When you delete half the code,it makes no sense but works fine

Content if (condition) if (condition TRUE) if (condition TRUE? TRUE : FALSE)

Ah, the classic "change your Git config and push a bug to production" move. It's like framing your coworker for murder, but in code form. This junior dev just performed the digital equivalent of identity theft by changing their Git config to match their senior's name and email, then pushed broken code straight to prod. Now when the blame command runs, it points to the innocent senior dev who's about to have a very confusing conversation with management. Pure corporate sabotage disguised as a rookie mistake. Diabolical.

The eternal paradox of software development budgets! Companies will pinch pennies when it comes to investing in proper architecture, clean code, or adequate testing time... but then magically find a mountain of cash when it's time to rewrite the entire codebase because the technical debt finally collapsed like a house of cards. It's the corporate equivalent of refusing to pay for an oil change but happily buying a new engine when the old one seizes up. Technical debt interest rates are brutal , folks!

The eternal struggle of process management in operating systems, summarized in silverware. When you desperately need to duplicate a running process, the OS just gives you a fork() — which is both literally the perfect tool and absolutely useless at the same time. Sure, it creates a child process, but now you've got two nearly identical processes and twice the existential dread. Ten years of systems programming and I still can't decide if this is brilliant design or the universe's cruelest joke.

Ah, corporate security logic at its finest! Some poor soul clicks a sketchy email attachment, and suddenly management's brilliant security strategy is "if it's free, it's a threat." Imagine telling developers to uninstall Python, Vim, and 7zip because they didn't come with an invoice. Next they'll be requiring receipts for your keyboard shortcuts. The real security threat isn't free software—it's the executive who thinks obscure paid software with three users worldwide is inherently secure because it cost exactly one corporate credit card approval. Meanwhile, the hacker who sent that email is probably using those same "insecure" free tools to plan their next attack. The irony would be delicious if it weren't so painful.

Content Runs code computer: