@ugo@feddit.it

comments

• Seriously. I get the impression that some people don’t like to engage with me at work because I try to be precise to the necessary degree. I work with software, so the degree of precision I need to use to express the behaviour of a system is decently high. I do a conscious effort to be only as technical as the context requires, often opting for being not technical at all when engaging people whose job is not technical.

  A few days ago I was in an email chain that went something like this:

  manager: we need to add <non-existing functionality> asap.

  me: is it for <other team’s software> so they can <do thing>? If it is, we did <just landed functionality> for that. <other team’s software> doesn’t need to check <condition>, they can just <do thing> and <our team’s software> will handle it gracefully.

  other team’s programmer: that’s what we do.

  other team’s manager: so we do <opposite of what I described>?

  other team’s programmer: yes

  If that’s what passes for normalcy, I don’t understand the appeal.

  on autism rule in c/onehundredninetysix@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1d ago

• those started from a place of "We all agree that a lower barrier of entry to making firearms is bad. […]”

  Why? To be clear: I agree. But why is this a concern in a country where the second amendment is part of the constitution?

  Isn’t the point of (that part of) the constitution that the more armed the population is, the better?

  on Obama urges Democrats to have a ‘clear plan’ for AI safeguards in c/technology@lemmy.world · 14 Sep 2026