someweirdperson

> The other term you hear all the time inside is “weird” or “weirdo.”

I'll have to request a user name change I guess.

You are just not part of the right target group, so facebook won't show them to you.

It's nice to have specific terms for special generic concepts. However, use of the German language doesn't stop there, and creates an association between some terms and use in a specific political context, removing these expressions from politically correct usability even outside of the political context that claimed them. And those are a lot more subtle and difficult to identify than e.g., allow/deny-lists.

There's this one page that disables the login submit button until the password field is filled. The browser auto-fills, login still disabled. Need to manually add and then remove a character before the form can be submitted.

Many alternative refrigerants are combustible. That's not a big problem for stationary use, but in vehicles it is.

It is confusing that the article mentions buildings and not vehicles though.

I guess it is limited to specific industries. Check the product description of Mathworks Simulink, which has many examples of things rightfully called model. In reality though (I don't have a reference for that, just my own observation) it is almost exclusively used as a graphical coding tool and the graphical code is called the model.

A case of cargo-cult. Attempt to apply the practice but badly (use the tool, but not the way its use is advertized), and use the terms for use of the tool instead of the practice, reserving it for that to promote their beloved tool over alternative approaches.

Has anyone tried CO2?

The idea: Deep trash can for the tasty banana peels. Flood the trash can with CO2. CO2 is heavier than air. If the trash can is deep enough maybe a sufficiently high concentration can be maintained without too frequent flooding.

The attractive smell should still be noticeble for the flies. And the environment around the trash of their desires is deadly.

> Is that not a "model" because it is not necessarily graphical?

For some people model==graphical, usually mechanical/electrical engineers, not software-engineers. Engineers maintain the holy "model", and the translation to lowly code is a job for the lowest-bidding software person.

Maybe it wasn't clear, but I do not agree with that point of view, and tried to explain how I think people may have found their belief.

I assumed the parent^4 was labeling their code model in an attempt to elevate themself to the ranks of the code painters.

There are people who consider software written, I mean painted, or as they say modelled, in the language of e.g. Simulink to be of higher value than other representations of code.

The reason for this is probably different use of the same terms. Some code might be tested within an implementation of a model of the real environment. That is a frequent use-case used to sell graphical languages. The term model is used for two different things: The model of the real world to allow testing and for the implementation of the solution in a graphical language. Of course developers in those environments are Klingons like we all are, no real effort for tests, and only the graphical solution remains. But it is perceived as if it had all the positive attributes of a solution tested in a simulated reality. And therefore something modelled is better, because it is modelled.

But that's only for code that's painted using the mouse, not for code typed on the keyboard.

> why would anyone actually sift through thousands of hand-written pages of arithmetic?

2840 pages. Doesn't seem crazy. Page looks like it was written by hand? Next. At two pages per second it's less than half an hour of work.

> We have enough nuclear weapons to kill off humanity.

Humanity yes, mankind I'm not so sure. Earth is huge. There are a lot of humans. Some will survive winter. Some will survive mutations. Some will continue to reproduce.

> All the other things the engineers can themselves address (e.g. better tooling, etc)

Everyone choosing their own tools? Isn't there usually some central department that takes care about that, at best controlled by a kind of committee representing those who use the tools, typically full of people who are no longer doing practical work and have no idea what improvements have been made outside of the company during the last decades?

Early ones at least had some parts from ducks, but there's no relation to ducts at all. Ducts are not sealed using duct tape.

Language should be updated to call it reinforced self-adhesive tape or something.