> Can anyone recommend a music discovery service that isn't garbage?

I enjoy using last.fm, although it's not their focus these days. Sign up, connect it to Spotify or whatever you use (incl. a long list of players of local music), after a day or so it'll learn what you like and you can create playlists with suggestions and export them, or browser around recommended artists etc.

> As I dug deeper into these feelings, I realized I was feeling pressured. Except they're not saying this, I am.

That's a great insight.

Once you've realized that, I think the best thing to do is to talk to the person whose pressure you imagine. Then you can find out what they're really thinking. Perhaps they really are thinking that (in which case the pressure is real and you can act on it) or they aren't (hearing them say that will alleviate the pressure).

Once when freelancing I asked a customer what they liked and disliked about my work. They had previously seemed happy with me, so I was pretty sure I know what they'd say. I believed I wrote good stable software. What they actually said was they were a small company, and they had had previous developers who, when there were server problems etc., just shrugged and said they didn't know how to fix it. They felt I wasn't like that, that I'd sit there and get it fixed, call up friends if necessary, etc. So yeah, they were happy, but not for the reason I'd imagined.

So my learning was: So you always have to talk to people to find out what they think. You really can't guess.

What did they say they disliked about your work?

Im not sure I understand the readability benefits. Is code like line 286 here, which doesn’t align values in assignments, difficult to read?

https://github.com/gohugoio/hugo/blob/master/commands/comman...

Even if there were readability benefits, I’m not sure they’d be enough to offset the extra effort in reviewing, diffing and merging.

Interesting. Yeah I did think maybe this could be solved by more tooling. But at my place it work it isn’t, at least at the moment. Perhaps I could change that.

Do you have any info on what I could use to make the command-line “git diff” and “git rebase” handle this style of formatting? Ideally so the latter merges and produces code which matches “gofmt” output?

On the other hand I suppose my point is that even if there were such tooling, using style of formatting doesn’t offer enough (any?) benefit to justify the effort of introducing the tooling.

Context matters, but this what I would do (and I always apply when landing in a project, own or client, that has no documented or enforced code style):

1/ always have pre-commit hooks running lint/fmt, and document how to implement them in a common fashion in the team,

2/ strive to follow the language conventions (and if not, have those divergences explicitly defined in the linter/formatter tool configuration), this helps the team to align with it,

3/ having a job server-side that blocks merging PRs that do not pass both of these steps.

Thanks. We're doing all that.

But that doesn't help when you do "git rebase" and there's a large conflict which you have to resolve manually, caused by two people changing different lines, and one or both of those lines caused the formatting of the whole block to change. That's the source of my frustration.

I have a Logitech K830, it's great. Alas they're not manufactured any more.

Modern equivalents are a lot cheaper. I think they might not have the backlight feature which is extremely useful, and I've dropped mine many times, even spilled coffee over it, and it still works flawlessly.

Then again, this person's job is to focus on their career. Their manager told them

> Because… some lack business value. These tasks aren’t business priorities and had no impact on customers and other teams

So if those "some" include upgrades, then I would say it's rational for the employee to focus on tasks that are going to get them a promotion.

I don't agree with that myself, I agree with you that upgrades are important, but this person is going to get a promotion through doing whatever their manager wants, and that apparently doesn't include upgrades.

That sounds like the Google philosophy though, where smart people come up with ideas and write the initial implementation (then get promoted) and other less smart people take over, and you end up with a mess that had great potential like Bazel?

My understanding is that this is not a philosophy at all, it is an incidental result of a bad set of misaligned incentives, where to be promoted you need to start something new or drive growth and post launch maintenance/growth is weighted much less

This could also end up like Fabrice Bellard's projects: yes he is no longer maintaining tinycc, but as a result we are now getting ffmpeg, qemu, and more.

I mean, yes, I would hope they have the right paperwork? E.g. if you're going on a business trip then you're going to need a visa allowing business trips, if you're going to work you're going to need a visa that allows work, etc. I don't see why this is unreasonable.

If it is unreasonable then the rules need to change - no point having rules if they can't be enforced.

There's a lot of ambiguity at the edges, on that.

B1 visa (the 'business trip' visa): > A B-1 visa may be granted to specialized workers going to the United States to install, service, or repair commercial or industrial equipment or machinery purchased from a company outside of the United States, or to train U.S. workers to perform such services.

So on the face of it you'd think a B1 visa would be sufficient here.

Go read Federal court cases and see how much they have to extend 'good faith'. You can't strictly enforce systems on people, it doesn't work. Even Federal courts recognize this and have to extend 'good faith' to Federal officers and trust intentions versus strictly following the rules.

The database vendors themselves don't seem to be consistent on this issue.

* PostgreSQL system table names are singular e.g. "pg_class"

* Oracle system tables are plural e.g. "ALL_TABLES"

* MySQL is also plural e.g. "schemata".

Join tables are a bit more difficult if you pluralize tables. For example at work we have table names like:

    customers
    customer_attributes
    customers_labels

On one side you want to be consistent with the "customers" table you're joining to. On the other hand it reads weirdly to have an extra "s" in the middle of the table name.

After you've got three or so words in a table name it really becomes inconsistent and you can't really guess what they're called when writing code.

There are solutions of course: whether to use the "s" on join tables could be a policy documented somewhere and everyone, including new employees, could be made aware of it. But it's a problem you don't have if you use singular table names.