C Strings Are Not Safe

Ah, the classic race condition joke that haunts every multi-threaded developer's nightmares! Thread 1: "knock knock" Thread 2: "who's there?" Thread 1: "race condition" But in reality, it executes as: "knock knock" "race condition" "who's there?" The punchline arrives before the setup—just like that bug that only appears in production at 3 AM when you're finally getting some sleep. Concurrency: where the answer might show up before you've even asked the question.

The code shows a variable named ps for a ParticleSystem . Above it are ASCII art comments that look suspiciously like the PlayStation logo. Some developer couldn't resist the urge to add this Easter egg when they saw "PS" – because apparently professional codebases need more corporate logos drawn in ASCII. Management probably thinks this increases shareholder value.

Ah yes, the classic "let's handle years with a switch statement" approach. Some poor developer back in 1999 was like: switch(year) {   case 2020: // pandemic mode   case 2021: // still pandemic   case 2022: // recovery mode   case 2023: // normal-ish   case 2024: // election chaos   // TODO: add more years later   default: trainControl.panic(); } And then they quit, got promoted, or died before anyone remembered to add 2025. Twenty-five years after Y2K and we're still writing software like time is a finite concept. This is why we can't have nice things... or functioning trains, apparently.

HOW DARE YOU QUESTION THE SACRED TRADITION OF i,j VARIABLES?! The AUDACITY! Since the dawn of coding time, we've used i and j for loop counters like it was handed down from the programming gods themselves. Try using 'x' or 'counter' in your loops and watch as senior devs spontaneously combust at their desks. It's not just convention—it's PROGRAMMING LAW, and we will defend it with the same intensity as tabs vs. spaces or where to put curly braces. Don't even THINK about using meaningful variable names in your loops—that's heresy of the highest order!

The ultimate flex in programming isn't driving a Mercedes—it's using 32 bits when 1 would do just fine. Sure, booleans only need a single bit to represent true/false, but why be efficient when you can waste 31 extra bits using an integer instead? Memory optimization? In this economy? Please. We've got terabytes of RAM now. The same developers who argue over 5KB in a JavaScript library will happily burn 32x the memory for every boolean value because changing the data type now requires actual work. It's the digital equivalent of using a sledgehammer to hang a picture frame—technically works, but your walls (and your code) will never forgive you.

Regular Pooh: Writing out a full if-else block like some kind of verbose peasant. Tuxedo Pooh: Using the ternary operator like the sophisticated one-liner aristocrat you are. Why waste time write lot code when few code do trick?