Each to their own. My experience is the opposite (I use KDE). I have to use Windows at work and it's always such a pain. At least Windows 10/11 finally has multiple workspaces natively and some keyboard shortcuts for managing windows (ironic), but I would have preferred to stay in Windows 10.

Now Windows doesn't even support proper suspend anymore and it won't stay in the "modern standby" either. Constantly waking up and doing god knows what with fans screaming. When I take a look what it's doing, task manager claims that nothing resource intensive is going on. I'm guessing it's hiding some internal processes. It calms down when I put it to sleep again. Sorry for the rant, I better stop before I start.

I'd also consider plastic, and their additives, to be a lot bigger and longer lasting unknown than GMOs.

Not sure if users even realize what the dark patterns are and do. Users aren't all-knowing, with endless time, carefully balancing their attention to try to provide markets with the optimal signal to wisely guide the misbehaving actors.

I agree with this, but can't see how this applies to variable naming. Variable names can be too long, sure, but in my opinion, very short non-obvious variable names also make scanning and reading harder since they are not familiar shapes like more complete words. Additionally, when trying to understand more deeply, you have to stop and read code more often if variable's meaning is not clear.

That said, 1-2 char variable names work well in short scopes, like in some lambda, or when using 'i' for an index in a loop (nested loops would depend on situation), but those are an exception.

Like always, this is probably subjective too. And well-organized codebase probably helps to keep functions shorter, but there's often not much I can do about the existing codebase having overgrown functions all over.

I prefer focusing mostly on 1 task at a time (sometimes 2 for a short time, or asking other agent some questions simultaneously) and doing the task in chunks so it doesn't take much time until you have something to review. Then I review it, maybe ask for some refactoring and let it continue to the next step (maybe let it continue a bit before finishing review if feeling confident about the code). It's easier to review smaller self-contained chunks and easier to refer to code and tell AI what needs changing because of fewer amount of relevant lines.

"This shouldn't be possible. I'm not saying that you cheated, but not not saying that."

0.0011. The quote seems a bit hyperbolic. There were maybe 2-3 that I didn't see and missed. 1-2 that I didn't hit perfectly but close enough. Display probably affects results (but didn't change any settings for this). I have a Dell IPS. I also moved my head around a bit, felt natural while trying to discern the colors.

I do have a good vision (including color). Reminds me of the other color-game where you order some colored boxes to form a spectrum.

Edit: just tried hard mode and got 0.0084. Missed maybe 3 that I couldn't see. Usually some magenta or blue colored. Grey and red / brown seem to be the easiest.

And since the customer was supposedly being careless, they won't get anything from the bank.

Tips like "don't try to write smart code" are often repeated but useless (not to mention that "smart" here means over-engineered or overly complex, not smart).