Joe's behaviour is completely unacceptable. Her treatment at work like some leper again is unacceptable though some this could be attributed to awkwardness on how to broach the subject or if it should be talked about at all.
Two things strike me though:
Shots off of Justine's stomach. The best response I have heard from a girl in a mixed group when asked to do it was "I will do it if you do it first." It turns it from another girl doing shots on the bar to a weird group activity which is silly, not sexual. Obviously a straight up no would suffice, who cares what a drunk person says?
The second thing was how it went down. During a recent stag do a random girl walked over to one of our group and kissed him randomly without warning or anything. The guy pushed her away, recoiled in horror and said with a look of despair "she - put - her - tongue - in - my - mouth!?"
We laughed but seriously, we knew it wasn't consensual, if she went back in we would have pulled her away.
I feel this is the correct response to being jumped on. This or a loud no.
Not reciprocating, then questioning whether the wife would mind is not a no. Standing there awkwardly waiting for it to be over does not convey stop and it doesn't give friends an opportunity to come to the rescue.
Without a no the lack of participation can suggest hesitation. Asking about the wife perhaps reinforces this. "Oh so thats why you are slow getting into it. Don't worry about her." From the outside the lack of no and look of awkwardness could suggest this isn't something you do very often. Not that you want it to stop.
Justine is not at fault in the slightest. Joe forced himself on her. That said I wonder how differently things would have been if she straight up said no or even pushed him away.
Does anyone know why Chrome font rendering sucks so hard. It isn't just this site. Boss passes me a design to make and more often than not we have to reject the designers font choice because of terrible rendering.
I think the bigger issue here is they got married during the honeymoon phase of a relationship.
The first 6-12 month's of a good relationship are fantastic. Its exciting, full of lust and you get that lovey feeling with little effort.
However, as you get to know each other more and more the fire starts to go out. The relationship transforms into a deeper companionship. Where originally being yourself was enough you now need to make a small effort to show you care. Do something to make the other's life easier, or give them a small surprise etc. Instead of 'the fire' always being there you need to generate it.
People who don't make the effort get the feeling they aren't loved or start arguing or wake up one day and find out they are sleeping next to a friend.
I have been in a relationship for 9 years and am happy. There have been bad patches but it just takes a bit of perseverance to work through them.
I get the impression a lot of people expect a relationship stays in the honeymoon period or give up to easily when they hit a bad patch. I think it's a bit sad.
"The grass is greener on the other side." Some day's it is... but I have found if you go to that other side and give it a little while often what you originally had was better all along.
Using Coast now.. I really want to like it. Trouble is it is slow.. you click a link and sometimes nothing happens.
Also, i like tabs. I find a story on HN and just leave it on a tab for later and open HN in a new tab. Not sure how to do this with coast. Maybe create a bookmark? It is less simple than having tabs.
I wonder how many of these sites will still exist in 10-16 years time. Will gmail still be running? Will it be the goto email provider?
The thing that is most bizarre is they care so much about protecting the kids online identity yet they registered real names. What if the kid wants to use an alias? I find it all a bit odd.
I completely get keeping pictures off of facebook. This setting up a virtual identity.. its weird.
I agree that the one good thing this law has done is start a debate.
On the downside it is negatively affecting how you interact with websites. Often before I can even determine if I am on the right website I get a pop up message before I can continue.
Recently I was on a shopping site and I clicked no to the cookies thinking it would only stop tracking cookies. Was surprised when my cart wouldn't save. It is silly that this breaks the site's basic functionality.
If anything browser vendors should be doing more. I do not think this can be done via legislation though. I also think prosecuting websites is silly. If these cookies are so toxic the companies running the services should be showing messages.
For example. Analytics. Why is it that I need to "opt in" to this on every site with a pop up? Why can't I just click YES and be done with it when it comes to this service?
You could then have non-tracking cookies essential to the running of the service exempt from this law.
Despite the shakey study wouldn't this result be expected? The more time you spend on Facebook the less time you spend actually socialising with real people? Facebook doesn't have voice chat. Text messaging is unforfilling.
Facebook has a great number of uses but one thing it doesn't do is allow you to see your friends, or actually speak to them. Using their chat box, if anything, emphasises the distance between you and the person you are speaking to.
Facebook doesn't have the tools to help with loneliness. Then it makes it worse by showing how awesome everyone else has it. My friends timeline is like a highlight reel of their best bits.
> Russia is far worse than the US when it comes to rights
To be fair year after year the US fails to cover itself in glory when it comes to rights itself.
Abuse of PoW's in Iraq, extraordinary rendition, seemingly indefinite imprisonment without charge in Guantanamo, access to call records and internet usage of citizens without a warrant. I wonder about these Drone strikes which the US seems to able to do in any non-western sovereign country.
It has reached a point where you wonder what will happen next.
The mystifying thing is how passionate US citizens are about their right to vote. The massive rally's etc etc. And yet it seems politicians are almost always guided by big campaign contributors than the need's of the people they represent.
I am somewhat stumped by the faux-rage of the press and politicians. It seems that the US shitting over civil liberties isn't even a story. Instead it is all about Snowden and Russia. Realistically if a Russian named Snowdenoff fled to the US after doing something similar to Russia there is no way the US would have handed him over.
I think the broader point is to use a single language over as many of your system's as possible. Rather than just "Python is the answer to everything."
