All of the links under "product" seem to be relative to whatever the current page is. That only works on the front page.

It's not for me. I can see the appeal of these shortcuts, but I can see it being a wtf down the road once I've forgotten that I have them in place.

Also with something like auto-correct, you have a visual affordance that alerts you to the change (with the option to override), which just happened when I misspelled 'forgotten' above. The shell doesn't have that so something just happens without any actual correction or indication the user may have made an error. Although I am not a 'fish' user, this is something that I think it does well.

So I am not alone! There seem so few people who hold this view these days.

Same for my shop - we manage a large pool of cost driven by partially forcastable factors; we've repeatedly rejected methods purely on explainability grounds. Our accountability requirements do not allow us to point the finger at an LLM if we get it wrong.

I know. Here I am modeling my data generating process like a chump.

I was able to login just now using an email address.

Was it an @gmail? I wonder if glass door forced the account linking because of that, or if the option to enter my password and not link accounts was just buried.

Out of curiosity, I had a look at my account on glassdoor and my name is "Rollo Tomasi". Seems about right :)

Goodreads should consider putting some effort into the platform they have allowed to languish for years.

I was interested in the claim that it is warm-blooded (based on your quote). I went to the article and the link associated with the term 'warm-blooded' leads to an article that makes absolutely no mention of warm-bloodedness or thermoregulation. As such, I'm not going to put much faith in the article.

Here is the possible source of that claim https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pala.12240

It seems it is not a matter of settled science however at least from skimming that paper. Not any kind of palaeontologist but I do like dinosaurs like any sensible person.

Sounds like something Epicurus would say.

I agree but I think there is concern about the perceived value that those creative skills will have.

In your situation, my concerns would relate to evaluating your (1) ability to write professional software and (2) what are the gaps in your knowledge.

To address these concerns, consider contributing to an open source project.

Many of the hurdles a candidate has to clear to get a job as a software engineer are intended to determine whether you can actually program. Ignoring the effectiveness of these hurdles, the point is that you need to demonstrate the claims on your resume/CV. If you contribute to an open source project you are putting your work out there for everyone to see, including how you actually work with other engineers and how you deal with critical feedback about your work.

There is a lot of software engineering that is not interesting or attention getting but it has to be done. Often, this involves learning about things that you would not have bothered with if you are a hobbyist. By contributing to a successful open source project, you will be exposed to ideas that you might not otherwise have encountered.

I hadn't considered that last idea of yours before, thank you.