Bugs And Taxes Are Certain

The evolution of coding assistance in one perfect Ninja Turtles reference! Remember when we all relied on Stack Overflow's cryptic answers from grumpy experts who'd rather tell you why your question was stupid than actually help? Those were the dark ages. Now we've got ChatGPT, Claude, Deepseeк, and Gemini—fully grown AI assistants ready to solve our problems without judging our intelligence or demanding we read the documentation first. The student has become the master, and Master Splinter (Stack Overflow) is now just tagging along while his former pupils do all the heavy lifting. The circle of life for programming knowledge—from "marked as duplicate" to "here's 5 different solutions with explanations."

Content DrawPool Hot New Tags to search for... APP ISSUE Due to Matt forgetting how to write code, a HUGE performance bug was introduced in the last app release - a fix is on its way and Matt will be whipped! Leaderboards Top 5 most liked users 1. Dragooniia 2. Cansukily 35 21

Content Fixing bug in production 1 12 110 7 18 6 13 142 15 3 1 4 5

Junior dev: "I'm a programmer" Senior dev: *starts explaining scalability issues* Junior dev: *visible confusion* Senior dev: "millions of requests per second" The exact moment when a junior realizes their cute little CRUD app with 5 users isn't quite the same as building systems that don't burst into flames under load. We've all been there—thinking we're hot stuff until someone mentions "eventual consistency" and our brains blue-screen.

Content Can you lick the science? Chemistry: NO!! DO NOT!!! Geology: Sometimes needed, sometimes dangerous Psychology: Best not Physics: WTF??? How??? Zoology: In Zoology, science licks you. Computer science: The tingle of electricity on your tongue is how you know it's working Software engineering: Nothing else has made the code work so you might as well try Astronomy: Look, if your dedication to lick Uranus is what it takes to get humankind to another planet, then so be it.

Ah yes, the classic programmer paradox. You spend hours writing code, convinced it's broken because it's not producing the expected output. Then you realize with crushing disappointment that your code is working exactly as instructed - you just instructed it poorly. The computer isn't wrong; your logic was. It's like yelling at a calculator for correctly telling you that 2+2=4 when you meant to multiply.