Yes, the variable definitions page leaves me scratching my head. Not sure what it's doing under performance. Surely that's a matter of your personal coding style and I'm not sure a jQuery tutorial site should be so dogmatic about how you choose to define your variables when there's negligible performance impact either way. Although JSLint loves to complain about the "old & busted" style, grouping variable definitions together with commas goes against the principle that inserting a new line of code anywhere should be "safe". If you paste in a new variable definition statement with a semicolon in the midst of a group of comma-separated lines, you're going to break things.
Agreed... I think his punishment is ridiculous, but his own justifications are equally so. He comes off like a whiny teenager who's been caught sneaking out with the car. And I don't think his "I bet I paid a thousand or so for hosting" complaint is going to win him any sympathy. To the uninformed, that's just going to sound like a burglar complaining to the judge that burglary tools cost money.
In your first example: you are not necessarily "the person most familiar", and I don't think that's the assumption. You are, however, likely (to some degree) to know who should be contacted to resolve the real problem.
In your second: If you changed a value in a configuration file and it triggered an exception somewhere, many people would say you are at fault for not testing your change.
Most places I've worked there's a simple rule: whoever last touched the code that broke is responsible for getting it fixed. That isn't meant to be taken literally in that I must actually make the code change myself. It means that it can be assumed that if I'm touching some code, I'd better be familiar with the code I'm touching. If that means I delegate the fix to the original author, then great: It's still getting fixed. If I can delegate to someone who's better suited to make the code change, that's OK too. If not, I make the fix. In any case, If I'm changing a line of code, you can assume that I'll know what action to take if that change breaks something. If I don't, I shouldn't be allowed to make the change in the first place.
In your second: If you changed a value in a configuration file and it triggered an exception somewhere, many people would say you are at fault for not testing your change.
Exactly. However, the exception will likely be thrown from somewhere in the network stack, not from a config file, so whoever last modified the error checking code in the network stack will get an email instead.
Do you find it easier to believe now that he has admitted the coordinates were correct and the image was real, and has deleted his earlier "apology" in which he claimed to have faked the EXIF? Or do you still think the "contrast on his skin" points to a greater conspiracy?
By the way, how long have you been an expert on the Belizean justice system?
Very cool, but I find it strange that all of the example phrases on the demo page are much longer than recommended by the API docs (<10 words). Why is this?
9 or 10 words is about the average sentence that we receive, it is just a guideline so that users understand that we aren't going to handle multiple sentences or paragraphs.
What happens when you encounter phrases with multiple intents? Is it something you can detect but is difficult to deal with, or is it a best-guess kind of thing where you attempt to obey the "first intent"? Or something else?
This is about maturity and empathy, and it's certainly not exclusive to the tech crowd. [Insert half-baked pseudo-psychiatric idea about the link between tech people and empathy and Asperger's and so forth]
The bit on "clever conditionals" is rubbish as well. Not only are the "better" ways much slower, they're much harder to read. I opened an issue for this one: https://github.com/jquery/learn.jquery.com/issues/258