Spam Spammer

Spammer - 1 message gone through.

I agree with others that it's a matter of personal taste or it's defined by company's coding style / culture. Whatever the case is, I think the only important thing is to stay consistent. However, that example actually uses both styles so I don't think it's good idea to follow their styling...

You think you have it rough, try using C# 7 while your projects target .NET Framework 2.0 or 3.0 ...

If we're being honest I think we all know what LMGTFY is used for, it's very nature is provocative... Much quicker, simpler, faster and not insulting would be to just provide a link to Google's search. Nevertheless, don't get me wrong, the OP should have definitely try to search for this and we should definitely emphasis this to him. But you should be more patient and open with newcomers and also you should not be offended if someone reacts to your provocation.

Just to add, you cannot combine their contents, every "desktop.ini" refers to its parent folder. For example if you change the folder icons on some folders you'll get a "desktop.ini" file in each of those folders and the files content will contain an information only for their parent folder.

Message User

Yea what Holmes said, who cares about its release date... I would find this enjoyable on any given Friday :)

Clickety[^]. It seems I'll have to work on some popping and locking skills for security reasons :D

Atom is nice (the Visual Studio Code itself is based on its shell), but it's miles away from Visual Studio... Also I'm a very old user of Notepad++ so atom, sublime, etc. are never my first choice.

As Shuqian Ying mentioned in the above comment the Apache is mainly thread based. Due to this it's actually vulnerable to Slowloris, which is a DoS attack that requires a very small amount of resources from the attacker to achieve DoS on the target.

You misunderstood what I mean by educating, as I previously mentioned I'm referring to a worker. This is probably my fault because I mentioned online courses, with that I just wanted to emphasize that remote learning is rather common. True, it's not a same learning process but regardless I think it was a valid point.

Mark_Wallace wrote:

You need to pick his brains for a starting point, then keep going back with little questions about little details -- and you have to pay attention to how he says what he says, and the doodles and squiggles and gesticulations that clarify and reinforce what he's saying.

This can all be done remotely, even doodles and squiggles (which are essential to me, I always draw stuff out with my tablet). Regarding the gestures, ok this cannot be done, but if your teaching depends on your gestures then there is something wrong with it. In short, you can get the required experience and knowledge from your colleague without him needing to prepare some lecture or anything. He would just explain everything in the exact same manner as if he is sitting there right beside you.

Mark_Wallace wrote:

sitting on the corner of his desk and chatting will get you an order of magnitude more Useful information per minute spent than an on-line chat will, no matter how cool or cute the tech is.

Can you provide some concrete example of that, something you found that is easily explainable live, but requires long time remotely? I work in a company that switched to fully remote for years now and we're somewhat associated with two other fully remote companies. We all never had an issue with inexperience workers (at least to my knowledge and observation). FYI we have quite a few mature projects (one of our products is 10 years old, and it's not a legacy product ;)). Mark if you honestly have an experience in working remotely and those conclusion of yours are not based on some subjective feelings, but rather facts, then my conclusion is that if there really are some things that are hard to explain remotely then for that particular job inexperience workers will have problems and for other jobs they will not. So in short that generalized statement, people who lack experience should only work in office, is not true.

I don't know, I get what you're saying and it does make scene, but in practice it's not like that. When you're educating someone of course you'll need to "book" a remote, but you would do the same in office as well, you would need to schedule a time for this. Also you can do all those things you mentioned, you and/or him can also point to stuff on screen, show windows, draw stuff etc. Basically what I'm trying to say is that if learning remotely was so inconvenient then I don't believe that online courses would ever exist, don't you agree? Also if learning remotely was so inconvenient there would be no sites like CP :) Also regarding the short questions, inquires or issues that a beginner can have, he can just use Slack, Skype, whatever and ask (if needed share or give control of his screen). I really don't see much difference from going to some person for help and chatting with a person for help. So in short, I don't see why human contact should wins, everything can be done and explained remotely... In practice it's really not as you picture it to be. In real life inexperience people don't have problem working remotely, on the other hand some experience people do have that problem...

Apologize, I don't want to sound rude, but that is some seriously limited understanding or remote environment... So in your mind you would use phone and meetings to educate someone, really? How about some desktop assistance, remote sharing, VNC? Nevertheless, I've seen a lot of good and bad thinks that come from teleworking, but educating the newcomers is pretty much the same as if you do it in office.

True, if only there was some way to talk to those experienced people from remote (*sarcasm*) ...

First I think there is a lot of room between "extremely experienced" and "inexperienced", nevertheless that problem is not related to remote work. The same issue can occur in office and the same issue can be resolve from remote. You can have collaboration, mentoring, pair programming, whatever... all done from remote as well. I work in fully remote company and I can say that we never encountered that issue. The only issue that can occur is the lack of discipline and organisation, without that no person can be at least an adequate remote worker.

I have a bit different observation. Yes the discipline is mandatory, but experience not at all...

Brady Kelly wrote:

Subtle indeed. I never use char literals unless absolutely necessary. A one char string is a tad expensive in some cases, but surely not in this one.

I agree with that. Also to me it seems that PartDivider is meant for only formatting purposes (judging from the name itself, aka it's meant for interpolation or concatenation purposes) so it seems kind-of intuitive to specify it as string. Nevertheless in this kind of cases I always prefer using interpolated (if you can use a higher C# version) or formattable strings, for example:

private const string ObjectRefGuidFormat = "{0}{1:_0}{2:_0}";

// ...

// E.g. "1_2" or "1_2_3".
string objectRefGuid = string.Format(ObjectRefGuidFormat,
objectRef.ObjectTypeId,
objectRef.ObjectId,
objectRef.VersionNumber > 0 ? objectRef.VersionNumber.ToString() : null);

Among others, I tested out my CP article (Find and Replace text in a Word document) and got ~2.5 [^], I was expecting worse because of this introduction image. When optimized that image can be reduced by ~62%. Also, I seen that the calculator's page has a nice score of 0.394. Looking at its web request logs it seems it minified everything, including HTML, CSS, JS and icon font (Font Awesome). I sure would like to know how was that done, I mean just the icon font part (the rest are common)?

Web Bloat Score Calculator[^]:

Compare size of a page to a compressed image of the same page

The article is rather interesting, but the calculator itself meh... not so much... It's indeed an interesting and original approach, I'll give him that, but the formula for WebBS (or B$ :D) is just too simplistic to have any actual meaning. I mean the used fonts, elements spacing, etc. on some page can have a major impact on calculated result and I don't consider that to be relevant to page's bloatedness. I was hoping that the result would detect for example the website's size inflation that occurred due to an underused JS and CSS framework(s) and thus indicate that they should be removed on that website. I believe that the formula needs more work for it to be useful... for example it could take the total amount of web requests, that were send for a measuring page, into account. However, that would probably be unfair as well, because typically you do not bundle some requests to leverage the cache or CDN ... Nevertheless, I did like the thin vs the fat tribe story.