Chicken nuggets probably, because it’s fast food

It was super fun to be gaslit by people while I was actually living in Taiwan but yeah, gets old after a while.

Sounds like you need to add some sleep statements somewhere in your deployment scripts if you want to deploy in 10 seconds

And I thought me and Qui-Gon Jinn

Could talk the federation in

To maybe cutting them a little slack

The actions of Nestle the company are more than enough reason for everyone to boycott them.

No they are usually much smarter about getting the policy changes they want.

The politics of the CEO is not a factor I generally consider when buying products.

Actually it’s KotKit

How’s your back?

No worries, sounds like you’re definitely on the right track with your approach.

In terms of the style of editor I don’t have a strong preference, I think the most important thing is discoverability which generally means putting docs where they are expected to be found and using whatever your team or org is using. Personally I have a slight preference for markdown mainly because it’s easy to version control, see who wrote what (so I can ask them questions) and use all the tools I’m used to that work well with plain text. Tools that use more WYSIWYG style can be good too though and many of them like Notion have the advantage of making it relatively easy to search across your entire companies documentation assuming everyone uses the one tool.

For my personal notes I use Logseq which I highly recommend. It’s a bit of both, markdown under the hood but with a simple editor that lets you focus on writing notes, tasks and links.

I would say as a new junior dev you are uniquely placed to help with this. Documentation tends to be written by people who know a lot about a thing and they try to imagine what might be useful for someone. Someone new coming in with a fresh perspective can help uncover assumed knowledge or missing leaps to make the documentation better. One of the common onboarding steps I’ve seen is to go back and update/improve the onboarding docs after you’ve just been onboarded for example.

I would say pick your battles though because documentation can be a never ending task and documents are almost always out of date shortly after they are written. Think about what would have saved you time or mental overhead if it was just written down and fix those first.

As far as organising and writing, every place is different and it can depend on the tools your org is using. In general I’d at least have links to relevant docs as close to where they might be needed as possible. Like how to set up and get up and running with a code base should probably be documented directly in the readme, or at least linked to if it’s overly complicated.

Hopefully that’s at least somewhat helpful. It’s definitely a problem basically everywhere I have worked though, you have to do what you can and not stress too much about it.

wo there

In Australia government funding is distributed to political parties based on the number of first preference votes they get as well so even if your first choice doesn’t get in, you still helped them by putting them first.

True, in those cases it might not even enter your conscience thought and just happen automatically.

It happens when they change something

Chat GPTME

Such great products. Now we get…image generation, inpainting and a conversational AI. All technically impressive, but those older products were actually functional and solved everyday problems.

Wow that is pretty damning. I hope Google is adding all this stuff in with the replacement of Assistant but it’s Google so I guess they won’t. I replaced Assistant with Gemini a while back but I only use it for super basic stuff like setting timers so I didn’t realise it was this bad.

They did the same shit with Google Now, rolled it into Assistant but it was nowhere near as useful imo. Now we get yet another downgrade switching Assistant with Gemini.

As I like to say, there’s nobody Google hates more than the people that love and use their products.

There is a lot of good stuff there but it’s still opaque when it comes to bias specifically. I mean, am I missing somether here? I genuinely feel like there must be a whole section I’ve missed or something based on some of the other commenters. The bias methodology is no more a methodology than “grind up some wheat, mix some water and yeast before chucking it in the oven for a bit” is a recipe for bread. You rate 4 categories from 0 - 10 and average it, but the ratings themselves are totally subjective.

Story Choices: Does the source report news from both sides, or do they only publish one side.

What does this even mean? If a site runs stories covering the IPCC recommendations for climate action but doesn’t run some right wing conspiracy version of how climate change is a hoax, is that biased story selection?

What did I miss here?

Good summary. I think the first point is the most concerning because it’s actively spreading misinformation and giving the appearance of credibility.