Your pet peeve, technical or otherwise.

[IDEngineer]

That is the perfect photo and movie reference!

[james_s]

Nah the Orville was never going to be okish as its creator is also the creator of Family Guy. Family Guy is and always was about taking ideas to their extreme for comedic effect so therefore it was doomed from the very start. Family Guy is what is wrong with today's society. A cancer on the world. You don't build a fuctioning society based upon ultraviolence in any form (Robocop) and extreme sexual references.

I've never heard of Orville but I think Family Guy is hilarious, it's one of my favorite shows. It's a joke, it's funny precisely because it's over the top, it's not a role model on which to base society. If a person is basing their life and behavior on cartoons the problem is them, not the show.

[vk6zgo]

Old rule of thumb was 50% of your audio budget on speakers, 50% for everything else.

The electromechanical transducers are always the weak link. There's no point in worrying about fractional THD percentages when the original microphones and end-game speakers are distorting multiple integer percents. When I proved that to myself in an audio lab is when I stopped wasting money on expensive audio electronics... it's nice to see purity on a scope but you'll never actually hear it.

Not mention cheap ears!

[pcprogrammer]

If a person is basing their life and behavior on cartoons the problem is them, not the show.

Keep on telling yourself that buddy.

Plenty of ex cons will tell you and plenty of religious folk will tell you that shows like that are bad. Go talk to some of them and stop listening to your self bias.

Ex cons maybe, but why would I listen to religious folk about something like this. To them everything is bad if it does not fit their purpose, and some comedy cartoon like that Family Guy will certainly not fit them, but what they don't tell you is that they secretly watch it in the basement.   

Biased, of course not 

[james_s]

Keep on telling yourself that buddy.

Plenty of ex cons will tell you and plenty of religious folk will tell you that shows like that are bad. Go talk to some of them and stop listening to your self bias.

You're talking about bias and you want me to talk to ex cons? That's an extremely biased approach. You're literally saying talk to people that have a proven track record of making poor life choices and religious nutters that take their guidance from a magical man in the sky. Sorry but it is not the fault of a TV show that they can't behave, it is 100% their fault and their fault only. Personal choices, personal responsibility. Nobody is responsible for your actions and choices except you, period.

[Ranayna]

Nah the Orville was never going to be okish as its creator is also the creator of Family Guy. Family Guy is and always was about taking ideas to their extreme for comedic effect so therefore it was doomed from the very start. Family Guy is what is wrong with today's society. A cancer on the world. You don't build a fuctioning society based upon ultraviolence in any form (Robocop) and extreme sexual references.

I've never heard of Orville but I think Family Guy is hilarious, it's one of my favorite shows. It's a joke, it's funny precisely because it's over the top, it's not a role model on which to base society. If a person is basing their life and behavior on cartoons the problem is them, not the show.

If you liked Star Trek TNG, and also can stand the humor, I think you will like The Orville. The first season sometimes is quite over the top, but season 2 and 3 dial down the jokes quite a bit and get more serious.
It is quite, well, "woke" though. But in my opinion: Those that complain about Star Trek being too "woke", well, I don't think these people understand Star Trek.

[TomKatt]

The whole "woke" thing is a pet peeve for me.

Is that supposed to be an insult?  Should we all be "asleep" and ignore societal issues instead?

There are extremists on both sides.  It seems like the middle has lost it's voice in recent years.

edit - sorry, but Seth MacFarlane is a funny guy.  And Family Guy is more satire than a danger to society.  Certainly less so than social media IMO.

And I found the Orville quite entertaining.  In MacFarlane fashion, many societal divisive subjects are referenced.

[IDEngineer]

The extremists on both sides used to keep their edge cases behind closed doors, and societal norms were the mainstream. Recent political movements have emboldened the extremists to believe their proclivities are now the mainstream - again on both sides.

As evidence I offer the Grammy Awards show last weekend, which was on the TV at the house we were visiting at the time. IMHO folks can live how they wish as long as it doesn't legally compel others, but that show was basically the modern version of PT Barnum's circus. Normal people continue to be entertained by a freak show, even when the entertainment doesn't realize (or admit?) they're being laughed at instead of respected.

