Telling a Debian user that Mint isn’t the most up to date struck me as pretty funny.

For what it’s worth, in that specific example at least JSON parsing has been available as part of the base .NET libraries since .NET 3.

i is still a value type, that never changes. Which highlights another issue I have with the explanation as provided. Using the word “reference” in a confusing way. Anonymous methods capture their enclosing scope, so i simply remains in-scope for all calls to those functions, and all those functions share the same enclosing scope. It never changes from being a value type.

I think the explanation they provide is a bit lacking as well. Defining an anonymous function doesn’t “create a reference” to any variables it uses, it captures the scope in which it was defined and retains existing references.

The WTF in the C# example seems to be that people don’t understand anonymous functions and closures?

That’s exactly what we ended up doing. Every story has now become one Fibonacci step higher than it would have been before.

Management where I work finally unbent and admitted that story points were time.

…but also want to continue raising velocity in each sprint.

They have a vested interest in their borrowers not dying. This manifests as not lending to people at increased risk rather than any kind of protective or preventive action.

C# .NET using reflection, integer underflow, and a touch of LINQ. Should work for all integer types. (edit: also works with char values)

// this increments i
private static T Increment<T>(T i)
{
    var valType = typeof(T);
    var maxField = valType.GetField("MaxValue");
    var minField = valType.GetField("MinValue");
    if (maxField != null)
    {
        T maxValue = (T)maxField.GetValue(i);
        T minValue = (T)minField.GetValue(i);

        var methods = valType.GetTypeInfo().DeclaredMethods;
        var subMethod = methods.Where(m => m.Name.EndsWith("op_Subtraction")).First();
               
        T interim = (T)subMethod.Invoke(
            null,
            [i, maxValue]);

        return (T)subMethod.Invoke(
            null, 
            [interim, minValue]);
    }
    throw new ArgumentException("Not incrementable.");
}

Louise Belcher and Boo Boo.

I’m the primary developer for a third party tool for Elite Dangerous and this is basically my entire thought process when I want to work on it.

I could work on Observatory…

Or I could play some Elite…

Or I could just stare at my screen ineffectually for several hours.

Staring at the screen wins frighteningly often.

Mouse, keyboard, monitor, another phone, storage, headphones, a car.

When I initially set up my media server I went with Jellyfin over Plex mostly because the idea of having to create an account on an external service to use software I was hosting myself rubbed me the wrong way. Since then the more learn about Plex the more baffled I am that anyone chooses to use it at all.

the quality was better

This very much depends on when you’re taking about. Over the air television when I was young was absolutely not better quality than any streaming service now. 480i delivered by an analog interference-prone signal definitely does not compare favourably to streaming.

The most recent update for my Samsung TV actually broke my existing side loaded Jellyfin and made it more difficult to re-install due to some code signing requirements changing.

Rather then continuing to fight with it I’ve disconnected it from my network entirely and bought an Nvidia Shield to use instead.

I don’t even understand the appeal for either of the involved parties. I don’t want things in or around my asshole, nor do I want any involvement with those of others. For reasons that completely elude me there seems to have been a cultural shift during my life from butt stuff being deviant behavior and fodder for jokes to almost a default expectation.

I don’t actually believe that it is a common expectation in real life dating between actual non-terminally-online people, but it certainly seems to be portrayed as such.

I’m not sure where I argued to the contrary. The ships in Trek with self-destruct capabilities are all military (or pseudo-military) vessels that are explained as literally having a procedure such as you describe.

In the preferred configuration, the starship undergoes rapid vaporization from thermal and mechanical shock caused by a deliberate release of warp engine reactants. Remote computer system decryption algorithms generate one final set of cascade failure commands, and all engine safety interlocks are compromised. Matter from the primary deuterium tankage and the total supply of antimatter from the storage pods on Deck 42 are expelled simultaneously, producing an energy release on the order of 10^15 megajoules.

If the command links to the engine systems are severed, the secondary destruct system is automatically selected. Ordnance packages are located at key locations around the vehicle, including the antimatter storage pods. These are detonated in concert with intentional overloads of all fusion reaction chambers. The release yield of the secondary system is calculated to be 10^9 megajoules. The secondary destruct system becomes the primary system for the Saucer Module in Separated Flight Mode.

short of nuclear

In Star Trek at least, where this trope is probably the most firmly established, the self destruct involves antimatter annihilation, which is arguably in excess of nuclear.

Most of your suggestions require working engines. Shaking the ship apart might make the ship itself unusable but doesn’t do anything about on board equipment or intel. A “scuttling” equivalent needs to work when the ship is mostly, or even completely, non-functional, and needs to either destroy everything aboard or make it not worth the effort of recovery.

The value proposition of satellite radio is so incredibly bad for the overwhelming majority of people I don’t understand how they’re still in business.

Also the quality is awful. If I wanted audible compression artifacts I could dust off my late 90s mp3 collection.