YouTube Survivorship Bias

Regular developers measure performance in milliseconds or microseconds because that's what modern tools show them. Meanwhile, the true optimization psychopaths are counting individual CPU clock cycles like it's 1982. They're the ones rewriting entire functions in assembly just to save 3 cycles in a loop that runs twice a day. The difference between "fast enough" and "I need to know exactly how many nanoseconds each instruction takes."

When asked how I fixed that critical production bug, I simply implemented the industry-standard "Ostrich Algorithm" - the elegant practice of burying your head in the sand and hoping the problem is rare enough that nobody notices. It's not laziness, it's resource optimization. The documentation even backs me up. Why waste precious dev hours on something that might happen once every 10,000 executions when you could be creating exciting new bugs instead?

Ah, the classic bait and switch of tech hiring. You show up to the interview in your fancy suit (Tom from Tom & Jerry), answering questions about red-black trees and time complexity while sweating through your bow tie. Then six months later, you're in the trenches (buff Jerry), sleep-deprived, debugging legacy code written by someone who clearly hated humanity, chugging coffee at 2 AM because production is down and somehow it's your fault. The algorithm questions? Haven't used that knowledge once. But hey, at least you can tell your friends you're a "software engineer" while you're actually just Stack Overflow's most loyal customer.

The duality of computing in one perfect meme! On the left, we've got Buff Doge calculating the millionth Fibonacci number faster than you can finish reading about it—pure computational flex. Meanwhile, Crying Doge on the right is having an existential crisis trying to run a decades-old game that probably required less processing power than your smart fridge. Nothing captures the absurdity of modern computing better than having machines that can simulate nuclear explosions but choke on legacy code written when dial-up was considered high-tech. The true paradox of our industry: simultaneously too powerful and not compatible enough.

The modern tech interview process in one painful frame. Looking at those shooting stars and wishing for the impossible – passing a coding interview without spending months memorizing obscure tree traversal algorithms that you'll never use in the actual job. Ten years of experience? Great! Now reverse this linked list while I watch you sweat. Meanwhile, the actual job is 90% googling how to center a div and wondering why your production code suddenly stopped working after a dependency updated by one minor version.

The legacy of zero-indexing strikes again! While most humans count from 1, programmers know arrays start at 0 in most languages. This poor child's fate was sealed when mom insisted on starting her array at 1 instead of 0 during pregnancy. The result? A kid destined to commit the cardinal sin of programming—using 1-based indexing. It's basically hereditary at this point. That kid is going to grow up to be the colleague who writes for(i=1; i and makes everyone's eye twitch during code reviews.