[TomKatt]

Agreed.

I'm not smart enough to understand philosophy etc, but I sometimes get the sense that mankind is simply not capable of getting along on it's own without some kind of guardrail in place.

Though there will always be those who push the boundaries of what society accepts - sometimes for good, sometimes for bad.  Those that were previously relegated to the shadows of society seem to feel empowered these days.

[tom66]

You're talking about bias and you want me to talk to ex cons? That's an extremely biased approach. You're literally saying talk to people that have a proven track record of making poor life choices and religious nutters that take their guidance from a magical man in the sky. Sorry but it is not the fault of a TV show that they can't behave, it is 100% their fault and their fault only. Personal choices, personal responsibility. Nobody is responsible for your actions and choices except you, period.

"Personal responsibility" does not occur in a vacuum.   It is reasonable to consider it as part of the reason people end up where they did, but it is rarely the only reason for someone's poor outcomes.    All too often it is used as an excuse by those opposed to change to argue that we cannot improve society because the reason people are in jail or obese or smoking or whatever else is because of their personal choices -- it's a very pervasive argument because at the heart of it, it is correct that these are often personal choices, but the fact that they vary across states and countries shows that there is far more than just personal choice at play.  Education, social values, poverty are all important too, and a good society would act to make it so that these poor choices happen less often.  (A pretty good example is the correlation and possible link between lead in gasoline and increased criminality.  How can you blame personal choice for lead levels in blood?)

[tooki]

The Orville, season 3 is a woke bunch of shit.   

As so may other tv series that start of okish and then turn to shit

Nah the Orville was never going to be okish as its creator is also the creator of Family Guy. Family Guy is and always was about taking ideas to their extreme for comedic effect so therefore it was doomed from the very start. Family Guy is what is wrong with today's society. A cancer on the world. You don't build a fuctioning society based upon ultraviolence in any form (Robocop) and extreme sexual references.

Woke shit is what you get when you take things to their extreme.

You create a heroin den or meth centric culture based upon those two values. Not a society though. The shit that he is pumping out is/has been destroying the USA by popularizing those two values and pumping it into the homes of everybody.

He in fact did the same thing with Family Guy itself, in the first few episodes it was sold as an ok show, tolerable (but barely). Then he amped up the violence and sex a few episodes afterwoods. I actually like the first few episodes of Family Guy. But only those few.

It was SOLD as a show that could be okish but it never delivered even from episode 1. It was a complete and 100% total con from the very beginning. It should have had a different director and a different script writer than Seth Mcfarlane. The underlying idea is ok but the script and directing is totally wrong for that idea to take foot.

Would have been an ok show if it stayed true to its type but that never happens in any show today.

You must be really fun at parties… 

[pcprogrammer]

Nobody is responsible for your actions and choices except you, period.

..... Or in the case of a human being, if they've been abused and they lash out that they should be put down.

No matter someones history, they are still accountable for their own actions. I don't buy into the "I had to ride a tricycle when I was young and now I have issues" defense of someone who rapped or killed someone due to being abused or whatever. We live in a society where what is right and what is wrong are clearly presented, so no excuse there.

There are plenty of cases where some psychopath has been released back onto society, after the doctors assessed "no this one is of no threat to society", and rape or kill someone the next or even the same day. To me the removal of these types of people from this planet seems only fair, but at least keep them locked up. Evil does exists, and it is not the likes of james_s and me that are the threat.

[pcprogrammer]

... (A pretty good example is the correlation and possible link between lead in gasoline and increased criminality.  How can you blame personal choice for lead levels in blood?)

Don't forget that many of my generation grew up with lead in petrol and only a small percentage might have reverted to criminal behavior based on elevated levels in their blood.

But I do agree that there are multiple influences on someone becoming a "criminal". Only a very small percentage will actually be born a "criminal", but it does happen. There are people that are just bad from the start, despite proper upbringing in a protected environment. And it is these that can't become proper members of society, whatever you do for them.

