At Least They Are Honest

The emotional rollercoaster of a developer captured in two consecutive commits, mere hours apart. First commit: "fixed it I love my life" - that dopamine hit when your code finally works and you feel like a genius. Second commit: "i hate my life" - when you realize your fix broke three other things, or worse, it didn't actually fix anything and you just fooled yourself. The best part? Both commits happened on January 3rd, probably during the post-holiday return to work when your brain is still in vacation mode and the bugs are particularly vicious. This is basically the developer's version of "how it started vs how it's going" but compressed into a single workday.

That smug feeling when a non-programmer is absolutely blown away by a game glitch you could fix with a single if-statement. Sure, let them think you're some kind of wizard for understanding that the collision detection just needed a simple boundary check. Meanwhile, you're sitting there knowing it's basically the "Hello World" of game development fixes. The superiority is just *chef's kiss* delicious.

Content Hays Stanford haysstanford 24 Feb Tell me you are a developer without saying 'I'm a developer." 689 17 202 1,115 Tarek Jellali 3 tarekjellali Replying to haysstanford Roses are red, Violets are blue, Unexpected token at line 42. 20:50 24 Feb 21 Twitter for Android

The perfect karma loop: we write garbage code, feed it to AI, then act shocked when AI spits garbage back at us. It's like teaching a parrot all your worst swear words and then being offended when it curses at your in-laws. The AI didn't invent bad code—it just holds up a mirror to our collective coding sins. Next time you're cursing at GitHub Copilot's suggestions, remember: that monstrosity is built on the foundation of your stackoverflow copy-paste crimes.

Content When your serverless function returns a 500 internal server error Those bastards lied to me PS Express

So you run make b and get "b" like you expected. Cool. Then you try dmake -s b thinking it'll do the same thing, and suddenly target 'a' decides to run first and you get "a" followed by "a: no action was taken." Welcome to the wonderful world of build systems where POSIX compliance is more of a suggestion than a rule. Different make implementations parse dependencies differently, and dmake (Sun's make) apparently has its own ideas about how your Makefile should work. Same file, same rules, completely different execution order. It's like having two compilers that interpret the same code differently—which, let's be honest, also happens more than we'd like to admit. The real fun starts when your CI/CD pipeline uses a different make implementation than your local machine. Good times.