Jira works well for my organization. I think the simplicity of our setup is the key. We have just 4 issue statuses: Not Started, In Progress, QA, Done… also no restrictions on state transitions. Any status can move to any other status. Each team gets their own project so that they can easily manage their own issue backlog. That’s pretty much it. My team also uses a plug-in for async planning poker which is useful.
The API documentation for one of our partners is a SPA that never should have been. There is no way to share a URL to a specific piece of the documentation because all navigation is handled in JS.
The before and after code examples for #2 are not equivalent. Default parameters are only applied if no value or undefined is passed. In the case of the value being `null`, no default parameter is assigned, but using `date: date || new Date()` would assign `new Date()` as the value.
I actually feel like covid lockdown has had the opposite effect on me. Many of the things I enjoyed doing have been made impossible or much more difficult, so it feels like all I am left with is striving for work accomplishments.
I found the feedback from my Triplebyte rejection to be very helpful in directing my preparation for other interviews. It helped me get a job offer 3 days later from just the type of company and role that they screen for.
I was a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist (CSCS) before I became a software developer, and I would just like to emphasize that the benefits mentioned can be realized from some pretty simple exercise routines. The keys are to perform them consistently and to progressively increase the training load so that you are constantly providing a stimulus that your body must adapt to.
I think you might want to take a look at that, it supports what he's saying but as is typical of these fact checking sites, couches it in lots of "well yes but" or "broadly correct, but 'needs context'". I mean look at his statement on India:
> Trump: "India will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020. Think of it. India can double their coal production. We're supposed to get rid of ours."
> India does have plans to nearly double its coal production, and the agreement does not prevent that. But the Paris Agreement does not even mention the word coal, nor does it do anything to put a global moratorium on coal.
Oh the Paris Agreement doesn't mention coal so what he's saying isn't correct? The point Trump was making is that the Paris Agreement isn't stopping India (and China) from polluting. It stops _us_, but it doesn't stop _them_.
Seems pretty straightforward as far as fact checks go. The Paris Accord says nothing about coal, it's all about emissions. We could increase coal use too if we wanted to, as long as our emissions go down. So really, the statement from Trump is true but misleading.
"It" doesn't stop us, we negotiated this as part of a global agreement to reduce emissions. Because we're the world's biggest source of emissions and also the richest, our responsibility is greater than that of a developing country like India that can't afford new nuclear plants and whose citizens can't afford solar roofs.
Amen. Every "fact-checking" site seems to go out of its way to editorialize the facts with what I should think about them, instead of limiting their purview to, you know, the facts in question.
What was Trump supposed to say? "The Paris Agreement doesn't have the word 'coal'"?
---
Don't forget: Being technically correct is the best kind of correct.
They are providing additional facts, which may or may not change your point of view. If the additional facts are not interesting to you, that's cool. But consider, maybe the information they provide is interesting to other people? For example, the top-level poster in this thread asked many questions which are explicitly answered in this article.
Unlike the rest of the article, this section doesn't make an explicit summary claim about the truth or untruth of the President's claims. There is no "true but..." header.
If you think some of the facts that they provide -- such as the fact that the accord doesn't mention the word "coal" -- are irrelevant, that's cool. PolitiFact does not draw a conclusion from this fact, and suggesting it does and then blasting it for having done so is pretty frustrating.
I also feel that by cherry-picking this one instance, one misses the larger thrust of TFA. You seem to be frustrated that PolitiFact is saying "yes, but" a lot, but what's wrong with that? If the additional context is not useful to you, that's cool. You're entitled not to care. But to me, it's quite useful, and speaks pretty directly to many of the top-level poster's points.
Trump: The Paris Agreement would result in "lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories and vastly diminished economic production."
PolitiFact: "Take these statistics with a grain of salt." Followed by an explanation of where Trump's claim comes from and why it is weak.
Trump: "China will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants. So, we can't build the plants, but they can, according to this agreement."
PolitiFact: "China has cut its use of coal three years in a row," with a citation.
Trump: "Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree -- think of that; this much -- Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100. Tiny, tiny amount."
PolitiFact: "[The Paris Agreement] shaves 0.2 C of warming if [it's] maintained through 2100, compared with what we assessed would have been the case by extending existing measures (due to expire in 2020) based on earlier international agreements."
IOW Paris gets us 0.2C under the previous agreement, but by pulling out of Paris, we get no agreement, not the previous agreement, which expires. "Needs context."
Trump: "At 1 percent growth, renewable sources of energy can meet some of our domestic demand. But at 3 or 4 percent growth, which I expect, we need all forms of available American energy, or our country will be at grave risk of brownouts and blackouts."
PolitiFact: Nobody seriously expects us to get 3-4% growth.
Adding additional facts is valuable. To continue your India example, they have pledged to reduce emissions 33 to 35 percent of 2005 levels by 2030. So yes, they may increase their coal production, but now I know they are also taking other steps to reduce emissions.
Agree but the picture they paint with this _is_ a binary one. Anything less than a "his statement is 100% factual, no additional commentary needed!" is treated as evidence that Trump is a big fat liar by people like OP.
2022 saw my net worth decrease by 90 percent as my newly ipo’d company's stock tumbled.
Hoping the new year brings some better results!