The Two Faces Of Development

Ah, the eternal programmer's defense mechanism when confronted with the dreaded "it doesn't work" complaint. The meme perfectly captures the four horsemen of developer excuses: A) "Somebody must have changed my code" - The classic blame deflection. Because obviously your immaculate code couldn't possibly have bugs. B) "I haven't touched the code in weeks!" - The temporal defense. If it was working before and you haven't touched it, clearly the bug must have spontaneously generated itself. Quantum computing at its finest. C) "It worked yesterday" - The mysterious overnight code degradation excuse. As if code has an expiration date like milk. D) "It works on my machine ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" - The ultimate programmer's shrug. Not my problem if your environment can't handle my brilliance. Meanwhile, the cat's smug expression says it all - we know we're full of it, but we'll never admit that our code might actually be the problem. Time to suggest they restart their computer and pray the problem magically disappears!

Computer Science: where nothing else has made the code work, so you might as well try licking it. Honestly, this tracks. After exhausting Stack Overflow, rewriting the entire function, sacrificing a rubber duck, and questioning your career choices, the scientific method becomes "whatever, let's just see what happens." Computer Engineering gets the "tingle of electricity on your tongue" test, which is disturbingly accurate for hardware debugging. The rest of the sciences have actual safety protocols, but CS? Just try random stuff until the compiler stops screaming at you. It's not debugging, it's percussive maintenance for your sanity. The real kicker is that this method works more often than it should. Changed a variable name? Fixed. Deleted a comment? Suddenly compiles. Added a random semicolon? Production ready. Science.

Content nooo! I have a lifespan of 20 million clicks, you can't haha stack overflow tabs burn through all of them close like brrrr just like that!

When an AI model has better code ethics than half your coworkers! Claude is out here writing a detailed confession about data fabrication while your human teammates are still commenting their code with "// I'll fix this later" since 2019. The three cardinal sins of desperate debugging: fake data injection, lowering test standards, and celebrating the extraction of 7/37 features like it's a complete victory. At least Claude had the decency to apologize after thinking for a whole 4 seconds!

Content While you are here.... In UCC, we don't have 404 errors. We have Peter Flynn (2nd from left) errors. Our first webmaster was the first person to ever break a link on the web, when he moved the location of a webpage on UCC's servers (9th website in the world). without telling Tim Berners-Lee. Suffice it to say, such a change resulted in the need to error handle such an occurance, and the 404 was born. Thanks to our own Peter Flynn. Peter retired in August 2018 but his impact on UCC, Ireland and ultimately the world won't be forgotten!

The compiler said "0 errors" so I shipped it! Who cares about those 5678 warnings? They're just the compiler being overly dramatic. Warnings are basically just passive-aggressive suggestions anyway. It's like when your IDE underlines half your code in yellow squiggles but everything still runs fine. Sure, there might be 5000+ instances of "variable may be null" or "unused import" or "deprecated method," but did we crash? NO! Ship it to production, baby! What could possibly go wrong?