I understand that you want to stand out and go beyond platitudes and canned answers. But for me, I always get a bit uncomfortable with these sorts of questions.
I've been on dates where I've gotten a barrage of questions like these. What makes me feel like backing off is that they seemingly come out of the blue and appear as canned interview questions. I also get the feeling that I'm getting judged on my answer. That some answers are more "right" than others, for example the article's question about material gifts versus experiences. Will I tick the box as materialistic if I mention that my best gift was an object?
Yeah, I can see these as "off-the-wall" questions in a job interview but if somebody started asking me these at a party or something I would be seriously weirded out and would quickly find an excuse to go talk to someone else.
Wow I’m really surprised by answers in this thread - I just read the article and questioned myself on all of these, and thoroughly enjoyed thinking about them, when they finished I thought to myself “I wish I had someone to talk to right now and ask these questions with”
I guess everyone is different, I’m just offering a counterpoint, I thought these questions were thought provoking and interesting and don’t find them intrusive or anything.
These questions aren't meant to be a substitute for conversation, they are meant to be something to give it direction when there is none. If they were simply barraging you with questions, either they were bad at listening and replying to what you said, you were bad at replying in a way that they could reply to (asking your own, related questions maybe?), or both.
This kind of thing happens so frequently that I don't think so. My guess is the language auto detection messes it up for multilinguals and it works fine for people who are solely using English? Because it's certainly broken on voice input - I ask it a question in English and it will respond in Russian and such.
In general, there are certain tells of what constitutes a serious business and advertisement. This makes it easy to the trained eye to filter out the blatant frauds. But coming advancements in AI generated content will blur the line between legitimate and illegitimate. The only reasonable approach will of course be to trust nothing you see on the internet. Very sad.
Indeed, it's more required if you're a web developer. Extension to capture whole screen (including scrolled screen), color picker, ruler, even magnifying glass are the ones I usually use.
Of course there are, but the point is, you can not really trust any of them. Today they will be very useful, tomorrow they may be malware, and there is no way for you to know or protect yourself.
This is true of anything you find on github as well.
Open source works on the idea that "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow." The thing people forget is the "enough eyeballs" part. As if people are sitting around auditing every sub-dependency of a sub-dependency of React.
In addition, I don't know of any package repository that requires the authoritative source[1] from github to match the compiled/minified/etc. package that is uploaded and published. And I suspect most repos are vulnerable to this.
There are many popular but unloved packages out there.
[1] I'd also point out how incredibly stupidly dangerous it is that the open source community has basically given Microsoft the keys to be the authoritative source for all of open source. No one has learned a damn thing. And, somewhat ironically, Microsoft buying out an entire user base for their own nefarious purposes really fits the topic at hand.
2) Recursive dependencies massively increase that risk.
3) You should check all your dependencies into your repo, or at least some kind of manifest with secured signatures of those dependencies, and never automatically update dependencies.
I see a few things that can improve this situation by quite a lot:
1) Languages should provide an extensive and expressive standard library of some sort, either one bundled with the language, or a tightly vetted and controlled set of first-party dependencies.
2) Package managers should not automatically resolve recursive dependencies, but should force users to manually add all dependencies of any dependency that is added. This additional friction would force you to acknowledge all the risk you are taking on by adding dependencies, and it would force the ecosystem as a whole to reduce the number of dependencies.
One thing I've noticed a lot of Swedes don't think about is that 'y' is pronounced the same as 'i' in English, as in the word 'gym'. They instead use the Swedish 'y' sound (like the German 'ü').
