This symbol isn’t needed for spells this long, but it’s considered best practice and other wizards will make fun of me for not including it, even though it isn’t needed.
mood
“Oh, dude, you gotta stop using TJ’s Action Rune of Changed Files. That runebook has a backdoor to one of the hells now. Didn’t you see the patch notes?”
Ugh, look, I get it. I know TJ’s Lesser Action Rune of Changed Files that the Greater version does now, but TJ’s price structure is bullshit and I’m not paying for Greater just because he refuses to “support” us users of Lesser. I don’t even have a damn Portal, much less a Summoning Circle! Why are you so worried about a backdoor to the hells? Unless I connect this sigil to the weave nothing is going to come in or out. This sigil is only for monitoring the moisture content of my garden by way of a spell scroll attached. As we both know, scrolls and sigils use two different elements to communicate. One is gold ink and the other is silver ink. I have to use TJ’s Action Rune of Changed Files to see if the document has changed due to moisture. The scroll cannot directly talk to my watering golem’s receiving crystal.
If you’re adding code you don’t understand to a production system you should be fired
Edit: I assumed it was obvious from context that I’m referring to copy-pasting code from stack overflow or an LLM or whatever without knowing what it does but apparently that needs to be said explicitly.
Many times the code we work on is built in abstractions we don’t know about from top to bottom.
If you are submitting work, you should understand how the code you’re submitting works. Sure, you don’t have to know exactly how the code it calls works, but if you’re submitting code and there’s a block of code and you have no clue how that block works, that’s a problem.
I really like to build from zero, but some things are better copied, no matter if you fully understand them or fall short. :)
For example, I’m not qualified to check if Hamilton and Euler were correct - I only do as they explained, and later double-check the output against input.
I didn’t say never copy and paste. I’m saying when you push a commit you should understand what all the LOC in that commit do (not counting vendored dependencies). If you don’t understand how something works, like crypto (not sure what Hamilton or Euler refers to in this context), ideally you would use a library. If you can’t, you should still understand the code sufficiently well to be able to explain how it implements the underlying algorithm. For example if you’re writing a CRC function you should be able to explain how your function implements the CRC operations, even if you don’t have a clue why those operations work.
So you code everything in Assembly from scratch?
No I just read the stack overflow guy’s explanation and the other small comments around and they explain it.
Closed as duplicate
In what world is assembly more readable or easier to understand?
Are you seriously trying to equate “I don’t know which instructions this code is using” to “I copied code I don’t understand”? Are you seriously trying to say that someone who doesn’t know how to write
x = a + bin assembly doesn’t understand that code?No, they’re pointing out that it’s a little silly to expect everyone to understand each and every later of abstraction fully before deploying code.
I said you need to understand what the code you wrote (as in, LOC that git blame will blame on you) does. Not that you need to fully understand what the code it calls does. It should be pretty obvious from context that I’m referring to copy-pasting code from stack overflow or an LLM or whatever without knowing what it does.
Never use libraries you don’t contribute to in Production
There’s a huge difference between copy-pasting code you don’t understand and using a library with the assumption that the library does what it says on the tin. At the very least there’s a clear boundary between your code and not-your-code.
Pretty much most chem students doing labs.
I’ve often wondered about who discovered arcane symbols/rituals.
Like, did some prehistoric guy just sit there drawing in the dirt until something happened?
The Book of Enoch says that fallen angels named Uzza, Azza and Azael taught humans originally.
So it’s the original developers that answer the questions in Stack Overflow? Good to know.
