Do Google engineers get off on writing software that’s only compatible within their own little world, then offering it as some de facto standard?

Google Cloud had a ton of these that make it arbitrarily hard to use.

It was outsourced to the guy who ran Nazi concentration camps to build ballistic missiles to bomb London with.

It means, at least in the golang world, that they keep a copy of your source for themselves and use it for builds. They don’t pull from the public repo every time they build their stuff, so malicious code could only get in with new versions, but they check for that.

But of course nobody tells that to the construction workers or the designers.

You must live with very closed-minded people if people make fun of you just because you pronounce a German company’s name like the German company does. That said, be happy and pronounce stuff as you like, it’s not like it really matters.

That’s about as accurate as if I was adamant that the USA was not pronounced yoo-ess-ey, but ooh-sha, like everyone around me said it for as long as I can remember.

Non-anglophone countries exist, and there are actually more of them with more people than anglophone countries, and most of these projects come from non-anglophone countries.

I guess Linux projects tend to come from around the world, instead of US boardrooms and marketing desks.

Linux is Finnish, SUSE is German, so is KDE, Ubuntu is South African, GNOME is Mexican (?).

OpenSUSE also had a TUI installer IIRC, it’s YaST-adjacent.

You can end any statement in Python with a semicolon, you can also put multiple statements on the same line, putting a semicolon between them.

I think what set them off was the MSFT guy saying “this is high priority”.

Joke’s on you, I use semicolons in Pythpn

Yeah, but companies everywhere have just laid off the 10% who could do that.

At the cost of getting new sysadmins who are less numerous, but ask for more money, and best of all, you get to pay Microsoft and Amazon to train them!

otherwise make accessible

This sounds very, very broad. Broad enough for at least a chilling effect.

Git is already distributed. Maybe there should be a way for forge software like GitLab or GitHub to fork stuff from each other via UI, but you can already do that by cloning and pushing the repo to somewhere else.

It is trash code for sure, but most of the world’s code is trash, so we do have to accommodate trash code when we design stuff. That said, they do need to do this to comply with laws and make sure code doesn’t get lost (it’s finance), and this was the easy way to do it. Doing it better would have taken time and attention away from other stuff.

And standards do change, but they usually change to accommodate new features, or a new software product displaces an old one. I don’t really know any tech standard that changed because of cultural reasons. Point is, change is a cost. It may be worth to pay the cost, but here the benefits were US cultural sentiments that most of the world doesn’t care about.

And the stupid thing is that even when standards change, you are not usually labelled as culturally out of touch if you don’t follow it. Most big orgs don’t follow changes that they don’t need to. Nobody calls you a bigot for running COBOL mainframes in 2023, but they might if you predominantly have master branches.

I guess my perspective is that some people I know were mildly annoyed before lunch about it one day two years ago, since nobody cares about US identity politics, with my personal opinion being if the US didn’t fill up its for-profit prisons with black people who it then those prisons profit off of (just as an example), the word master would not bite as hard, and the whole thing would be moot.

Yeah, that’s what I’m saying, there is no one standard now. The stupid thing is all the problems that causes is mostly because there used to be one, and stuff written assuming master branches are eternal.

I’ve had a company that had some automation built on git but below GitLab that would not let you delete master branches. When main became a thing, they just started hard protecting those as well by name. It’s because of regulatory, and they are very stingy about it.

So when I created a few dozen empty deployment repos with main as the default, and then had to change it over to master so that it lined up nicer with the rest of the stuff, I’ve had a few dozen orphaned undeletable empty main branches laying around. A bit frustrating.

That said, the whole thing is just that. A bit frustrating. If it makes some people feel better about themselves, so be it. I am blessed in life enough to take “a bit frustrating”.

The standard is now main.

Git itself does not use that standard yet, so at least now there are two competing standards.

I get that there are cultural reasons why the word master was loaded language, but still, it’s not like institutional racism will go away. Meanwhile, the rest of the world which doesn’t struggle with the remnants of slavery has to put up with US weirdness.

People need to be crybabies at times. We all have feelings. Bottling them up will only leave you burnt out and with more mental problems than you went in with.

Take your time, we’ve all been there, and this does not make you a bad engineer. It only makes you human.

I love coding, I hate my coding environment… Anyone else ever have this type of issue in programming?

Yeah, we all do, all the time. I swear the only reason therapists can earn so much is because of all the programmers are racing to afford them.

I would actually go talk to your manager about this. I feel you are unsure about whether the problem is:

• you always get the hardest tasks and thus seem incompetent among the others, or
• you actually can’t finish tasks that others would be able to, they are just too nice to tell you.

If it’s the first, then your manager should help ease the load, or at least you could get recognized for your efforts for doing the heavy lifting for the team. If it’s the second, your manager will still be able to tell you that, and then at least you know you actually need to git gud.

all my tasks were opened years ago, remained open for months or years, then were assigned to me

That says to me, it’s the first. I’d ask people when something like that gets assigned to me; what changed that makes it possible to close this that wasn’t true in the past years? Or why don’t we close it with a “won’t fix”, since nobody seems to have missed the thing for years?

That said, there are three things I’d like to say to that:

First, story points are not for you to obsess over on how many you can complete in a sprint. They are also not there to compare people to each other. They are solely to try to guesstimate how long something is going to take, so that the PM is not flying completely blind. If a task really was estimated at some points, then the team agrees you were justified in taking a lot longer, then the team fucked up with estimating. If that’s consistent, then the team should have a conversation about why their estimates are off.

Second, yeah, the job market sucks now, that’s also not on you. Try to obsess less about your work. I know it’s really hard to do so, and I’ve gone through a bunch of experiences myself where I got closer and closer to burning out. Try to find something other than work to obsess over, that helped me a bit. I know it’s hard. I’ve failed to do so many times already. If you are worried about your career, just know that every day you spend biding your time at the current place makes you worth more in a better market to come.

Lastly, it will get easier later on. I sucked a lot during my first few years. You learn through the suckitude. That’s what you’re there for. You will be able to solve these later in your career. These issues, not the code or the tricky bugs are the ones that need experience.