JavaScript NaN Is Weird

The existential crisis every developer faces at 2 AM while debugging. We name something a "variable" and then immediately declare it as "const" or "final" or "readonly" - essentially telling it not to vary. The cognitive dissonance is real! It's like naming your pet rock "Runner" or your cactus "Cuddles." No wonder our code gets confused and throws exceptions - we've been gaslighting our variables this whole time!

The JavaScript pushState() function has an unused parameter that literally does nothing but can't be removed because... backward compatibility! 🤦‍♂️ It's like that one useless function parameter that's been in your codebase for 5 years and everyone's too scared to remove it because "something might break." The documentation even admits it with a straight face: "This parameter exists for historical reasons, and cannot be omitted." The red scribbles perfectly capture every developer's reaction: "??? WTF" - which is basically the official technical term for legacy code maintenance.

Content The Father Is Not The Son Is G 0 Is Not The Holy Spirit Christianity "O JavaScript hs joihs

Congratulations to HR for inventing a filter so powerful it rejected their own tech lead! Turns out they were searching for "AngularJS" when they needed "Angular" developers—two completely different frameworks that just happen to share a name and confuse non-technical people. The sweet irony? Their auto-rejection system was so efficiently broken that it filtered out every single qualified candidate for three months while HR kept lying about having "candidates in the pipeline." Nothing says corporate efficiency like designing an automated system to reject the exact people you're trying to hire! Half the HR department got fired, but hey—at least their keyword filtering worked flawlessly at something!

The eternal battle between fancy modern streams and good ol' for loops! Sure, streams can filter, map, and reduce with the elegance of a ballet dancer, but try debugging that one-liner that spans three monitors. Meanwhile, traditional for loops are just sitting there like "Yeah, I might not be the cool kid anymore, but at least you know exactly which iteration exploded your production server at 3 AM." Sometimes you don't need a Ferrari when a reliable Toyota with an actual dashboard will get you there without the existential crisis of atomized variables.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should . This code is the programming equivalent of naming your twins "Twin1" and "Twin2" then wondering why they need therapy. Using keywords as variable names, declaring const const , setting 5 = 4 , and claiming 2 + 2 === 5 is true? This isn't just cursed code—it's the kind of abomination that makes senior devs wake up in cold sweats. Future maintainers will hunt you down. Not to ask questions, but for revenge.