I have this setup, and the Firestick UI is horribly slow. Sometimes it takes 30 seconds or more for it to give any response to a button press. It's worst when I'm trying to watch something on Amazon Prime, to the point that I hardly watch that anymore because the UI is so annoying.

9 May 2012 at about 20:00, a dot comes streaking out of the east, across Africa and into the Atlantic. What's up with that?

And then there's the "nightmare" difficulty, but you have to find that hidden door!

> requiring my team to review their own PRs before they expect a senior developer to review them

I'm having a hard time imagining the alternative. Do junior developers not take any pride in their work? I want to be sure my code works before I submit it for review. It's embarrassing to me if it fails basic requirements. And as a reviewer, what I want to see more than anything is how the developer assessed that their code works. I don't want to dig into the code unless I need to -- show me the validation and results, and convince me why I should approve it.

I've seen plenty of examples of developers who don't know how to effectively validate their work, or document the validation. But that's different than no validation effort at all.

> Do junior developers not take any pride in their work?

Yes. I have lost count of the number of PRs that have come to me where the developer added random blank lines and deleted others from code that was not even in the file they were supposed to be working in.

I'm with you -- I review my own PRs just to make sure I didn't inadvertently include something that would make me look sloppy. I smoke test it, I write comments explaining the rationale, etc. But one of my core personality traits (mostly causing me pain, but useful in this instance) is how much I loathe being wrong, especially for silly reasons. Some people are very comfortable with just throwing stuff at the wall to see if it'll stick.

> added random blank lines and deleted others from code that was not even in the file they were supposed to be working in.

Maybe some kind of auto-formatter?

That is my charitable interpretation, but it's always one or two changes across a module that has hundreds, maybe thousands of lines of code. I'd expect an auto-formatter to be more obvious.

In any case, just looking over your own PR briefly before submitting it catches these quickly. The lack of attention to detail is the part I find more frustrating than the actual unnecessary format changes.

Why would you are about blank lines? Sounds like aborted attempts at a change to me. Then realizing you don’t need them. Seeing them in your PR, and figuring they don’t actually do anything to me.

More likely artifact of debug prints being removed.

I think the point is that a necessary part of being careful is reviewing the diff yourself end-to-end right before sending it out for review. That catches mistakes like these.

i myself have been guilty of creating a pr and immediately pushing a commit to clean that stuff up

Many are just doing SWE for the money.

Their goal is to pass the hot potato to someone else, so they can say in the standup "oh I'm waiting on review" making it not their problem.

> I want to be sure my code works before I submit it for review.

No kidding. I mean, "it works" is table stakes, to the point I can't even imagine going to review without having tested things locally at least to be confident in my changes. The self-review for me is to force me to digest my whole patch and make sure I haven't left a bunch of TODO comments or sloppy POC code in the branch. I'd be embarrassed to get caught leaving commented code in my branch - I'd be mortified if somehow I submitted a PR that just straight up didn't work.

It’s cultural. It always seemed natural to me, until I joined a team that treated review as some compliance checkbox that had nothing to do with the real work.

Things like real review as an important part of the work requires a culture that values it.

Oh junior devs submit PRs that don't fully work all the time.

> We should impose, by law, the following rules on all companies that offer accounts to their customers.

When the services that a company provides gets to this level, it starts becoming like a public utility. If it's not possible to participate in society without using such a service, then the services should be governed like utilities are.

I wouldn't be opposed to having actual government-provided services for things like e-mail, text message, and discussion forums at a very basic level. Then (in the US anyway) we could apply the government restrictions on privacy and freedom of speech, with laws governing the oversight and implementation. Of course there would be major details to work out to prevent misuse, corruption, etc.; but it could solve the problem of losing your essential on-line identity -- as long as the government has any interest in you at all for something like expecting you to be able to send/receive an e-mail in order to pay your taxes, then they wouldn't ever cancel your account. 3rd-party services would still be possible, but then they could do whatever their business model supports, and caveat emptor. How people can expect businesses services like Facebook to comply with their personal expectation of free speech is beyond me.

I apply my own meaning to the 5-star rating, and find it to work really well: 1 = The movie was so bad I didn't/couldn't finish watching it. 2 = I watched it all, but didn't enjoy it and wouldn't recommend it to anyone. 3 = The movie was worth watching once, but I have no interest in watching it again. 4 = I enjoyed it, and would enjoy watching it again if it came up. I'd recommend it. 5 = a great movie -- I could enjoy watching it many times, and highly recommend it.

> Perl is most human-like programming language

This claim always seemed bizarre to me. What kind of drugs do you think a layman would think you were on if you showed them a typical Perl program and asserted how "human-like" it was? Even if you tried to follow-up and explain it: "No, no, see this bit means open whatever file stream is specified in the command line, as long as it starts with a letter between 'A' and 'F' that can be either upper or lower case, and is followed after any random characters by at least 3 digits in a row. Then this next character means.... See? It's just like I'm describing it to you!"

I remember the "Aha" moment on the face of a python-flavoured data scientist when I showed her my Perl scripts for managing LDAP groups.

One look at the class files (written in Moose) and she was stunned that she could immediately understand it, having never written Perl before.

> You would think Google Analytics would help a lot with this, but they seem to not care.

Not just not care, but don't they have incentive to report higher traffic?

At this point Google is just committing fraud to justify high stock prices.

Unfortunately, the amount of money invested in something isn't indicative of it's utility. For example: the tulip mania, beanie babies, NFTs, etc.

> Chinese officials claim these new satellite networks will be used for Internet connectivity. That may be so, but Pentagon officials worry China can use them for other purposes, just as the Space Force is doing with Starlink, Starshield, and other programs.

I wish we lived in a world where it was good that others do the same things that we do; where leaders led by example, and encouraged others to do it better, so that when the inevitable change-over occurs, we're all better off.