Obviously there are benefits and drawbacks to such an idea. Benefit is every programmer you hire can be a Python developer. Should make meetings fairly simple. You need to worry less about ensuring you have an adequate number of x developers to maintain the system which relies on language x.
Obviously the drawback is that Python, like any other language, isn't the best choice for everything. To get round such inefficiencies Dropbox choose to buy larger machines.
Interesting. My local chipshop has had a like us on Facebook sign up for the past year. They have 13 likes.. The only use for this I can see is in an office so everyone can see the count going up.
Putting it on the shop front of a small business would be a bit embarassing as the majority of small businesses have a miniscule number of likes..
How is this site made? It looks like changing pages are ajax transitions but the url is changing at the top? Could someone point me in the direction of how this is made please. Would be really interested.
The first game on HN which I actually competed. Great fun.
Had a rather fantastic come back from 1 - 9 down to win 12 - 10 against the computer. Fairly beatable once you get the technique down.
My heart stopped at 8 - 9 when I dropped a point and thought I had lost. The shot was a horizontal slow shot from left to right and for some reason I moved out the way..
Never found pong so thrilling. Must play it more often.
The code base doesn't have unit tests. It was built by a hobbiest 4 years ago. The current version supports legacy features from a previous version. It is mainly procedural with a smattering of random classes. There is a lot of code duplication. It is the definition of spaghetti code.
Honestly I wouldn't know where to begin with unit tests in this code base.
1. I wasn't around when the system was set up. I think the idea was that developers could work together on an incremental version in dev repo. Then it could be pushed out as a clear update in the live repo.
2. It was what someone chose 4 years ago. The guy has since left. Everyone is familiar with SVN. SVN is pretty easy to get into. We haven't seen a need to change.
> I trust that you are "incredibly competent" but 1 mistake a month seems very low to me. But what do I know! :)
Honestly, I don't know where "incredibly" came from. I was going for pretty (pretty competent). I think my mind was in 2 places at once.
I have been working with the same code base for 2 years. I know it back to front. I am good at testing and my mind is open to the various scenarios which need to be tested for each change which is made. I make mistakes all the time but they very very very rarely sneak out and get live.
> What type of product do you have?
Its a website-as-a-service product.
> Do you have a QA team?
Nope. For major features we try to get all employee's to pitch in for a group test on a development server. That is the best we do. Minor features / fixes are just tested locally by the developer then go out.
> Do you track new and close bug counts from week to week?
We use bug tracking software. We track the amount of open bugs. When I started I was getting around 20 bugs / developer support requests a week. Now I get one or two. Most of what I get through the tracker is trouble shooting unfamiliar hosting configurations.
> Similarly do you track regression counts from build to build?
No
> Does the code base have a high completeness rate for unit tests?
The code base doesn't have unit tests. It was built by a hobbiest 4 years ago. The current version supports legacy features from a previous version. It is mainly procedural with a smattering of random classes. There is a lot of code duplication. It is the definition of spaghetti code.
Basically, the core software needs to be rewritten. This isn't a management priority so we make do.
> Do you only deploy if you pass the unit tests?
N/A
> What if you introduce a bug that screws up the data, do you have a fallback strategy?
With my employer we deploy several times a day. We have 2 SVN repos. One dev, one live. To make a change live you commit your change to the live repo and it is auto-synced. I am not sure how we came to have this. When I first joined there was a code reviewer who manually pushed changes live. He quit and the server admin made it auto.
I wouldn't recommend this set up. I am incredibly competent. I make maybe 1 minor mistake a month - if that - so with me this set up is workable. The other developers I work with.. not so much. The main issue with this set up is newbie developers deploying what they thing is a good fix which breaks in lots of edge cases. Bad patches like that can take weeks to become apparent then longer to chase out of the system as there is no way to simply rollback.
For my side project I deploy every Wednesday. Every now and again there is a bug fix which needs to be slipped in on an odd day. I currently deploy manually because I haven't set anything else up.
Throw up maintenance page -> update database -> upload new files -> quick test -> remove maintenance page.
It is a bit time intensive but I haven't had any problems with it yet. I like to group changes so I can announce them on the same day.
Two things strike me though:
Shots off of Justine's stomach. The best response I have heard from a girl in a mixed group when asked to do it was "I will do it if you do it first." It turns it from another girl doing shots on the bar to a weird group activity which is silly, not sexual. Obviously a straight up no would suffice, who cares what a drunk person says?
The second thing was how it went down. During a recent stag do a random girl walked over to one of our group and kissed him randomly without warning or anything. The guy pushed her away, recoiled in horror and said with a look of despair "she - put - her - tongue - in - my - mouth!?"
We laughed but seriously, we knew it wasn't consensual, if she went back in we would have pulled her away.
I feel this is the correct response to being jumped on. This or a loud no.
Not reciprocating, then questioning whether the wife would mind is not a no. Standing there awkwardly waiting for it to be over does not convey stop and it doesn't give friends an opportunity to come to the rescue.
Without a no the lack of participation can suggest hesitation. Asking about the wife perhaps reinforces this. "Oh so thats why you are slow getting into it. Don't worry about her." From the outside the lack of no and look of awkwardness could suggest this isn't something you do very often. Not that you want it to stop.
Justine is not at fault in the slightest. Joe forced himself on her. That said I wonder how differently things would have been if she straight up said no or even pushed him away.