|
I like your comment very much 
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
Chemists have exactly one rule: there are only exceptions
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Just say you took a break. If they ask you why then reply, "because I could."
You really do not need to elaborate any further. If this becomes an issue for a prospective employer then I doubt you would want to work for them anyway.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
Rick York wrote: "because I could."
That's a tough one, it's nice to know that an employee won't take a break "because they could", while in the thick of a development cycle. Whereas if there is a reason, even a very generic health reason, people may be more understanding.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
"Took time off to reinvent myself." Show them your articles. There are firms that "want" (only) those with an internet presence / blog / whatever. "Oh, you know who is on our team? ... etc."
(The "sharing" can be a problem ... need an alter ego.)
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
Gerry Schmitz wrote: need an alter ego
You're right. I probably shouldn't be a superhero full time. 
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
A doctor noticed your lack of curly braces and you were diagnosed with severe mental disorder, but rest assured you'll be able to write them in company projects now 
Or just say medical issues that you've resolved.
The nature of those issues is a private matter.
Getting back into the field may be a sure way to go crazy again though.
You'll get to deal with people who just won't shut up about your lack of curly braces and all that 
Good luck though!
Judging from your articles here on CP, any employer should be happy to have such a technical miracle on board.
I'd say keep us posted, but I'm sure you will
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: A doctor noticed your lack of curly braces and you were diagnosed with severe mental disorder, but rest assured you'll be able to write them in company projects now
I'm sure that's what it was. The delusions and hallucinations are just incidental.
Sander Rossel wrote: Or just say medical issues that you've resolved
That could work.
Sander Rossel wrote: Getting back into the field may be a sure way to go crazy again though.
You'll get to deal with people who just won't shut up about your lack of curly braces and all that
TBH I've always been the weird corworker, but people work with me anyway because I can code. I'm told I'm gifted at it. Good, because I can't do anything else. Seriously though, my life was a mess because of my untreated illness, but the one thing I could always do was code.
I think a few years ago when I started having hallucinations and week long manic episodes it actually made me better at it - more fluid even. Code just comes to me now, I don't have to force it. Sometimes I don't even have to think about it. I just conjure an idea and let me fingers do the heavy lifting. It's kind of amazing to experience it. But I can still get creative block, unfortunately, so I put coding down for a month or two. I'm wondering if I can still force it for work. I haven't tried since I went over the high wall.
Sander Rossel wrote: Good luck though!
Thank you
Sander Rossel wrote: Judging from your articles here on CP, any employer should be happy to have such a technical miracle on board.
Aww, also thank you. You're very kind. 
Especially now that you've put away the pitchfork. I'm a good-witch. Mostly.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: Especially now that you've put away the pitchfork. I'm a good-witch. Mostly.
Or have I put away the pitchfork because you're a good witch? 
By the way, I remember you saying you were 100% disapproved to work.
In the Netherlands you get payment (I think the first two years from your last employer, at 80%) and after that from the government.
Anyway, long story short that I don't even know the details of, if you can't work because of health issues, you get money to live from.
If you go back to work, you stop getting money.
I actually knew someone who had a very good job (fisherman) with a very expensive insurance (because that was the only insurance company who would get him from sea if there ever was a problem).
He then broke his neck on board, was fetched with a helicopter and got a big fat insurance check and now gets 80 or 60% of his last salary from the government.
He can still work some jobs, and he wants to, but never for more money than he's now getting from the government.
So he stays at home, does an occasional odd job and makes sure he isn't seen working.
Does any of that apply to you if you go back to work?
|
|
|
|
|
I am fighting for disability now (in the US it's always a fight, especially with mental health stuff)
But honestly, I don't want it. What I want is to work. This isn't even about money to me. Even if I lost the disability case and never worked again, we'd be okay.
Software was the one thing I could always do no matter what the rest of my life looked like.
That's why it's the first thing I think of when deciding what work to pursue again.
I do have a job, cleaning places, just to keep me working (it's not enough to put a dent in disability) but since the covid outbreak i haven't had contracts. My last two moved! It's kind of frustrating because the position is such that I don't have to work around others, I never hear from my supervisors and i set my own hours, but it's not what I'm looking for. It doesn't occupy me fully. I need something to give my brain work.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well,
Many years ago I was a regular member over at the Physics Forums[^] where they will crack down with an iron fist against anything that doesn't fit the standard model.
One of the things Youtube has done... is reveal how many very prominent physicists have some very unusual and controversial ideas.
Kip Thorne[^] - Nobel Prize in Physics (2017) makes some bold statements about time travel.
Leonard Susskind[^] - very unusual hyperdimensional spacetime geometries.
The Closer To Truth[^] channel is another interesting youtube channel.
I've got to admit that my opinions about crackpot ideas has changed after watching some of the worlds nobel prize winners present unusual ideas.
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
"We all agree that your theory is crazy. We disagree on whether your theory is crazy enough to be true."
-- John A. Wheeler
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Daniel, The quote seems like a paraphrase of a statement by Niels Bohr to Enrico Fermi, as quoted in Richard Rhodes superb book, "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" [^].
I'm quoting from memory, so might be off, but, I think Bohr said: "Your theory is crazy, but, not crazy enough to be true."
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
It's quite possible that you are correct; I just remember it as a quote from John Wheeler.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Given enough time, anything is possible.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
Since the actual physics conjecture is Conservation of Energy and Mass he can be correct. The implication of his statement is that there's less mass in the universe, and on a per unit volume, this is a true statement since the mass is spread out more.
|
|
|
|
|
Yessssss! The BBC are re-showing 'selected episodes' of Total Wipeout. 
Series 1, Episode 1 will be shown a week tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
|
I take it you are excited?
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
To quote Blackadder: "I'm as excited as a terribly excited person who has a really good reason for being terribly excited.". That's another one they should bring back.
|
|
|
|
|
Makes a change from the utter balls in some of their recent output.
|
|
|
|
|
Yep! Also, I got round to watching "Floor Is Lava" (on Netflix) last night. Oh dear!  That will be my first and last episode. It's not just poor. It's incredibly irritating! The only way they could make it worth watching is to replace the bubbly red water, with actual real lava! 
|
|
|
|
|
I'm busy changing part of our codebase to use the new style of using statements: What's new in C# 8.0 - C# Guide | Microsoft Docs
It's nice because it's neater and causes less nesting, but for someone not familiar with it the drawback is that it's less understandable than the classic syntax. What are your opinions on syntax changes like this?
Also, should I pay back the company for the lines of deleted code? :P
|
|
|
|
|
I assume you can still use the "old" way also. That syntax is fine if, like the example, you code would otherwise be;
private void MyFunction()
{
using (var x = new Widget())
{
}
}
as you are reducing the inner nest, but for all other uses (pun not intended) the existing way should defo be used. What you'll see though is people using the new way regardless because if it is "new" it must be "better"  "Why do you want to change this for loop to a linq statement again....?"
|
|
|
|
|
Being honest, I haven't use the new one. But looking at the examples of MS that you linked is not that bad, but if a function is more complex and needs a couple of usings that can get a bit messed up if the dispose is only called at the very end of the function instead of being called when exiting the "active" using.
Have you tested it in such scenario?
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
My scenario was mostly adding tracing to a method. So with the old syntax I could either add the braces or for less nesting have a finally where I dispose the tracer.
The other places where I changed it I don't think it matters too much bc that part was at the end of the method. If it were at the start it might make a difference.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
(at the scale of the universe...)