I saw a conversation like that but, like here, I didn't always understand what they meant with "end result". Was it only the app GUI and they don't care about the code at all, or do they still care about the code quality, the architecture and planning.
I've written software that solved business problems in everything from Visual Basic to C++. The end result can include the things you list, but typing in the code to me is down the list of importance.
Personally, for me, the "end result" embraces the architecture, planning, algorithms, domain model, code quality, and documentation etc, as well as what the app does in the end. I care a lot about making well architected, reliable stuff
> Same with pounds, for example. A pound is 16 ounces, which can be divided 4 times without involving any fractions. Try that with metric.
Not sure if you're actually serious... 1 kg is 1000 g, dividing with 4 gets you 250 g, no fractions. And no need to remember arbitrary names or numbers for conversions.
> Then there's temperature. Fahrenheit just works more naturally over the human-scale temperature range without involving fractions. Celsius kind of sucks by comparison.
Again, I'm not sure I get it. With celsius, 0°C is freezing temperature of water and 100°C is boiling point of water. For fahrenheit it was something like 32 and 212? And in every day use, people don't need fractions, only full degrees. Celsius also aligns well with Kelvins without fractions (unlike fahrenheit).
Fahrenheit has finer granularity without fractions.
IOW each Celsius degree is bigger than each Fahrenheit degree.
Even though the F numbers are so much higher and it seems unbearably hot :)
So for a thermostat that only can be set in 1 degree increments (without a decimal point), you have finer control when using F than using C.
Anybody can memorize the conversion more easily by throwing out the math, using table lookup -- made easier by throwing out most of the table too.
Just remember every 5 C equals a non-fractional F.
And every 5 C equals 9 F.
If all you are interested in is comfort level it's like this:
C F
0 32
5 41
10 50
15 59
20 68
25 77
30 86
35 95
40 104
Least significant digit of F drops by 1 every time without fail.
Looks like it increases by 1 each time in the tens column, but it's only 9 so 50 & 59 are the outliers, which most people have memorized already.
If you are a Celsius native and you think in terms of 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 -- you only need to remember 5 different F numbers, 50, 59, 68, 77 & 86 and that will get you far.
Ahhh, I mean that's all very well .. but I'm over 60 and I've literally never used or needed to use Fahrenheit - and I had a long career in geophysical and physical data aquisition, ran several kinds of furnaces and annealing ovens 24/7 for a decade, do a lot of cooking, etc.
So, I appreciate your rendition of things I have tables for already but any actual need is sadly non existant.
The point is Fahrenheit works fine, and is arguably better than Celcius for measuring the temperatures that humans are typically exposed to, so there is no need to replace it with Celsius.
Ah, I see. Though, it's still useful that the relevant range isn't 0-100 but can go below zero since it's a significant change in weather conditions when we're below freezing point, but I get your point.
In the end, it's probably what one is used to. Temperatures here are typically between -20'C and +30'C.
It feels like you think that the parent hasn't really considered their options and don't know what they really want.
> Not that big of on an issue in most home user cases as a home server
I don't know what "most home users" want, but I can understand wanting something more compact and efficient (also easier to keep cool in tighter or closed spaces), even at home.
> Cheaper if you ignore much lower performance and versatility vs a X86_X64 NUC as a home server.
Or maybe they noticed they don't need all the performance and versatility. Been there. It's plenty versatile and can run everything I need.
My APC UPS self-tested and monitored battery status automatically. Then started to endlessly beep when it noticed the battery needed replacing (could be muted though). Eventually, I stopped using UPS since I rarely needed it and it was just another thing to keep and maintain.
> What I really wanted is a web interface which will just show me EVERYTHING it knows about the system in a form of charts, graphs, so I can just skim through it and check if everything allright visually, without using the shell and each individual command.
For this reason, I've created Lightkeeper: https://github.com/kalaksi/lightkeeper to simplify repetitive tasks and provide an efficient view for monitoring. Also has graphs as a recent addition, but screenshots don't show it. You can also drop to a terminal with a hotkey any time.
Ironically, it works over SSH without any additional daemons.
> I routinely have several thousands of tabs opened on my devices, and I never considered myself a hoarder.
You seem serious, but it sounds a bit funny!
I also often open links in new tabs. It's also a bit faster than e.g. going back in history. But I do close tabs after I'm done browsing that site or otherwise don't need it. I'd start to feel lost with a lot of tabs open (say, hundreds), not knowing what is actually relevant, what kind of research is "in progress", how to keep track of them well etc.. I do use multiple browser windows and vertical tabs in Firefox.
> Browsers tend to take open tabs into account when I search for stuff, and it’s nice to be able to enter a few keywords and get redirected to an existing tab.
Similarly, I mostly receive suggestions from my browsing history and use that a lot. I've disabled any suggestions from search engines, since they are usually useless.
> I've worked on teams where multiple engineers argued about the "right" way to build something. I remember thinking that they had biases based on past experiences and assumptions about what mattered. It usually took an outsider to proactively remind them what actually mattered to the business case.
My first thought was that you probably also have different biases, priorities and/or taste. As always, this is probably very context-specific and requires judgement to know when something goes too far. It's difficult to know the "most correct" approach beforehand.
> Sometimes hacking something together messily to confirm it's the right thing to be building is the right way. Then making sure it's secure, then finally paying down some technical debt to make it more maintainable and extensible.
I agree that sometimes it is, but in other cases my experience has been that when something is done, works and is used by customers, it's very hard to argue about refactoring it. Management doesn't want to waste hours on it (who pays for it?) and doesn't want to risk breaking stuff (or changing APIs) when it works. It's all reasonable.
And when some time passes, the related intricacies, bigger picture and initially floated ideas fade from memory. Now other stuff may depend on the existing implementation. People get used to the way things are done. It gets harder and harder to refactor things.
Again, this probably depends a lot on a project and what kind of software we're talking about.
> There's always a balance/tension, but it's when things go too far one way or another that I see avoidable failures.
I think balance/tension describes it well and good results probably require input from different people and from different angles.
reply