Two? Colleague from our IT team reckons it’s more like six.
New Teams has more options for opening new windows, but it’s also more stubbornly determined to open docs in the web app (embedded within Teams of course).
Shifts is a straight no for my team. And don’t get me started on Planner…
MMA
Mexican Martial Arts?
Most modern UIs are shit, and not just for people with ADHD.
The biggest sins IMO:
LMAO. Imagine thinking this is a bug.
Cue every kid in Iowa telling teacher their pronouns are Fr/Fi/Fo/Fum for a laugh.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Yeah, it has the same initials as “Atlassian Intelligence”. It could really confuse people.
Career-wise, yes, in my experience.
When you start out in junior positions, you don’t tend to have a lot of autonomy in your work life. Other people are setting priorities, deadlines etc, and you’re just along for the ride.
As your career advances, you tend to take on more leadership duties. You’re more responsible for managing your own work, and then eventually other peoples’ as well. This is where executive functioning deficits tend to start to really hit home.
It’s not for nothing that a lot of people get diagnosed in middle age.
Don’t worry, the bigots who are backing him won’t let him forget.
Great hashtag.
Today it’s immigrants and trans people.
Just give it a couple of years for the hype/boom/bust cycle to complete, then it’ll settle down and people will start using the tech appropriately.
This has real parsing [X]HTML with regex vibes.
Main home and a holiday home/cabin or similar. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
There is another thing worse than an awful book: an awful book that comes at the end of an otherwise amazing series.
Looking at you, Jean M. Auel.
Removed by mod
This isn’t even remotely ambiguous. The DoJ’s interpretation is correct.
The question isn’t really about the meaning of “and”; it’s about the syntactic structure of the whole section.
A defendant is eligible if they do NOT have (A and B and C). In other words, having any of A, B or C will disqualify them.
The law could have been written in a more readable fashion, for example:
the defendant—
- (A) does not have more than 4 criminal history points…;
- (B) does not have a prior 3-point offense…; and
- © does not have a prior 2-point violent offense…
But the meaning is the same either way. Amazing that this got to the Supreme Court.
It’s also entirely plausible that this is exactly what was intended when the law was written.
Fair enough. If you want to solve the problem of gender equality, give it to the experts.
We went back to a simple spreadsheet. 😆