Edit: and furthermore, lead has been removed from petrol for quite a while now, but youngsters are starting to show more aggressive and criminal behavior in current society, so other factors are at play for sure.

In the Netherlands a snack bar owner was killed by they think three youngsters, two female (15, 17) and a boy (17), and why they don't know yet. 

[pcprogrammer]

Also You are kidding yourself right there. You said " I don't buy into the "I had to ride a tricycle when I was young and now I have issues" defense of someone who rapped or killed someone due to being abused or whatever." Who the fuck would!? Who would take that as a defence? No the most likely defence of someone who snapped and killed someone is because they've been beaten up and screamed at their entire lives.

Don't you understand a metaphor?

I can understand that people who have been abused lash out, and that consideration is in place, but there are doctors and other instances people can turn to when needed. And before you come up with it, yes I do understand about social stigma's and shame and society putting the blame on the victims and so on.

We live in a fucked up society for sure and that is a damned shame. And why, I blame money for the most part!

[TomKatt]

Bah - the old "parents can't compete with the media" is an old excuse.  Probably goes back to print literature and then repeated with moving images.  'Reefer Madness' and all that.

I'm not for child abuse, but as a child I stayed in line knowing my mom would swat me - anyplace, anytime - if I acted up.  And neighbors were expected to do the same for other kids if the parents weren't around.  Now, I see kids having complete meltdowns in a store or restaurant and everyone is afraid to deal with them.  My wife works for a mental health agency and there is a professional fear of what could happen if a child makes a report on staff - even fabricated claims can result in loss of employment, or worse yet some legal action.

What I do see as a contributing factor is that these days it takes both parents working full time or more to get by, so there is an absence of supervision.  The lack of meaningful daycare support in the US doesn't help.

I'm not smart enough to claim any answers to these issues, but clearly things are just getting worse.

Edit - I'll throw it out once more - social media is a much bigger threat IMO than anything broadcast on network media.

Edit 2 - Don't forget to bring a towel !

Edit 3 - I grew up watching Monty Python, and I didn't grow up to be a lumberjack.  And that's ok.

[pcprogrammer]

I'm not for child abuse, but as a child I stayed in line knowing my mom would swat me - anyplace, anytime - if I acted up.  And neighbors were expected to do the same for other kids if the parents weren't around.  Now, I see kids having complete meltdowns in a store or restaurant and everyone is afraid to deal with them.  My wife works for a mental health agency and there is a professional fear of what could happen if a child makes a report on staff - even fabricated claims can result in loss of employment, or worse yet some legal action.

Neither am I, but there is a difference between a smack on the bum and abuse. There has to be order and some discipline. And I know what you are talking about. Have seen it myself in supermarkets too. 

[tom66]

Edit: and furthermore, lead has been removed from petrol for quite a while now, but youngsters are starting to show more aggressive and criminal behavior in current society, so other factors are at play for sure.

In the Netherlands a snack bar owner was killed by they think three youngsters, two female (15, 17) and a boy (17), and why they don't know yet. 

This is often stated, but if you actually look at crime rates, they have been falling since the 90's.

For instance, for the UK: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/yearendingjune2022 (Figure 1 for all crime, Figure 7 for violent crime)

Though this trend is seen all over, definitely not unique to the UK.  There are some inversions with certain crimes increasing against the general fall of others decreasing.  Those have more complex causes, but in general criminality including violent crime has been falling for over 30 years and the fall is significant, like it's some 2-3x less likely that you will be involved in a violent assault in the UK today, as compared to the 90's.  Media narrative loves to spin the idea that it's getting worse because it sells newspapers and gets clicks, but it's clearly fallen by a significant amount.   One other aspect is social media and the internet make these crimes that much more visible.

[pcprogrammer]

.... (Figure 1 for all crime, Figure 7 for violent crime) ....

Yet they state in the graph

Excluding fraud and computer misuse, we have seen continued falls in overall levels of crime over recent decades.

So it is not ALL CRIME.

And sure media likes to blow things out of proportion, but as with the stock exchange "results from the past are no guarantee for the future". And there seems to be a trend amongst youngsters of carrying more and more knives, and apparently not small ones.

