Isn’t that the definition of a race condition, though? In this case, the builds are racing and your success is tied to the builds happening to happen at the right times.

Or do you mean “builds 1 and 2 kick off at the same time, but build 1 fails unless build 2 is done. If you run it twice, build 2 does “no change” and you’re fine”?

Then that’s legit.

AKA - the test suites at half the companies I’ve worked. Except they use a loop with retries as well

Welcome to the United States. Federally speaking at least, there are very few protections for hiring/firing. You can be fired for your hair color, unless the hiring manager is as much of an idiot as he is an asshole and says “black people don’t have blonde hair” (happened in a Hooters case I remember reading). The company policy reads “right hair color for your skin tone”, and is actually normally enforceable in the US because it’s implying no “unnaturally dyed hair”. They hypothetically can turn away an Asian redhead with no legal ramifications so long as she dyed her hair that way.

So yeah, they can 100% not hire you because you’re a Scorpio. More realistically, you’d probably see someone who doesn’t hire Aries, Virgo, or Aquarius because the New York Post had an article claiming those three signs are more likely to get fired.

I interviewed a guy whose dev career involved a (pretty good) front-end for a grow operation. I believe the ownership at that company may have opted against hiring because of that. I’ll admit, I wasn’t wowed by his skills enough to go to bat for him.

Age discrimination in the US at least is driven by “40 or over”. I think any lawyer would be able to argue that “which day of the year you’re born” is not indicitive of a protected class. Because we’re fucked in the US and you can still formally be passed up on a job for being under 39 years old as long as you it’s not because “you’re almost 40, and we’re not allowed to get rid of you when you turn 40”

I think it’s a matter of expertise. I am stuck dealing with people who write Javascript/Typescript like it’s C# because they’re C# senior devs. It’s not world-ending until issues of speed, scale, or other “why we use best practices” raise their ugly heads. Then it is world-ending. I can only help with so many design standards when you still see everything show up in a classes-and-subclasses mindset with hard-to-catch concurrency bugs. I actually caught a developer trying to spin up a child process to wait on a socket response.

So in FinTech, I can imagine it becomes a bigger deal faster.

It’s a “tool for the job” game. I don’t trust a junior developer to write a login system. I’ve found security flaws in login systems written by senior developers who “know what they’re doing TM”. Unless I’m the expert in a given domain, it’s better to trust something written by those experts.

For the record (since it’s fixed anyway), I discovered a common login timing vulnerability on one of our production systems that had been in place for nearly 15 years. Luckily we didn’t have enough traffic for anyone to notice it before me.

I don’t trust Masterlock, so I’m gonna make my own lock out of duct tape, then tape scissors to the door to use as the key.

I’ll take .tsconfig and .webpackrc over C# .config files every day of the week.

That’s about consciousness, which is a much larger claim than the self being an illusion

I don’t agree. Care you defend this claim? Your assertion that you can have consciousness without a self (ego death) seems more personal spiritualism than argument.

In theory, a conscious being could exist that’s always in a state of ego death, and have no understanding of the self and be utterly confused by why people find anything unintuitive about the teleporter paradox.

In theory like modal possibilities, or in theory like you genuinely believe such a person can exist? I’d love to hear why.

The Illusionist theory of Consciousness is pretty solidly refuted. The emergent theory of consciousness is vaguely similar, and argued by some to be stronger, others to be weaker, than illusionism. I think it’s the most popular view among physicalist philosophers. For the arguments against emergentism, the most common seems to be the required presupposition of physicalism plus some handwaving to make it work. It’s noted, however, there are a vast number of permutations of the emergentism argument or what emergent mental states actually mean, which each one of those permutations a bit different.

Upon analysis, neither has demonstrated being “a fully consistent view of the self” with any success. Ultimately, both are just unsubstantiated attempts to fill the gaps in our understanding.