The answer in that link leads to the VOSK project[^], which in turn has a page that lists several projects that integrate the VOSK toolkit. One of those projects is pretty much exactly what the OP is asking for: mp4grep[^]. Looks like it's Linux-only, and using it is a two-step process unless you happen to be starting with a 16khz wav file, but it appears to automate the process of using speech recognition to generate a timestamped transcript, and then grep'ing the result to find the word or expression of interest. I didn't actually try to use it, so I can't vouch for its quality, but it looks pretty neat if it works!

That, and .NET 6 is cross-platform, allows the use of newer C# language features, and has a ton of performance improvements that will not be back-ported to .NET Framework.

I suppose I'd feel the same way if I could ever get into it. I have no clue when it comes to electronics & circuitry. I have a former colleague who worked on an arduino-based art project (T,E.D.: Transformations, Emotional Deconstruction[^]) for which he designed a custom PCB, and even though I had nothing to do with it (other than that I helped solder the boards up for the finished product) I thought it was way cooler than just some software.

+1, EarTrumpet is good software!

Wow, it's almost like we've converged on a set of proven effective conventions for interacting with computers or something ;P

C# developer here. I've been using xUnit with Moq and Fluent Assertions for some time now. To the extent that I write unit tests (which is less than the zeitgeist would suggest I should), I find this combo is decently enjoyable to work with.

I only do line-of-business stuff, and the OP's experience pretty much mirrors my own. Despite my work falling under the umbrella of "computer science," I do not like to think of myself as a computer scientist (or even an engineer, really), I tend to reserve that term for the people who are devising new technologies and novel algorithms. I take the excellent, innovative ideas of other people and apply them more or less intelligently to the business problem at hand. I'm comfortable with being good at that, even though I'm certain I'm not changing the world :)

My wordle journey today was an unusual one (for me, at least): ⬜⬜🟨⬜⬜ ⬜🟨⬜⬜⬜ 🟨⬜⬜⬜⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 The first three tries, the yellow box was the same letter. Having only one letter to go on after three guesses didn't portend well, I was getting nervous. For guess 4 I decided to see what I could mash together out of my one known letter and the remaining un-spent letters, and I got lucky (I think; perhaps there was only one possibility left at that point?).

My company uses separate subdomains for production and non-production. Non-production includes dev, QA, and RC/UAT environments. The subdomains are firewalled, so that non-production cannot reach production and vice versa. They adopted Microsoft's "privileged access workstation" guidance, where each user is assigned a laptop that is completely locked down (can't install anything, etc.), and that laptop hosts a VM (hosted locally) where we can do internet & email but not much else. Additionally, each user is assigned a production VM and a non-production VM (each hosted remotely). Developers have local admin privileges on the non-production VM, but are encouraged to limit software installed on it to whatever is available in our corporate Software Center hub. None of this is terrible by itself, and all makes sense to me security-wise. but here lies the problem: 1) each device and VM needs a separate login with a distinct password 2) the PAW laptop needs to be connected to the VPN, requiring a 2fa login 3) the "productivity" VM (the locally-hosted one) needs a separate VPN connection (requiring a second 2fa login) 4) the VPN connections time out, and I often need to re-connect multiple times daily 5) all 4 Windows logins (PAW device, productivity VM, non-prod VM, prod VM) are subject to password rotation, with stringent password complexity requirements 6) all devices and VMs lock out after just 3 minutes of inactivity 6) the PAW laptop is bitlocker-ed, so you need to enter a decryption code each time you reboot (which is frequent, since updates are pushed multiple times per week) The net result is that I spend a ridiculous proportion of my day typing in passwords, which I have no recourse but to write down because there's no way in heck I can remember umpteen different passwords that change every several weeks. By the time I've caught up on email, or responded to a chat thread with my colleagues, or finished reading a CP article, my non-prod VM has almost certainly locked out, and then after spending a little time writing code, I head over to my "productivity" VM to check something on StackOverflow and oops! It's locked out by now and I have to log in again (what was that password [checks notebook]?). It's a total productivity-killer!

Fun! I played several rounds, the best I could get was 6 guesses, but my average was around 8 guesses. I found a bug(?) where you can backspace through words you've already entered, but due to the adversarial nature of the game it doesn't seem to be a viable way to cheat (it just changes the answer!)

What are the implications for step-debugging? Would the debugger need to be aware of the formatting rules in order to break on the correct displayed line? Stack traces would also be out-of-whack, I'd think. I take comfort in the fact that what I see is the same thing that my colleagues see (let alone the compiler), so I'm not really sold on this idea.

What you're doing, at least in the example you've given, is not too far off from the way the "cool kids" are doing unit testing. You're doing the whole AAA thing (arrange, act, assert), you've just bundled all of your test cases into a monolithic block. Since each assertion in your example depends on the outcome of exactly one action, and no action depends on the outcome of any other action, this could be made to fit into the modern unit testing box very easily by just breaking it up into a method-per-test structure, but I couldn't really make a strong case for why you should bother. Things might change if the code under test isn't quite as simple as in your example though, for example if there are dependencies that need to be mocked/stubbed.

You can disable the mail and calendar features. When you first install, it takes you through a wizard where you can choose whether you want those features. I think it's a good browser, I like it!

Splunge

First option, full stop. -but- Here's a fun little twist, if your language of choice supports this sort of thing (I'll use C# to illustrate):

void ExecuteIf(Func predicate, Action thingToExecute)
{
if (predicate())
thingToExecute();
}

ExecuteIf(() => foo, DoSomething);

...but I'm not convinced that this is any easier to read, it imposes a little extra overhead, and I would still stick with your first option. Just wanted to throw it into the mix :cool:

The language (or rather, I suppose, the compiler? not sure what to call it, it seems more like an interpreter of sorts) has some interesting ideas in it, but time will tell if it catches on. Too immature of a project for me to bother with ATM (and besides, I'm not super into pure functional languages).

[Richard Ayoade's Gadget DIY Tea Party | Gadget Man - YouTube](https://youtu.be/TmPAH6Gzp\_4?t=102s)

I wholeheartedly agree! Also, if moving things around requires dropping useful features (e.g. initiating a PR directly from VS after pushing), maybe don't do it. Maybe wait until you've figured out how to provide feature parity. Just sayin' :rolleyes:

Make rose geranium oil. Basically, you just put a handful of the leaves in oil (preferrably something like sunflower oil) in a mason jar or bottle and let it sit in the sun for a week or so. It is supposedly a good antibacterial/antifungal, and the scent is thought to be relaxing (used in an essential oil diffuser). Or, if you have no use for it yourself, gift it to friends/family or sell it. Essential oils are popular these days.

Of course, the real problem here is that you can be bitten by this even if you have no intention of downloading random blobs of code from random developers. You could just be trying to consume packages from your responsibly-curated private Azure Artifacts repo (for example), and this attack can surreptitiously insert random code because the package manager (for some stupid reason) prioritizes random public packages from an upstream source over your internal ones unless you take ridiculous measures to prevent it.