No fancy graphs and in Dutch:
https://www.om.nl/actueel/nieuws/2022/03/30/maatschappelijke-onrust-trend-in-jaarbeeld-2021
https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2462017-minderjarig-en-een-mes-op-zak-steeds-meer-jongeren-betrokken-bij-steekincidenten

Just a couple of sites of multiple that can be found on this.

[tom66]

.... (Figure 1 for all crime, Figure 7 for violent crime) ....

Yet they state in the graph

Excluding fraud and computer misuse, we have seen continued falls in overall levels of crime over recent decades.

So it is not ALL CRIME.

No - that was only logged since 2017 or so.  Beforehand it was not recorded in the statistics.  You can see however that in the 4-5 years of data available that it is following a similar trend.   So ONS is being appropriate in not drawing a conclusion from a limited data set here.

And sure media likes to blow things out of proportion, but as with the stock exchange "results from the past are no guarantee for the future". And there seems to be a trend amongst youngsters of carrying more and more knives, and apparently not small ones.

It may well be true that more youngsters are carrying knives and this is definitely a point of concern.  However, if overall violent crime drops, say, 60% in 30 years, but people carrying knives go up by, say, 30%, what headline is most appropriate to describe the situation?  Is it "Violent crime falls" or "More people carrying knives leading to violent crime"?  Depending on the author's viewpoint you can create the impression of either when the data only shows that crime is falling.  The fact is, that violent crime in general has been falling year on year across the globe, yet media reports would have you believe that people are being stabbed to death more than ever.  Carrying a knife is part paranoia and self-protection and yes I am sure some intend to harm others, but when the overall trend is negative for violent crime, I am much less worried.

Also, here is some data on the intentional homicide rate for NL:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5?locations=NL&view=chart

I couldn't find violence/crime rates, though I didn't dig too far.  But I would imagine homicide and violence are well correlated.  NL sees a 40% fall since the 90's. 

[paulca]

Not really a peeve, although interviewing flat fail candidates is a bit of pain.

Guy today, when I was explaining a code exercise to him... his mobile rang.  I paused, expecting to say, "No, no it's fine", when he silenced the phone, but instead he answered it.  Went on mute on the call and had a conversation for a minute.  Then returned.  I re-explained the, really, really basic code example (a "insert code here" type affair" and asked him how he would approach it.

After much humming and ha'ing and having me repeat the breif 3 times, even giving him the first step in the process... his answer.  "No, sorry, no idea".

He was applying for a software engineer job.  Immediately I thought, is he just going to say that "on the job", "No sorry no idea how to do that?".  I mean, does he understand engineering differently to the rest of us or something?

I didn't know how to do the first time I read the exercise, but I worked it out in about 2 minutes.  Thats the point!  How do you get an interview so badly wrong and still look confident at the end of it?

You guys aren't software enginers... have a crack.

String input = "5.56 5.58 5.54 5.48 5.54 5.59 5.52";

double[] idealBuySellPrices = calculateBestBuySell( input );


double[] calculateBestBuySell( String input ){
    // TODO  Implement
}

All I was looking for was "english pigeon code".  For example.  "I'd split the string on space...."

Bonus points for also taking a boolean "Short Sell"

[TomKatt]

Guy today, when I was explaining a code exercise to him... his mobile rang.  I paused, expecting to say, "No, no it's fine", when he silenced the phone, but instead he answered it.  Went on mute on the call and had a conversation for a minute.

Kinda tells you how he prioritizes the potential job, doesn't it?  And that's beyond simple common courtesy.

I'm starting to feel old - where's my 'get off my lawn' sign?

[paulca]

Interviews when they go well and you have a good candidate just migrate into a techie chat.  Then you know you could be talking tech next week on a project at the same level ... and that's what you want.  It's easy for everyone.  Flat fail canidates are... yes a pet peeve. 

My action item from this is to include a minimal code exercise in the quick "pre interview" we do.  Normally I jsut get them to talk about their tech stack, ask them questions and if they sound like they have actually worked in/on what their CV claims I put them forward.  We are seeing too many "book" people though.  Too many people coached and "read up" with exam like cheat sheets and .... couldnt write a single line of code.

