Not fitting into Capitalism has nothing to do with common ADHD traits such as lack of emotional regulation, time blindness, and our tendency towards risky behaviors.

All of those traits generally make you a less predictable and harder to manage worker. Capitalism absolutely cares about those traits very significantly.

I could be anything from an Mesopotamian King to a rider in the Mongol horde to a Medieval Peasant and my brain would still have the same damn problems.

This is literally impossible to say. Your brain would still work similarly, but it would have been shaped by entirely different stimuli and environment, so it would not be working the same. It’s also entirely possible that those tendencies are beneficial in different historical contexts. Other systems like feudalism may also similarly view ADHD as a detriment, but that doesn’t mean that every system / context does.

I mean ~80% of the world’s population takes stimulants daily in the form of caffeine. Childhood ADHD rates are now at ~12%, and the testing criteria for ADHD revolves largely around whether it negatively impacts your life.

If everyone else is increasingly taking stimulants for it and you’re not, then you’re more likely to feel negatively impacted since you’ll stand out, which is likely to increase the diagnosis rate further.

I don’t think it’s unlikely that we see a world where like half the population has an ADHD diagnosis, and/or the treatment for ADHD (i.e. more effective stimulants then caffeine), become over the counter.

Humans are literally Jack of All Trades. The big evolutionary advantage of brain power is that it lets animals adapt to new things in a single lifetime, rather than having to evolve adaptations to it over generations, and humans primary evolutionary advantage is our massive generalized brain power.

Capitalism says to specialize, human nature says to be a jack of all trades.

I assume this community will disagree strongly, but ADHD honestly does not seem like an actual disorder (as in, an objective detriment, and one that evolution would select against in the long term), so much as just our brains not being particularly suited to capitalism and capitalists gas lighting the masses into thinking that’s abnormal.

Do they regrow their body or a new body made from the same parts?

I’m not saying they were, I’m saying you are.

Removed by mod

Lol good luck on that promotion, you seem difficult to be around.

I wonder how your company handles performance reviews when you already know everything about all types of programming?

That variable is only created when the function is run, and it holds a constant value for the entirety of its lifetime.

It is literally constant from the perspective of the computer executing it. You’re the one adding an extra layer of expectation here.

Removed by mod

Lol.

Pushing something onto an array isn’t changing the array? It’s not changing the reference to the array, but from a style standpoint it doesn’t make sense.

So you’re arguing for writing things as they seem, not the way that computers treat them?

You’re comment indicates the FE dev obsession with always using const stems from a misunderstanding of how computers work.

Maybe rethink this.

You are literally just describing the conceptual differences between functional programming and object oriented programming. It has nothing to do with front end vs backend, except for the fact that React has vastly popularized functional paradigms on the frontend.

If you come from a Java / Spring background, that will seem foreign, if you come from an express background it will feel natural.

Functional programming is extremely pleasant though. Its been described as what object oriented would look like if you actually followed all the SOLID principles. You should keep an open mind.

The equivalent in JavaScript / TypeScript would actually be function () {}, this is the syntax for named functions.

C# is the same as bash though.

Find someone running a service or a company for that.

Mo Money Mo Problems doesn’t refer to money or wealth in the abstract for the community as a whole, it’s about an individual making substantially more money than their local peers.

The situation presented by OP is one of a rising tide, that lifts all ships, where as the dynamic elicited by Biggie Smalls is fundamentally one of wealth inequality. If there was both enough wealth to go around, and wealth sharing mechanisms in place, it’s not clear that mo money would be mo problems.

Yeah, I started in the architecture industry and it’s wild how much every company pays Autodesk in licensing fees, every year, for extremely little improvement to Revit (their architecture software).

For a mid sized company (~500 people), I think we were paying them like a full staff software engineer’s salary in licensing fees every year… and there are dozens of them in every country, let alone major firms, independent shop, contractors etc.

Really felt like the industry would benefit from open source CAD software that was collectively developed, but it’s not quick or easy to build CAD software that works flawlessly at scale and no single firm has ever had enough up front capital to fund the development of something that could compete. Plus once you collaborate with other architecture and engineering and planning firma, you now need to exchange files and standards (or better yet work together real time), and now you need a solution that can work for everyone.

Code signing should be done though.

You can disagree with Apple’s approach that maintains them as the only signing authority, but, at a fundamental level, code signing is the only way to distribute an executable and have the user be able to trust who authored it (and thus what’s in it).

They couldn’t just make YouTube suddenly stop working.

ffmpeg is published under the LGPL license, meaning that all of the published versions are free for anyone to use in anything, as long as they don’t modify the ffmpeg library.

The only leverage they have over YouTube is that they could stop allowing YouTube to use future versions. That could create headaches for YouTube if it turns out there’s major security issues, since then YouTube will need to either solve them with a wrapper / sandbox around the library, or write their own library, but any existing versions in use will always be usable by YouTube.

You think this even shows up on the radar of company execs?

There’s no reason not to publish messy code. Most code ends up being messy.

It could be malware, OP is not sharing the source code.