just skip it. This study fails to compare with "no code review whatsoever" and it measures by "defects found" instead of "total effort spent" (i.e. the only metric that truly matters).
In code review, most developers will not do the kind of thorough analysis that uncovers serious bugs, if they actually did, code review would be too costly. Instead, disagreements on superficialities and bike-shed arguments are promoted, often leading to low-value follow-up changes that can easily cause worse issues than they solve.
Code review satisfies the urge for process and structure, but it also satisfies the need for diffusion of responsibility, which is a bad thing. People need to own their code.
Code reviews have some value during onboarding or with junior devs, to get everybody on the same page. After that, you can disregard it, the effort is better spent on other things like automated testing.
I learned to type blindly informally on QWERTY and I use only my index fingers and my pinkies. I actually move my arms a little when typing. I'm reasonably fast, certainly fast enough for anything I do.
I have never had any problem with wrist stain and just from trying out "proper touch typing", I feel like my way of typing is far less straining and "more natural". That could just be confirmation bias of course.
SURVEY:
Who else has learned typing similarly to me and what have been your experiences?
It was the answer to a problem that nobody had, straight out of the dotcom bubble days where those answers could be sold as a business cases or for university grants.
Basically any form of structured data, be it in XML or JSON, served through some channel of data, is everything people need. There is no benefit in further standardization. Simple, informal standards work better than monstrous specifications that nobody ever bothers to deal with properly. The most important part is reducing friction, that's why JSON is the most successful format despite its shortcomings.
Well, maybe today things are different when kids are all drugged up with Adderal and Ritalin, and any minor disturbance causes a SWAT team to show up.