[tom66]

Not really a peeve, although interviewing flat fail candidates is a bit of pain. [..]

I've had to interview a few, and we get the guys who come to a senior software engineer interview (first stage via Teams usually) in t-shirt and a pair of shorts, okay don't worry we're not expecting a suit and tie, but maybe dress a little nicer than the pajamas you woke up in so we think you at least care a little about your appearance when interviewing for a £60k a year job? Then you get into the technical and the answers are "dunno" or "I can't say how you'd do that",  like no exploration of possibilities or even wonder in what could be achieved.  This is probably the case for 20% of all candidates.  Recruiters are pretty bad at filtering out the chaff unfortunately (and they still somehow get 15-20% of first year salary, it seems insane to me.)

Jeff at StackOverflow observed that a surprising number of candidates with otherwise promising job applications are actually really bad at programming:
https://blog.codinghorror.com/why-cant-programmers-program/

[paulca]

Exactly.  When the interviewee.  If I don't know the answer to a question I just go straight to... think out loud.  What do I know.  What can I assume, what can I guess, lay the working out in front of the interviewer.  If you actually manage to just "figure out" the answer on the spot, that goes down exceptionally well.

EDIT:  I completely fluffed half an interview because I completely forgot the other half of the "left alone exercise".  They had given me their product brief and asked me to highlight any concerns I may have over it in regards to security.

When they returned and asked for it, my eyes went wide and I went with, "I completely forgot that part.".. paused, considered the day job and continued with, "I'll do it now." and analysed it out loud in a stream of hmms ha's and "Ah...s" and got to the route of the issue... digital encrypted DRM for set top and satelite boxes is breakable at the device UUID level.

The way I seen it, it didn't matter if I was right or wrong, if these two managers had come to me on a Monday morning at 9am (which it was) and asked me to review that 2 page document, that is exactly what I would have done if they wanted an immediate answer.

They offered me the job.

[james_s]

You own guns don't you?

One thing I've noticed is that the strongest personalities own guns.

You're the type of person who thinks that an abused dog lashing out should be put down huh. Or in the case of a human being, if they've been abused and they lash out that they should be put down.

I agree I think you should do whatever you want to. The less number of people that we have in the world of your type the better.

Religious people never give up on others. That is a tough thing to do, to care about people who are nasty toward you. I have yet to master that.

I do, I'm not really a "gun guy" but I inherited a couple of antiques from my dad and I do think shooting is fun. Your prejudice may be off a bit there though, I typically would not say I have a "strong personality", in reality I'm quiet, introverted and keep to myself, I don't like crowds, I don't like cities and don't particularly like interacting with random strangers.

It's also a pretty crappy thing to say that 'the less of your type we have in the world the better". Which type is that? People that mind their own business, do not commit crimes, work at a job producing products that people use, spend a great deal of time fighting against entropy and repairing things to keep them out of landfills and investing many hours of my time in forums such as this one trying to help people learn things. You really think the world would be better off with fewer people like me? Or have you just formed an image in your mind of what I'm like because I happen to be fascinated with airplanes (which you've said should not exist) or because I think a satirical TV show you don't like is funny? Just what sort of people do you think would make the world a better place?

Your comment on the dog is not only prejudiced, it is rude, uncalled for and quite frankly couldn't be further from the truth. I have three elderly cats that are special needs, the youngest is 17. That's down from a high of 7, the youngest that passed away was 18 and the oldest 24, I have put a great deal of effort into giving them the very best care I possibly can at a substantial financial and time expense. They are domestic animals that are fully dependent on my care for survival and I knew that when I adopted them. That is a totally different scenario than an adult human that needs to be responsible for their own life.
 
You might not like the idea of personal responsibility, but ultimately each of us is responsible for our own path in life and if something needs changing or fixing in your life nobody is going to do it for you, you've got to do it yourself, that's reality. You can blame others all you want, but that won't change anything. Life isn't easy, it isn't fair, and we've all got only one shot at it.