Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
The new design has a slightly less attractive font, flatter, maybe a little more whitespace, slightly larger social media sharing icons. I don't get the freak out. I've been using Slashdot since 1998 (see my fancy 4-digit user id) and have seen it go through a few redesigns since then. This is nothing new. It's just Slashdot catching up to the rest of the web for what's fashionable (flat design is in right now).
Calm down, everyone.
* Well-compensated (I make 86K + great benefits like matching 401k/etc.)
* At every place I've worked, QA works fewer hours than dev -- not sure if this is due to personality or the natures of the work or what, but I like it
* Some of us actually *enjoy* testing. Weird, huh? It's a different mode of thinking than dev. Devs imagine how things will work, QA imagines how things *won't* work and systematically finds way to expose flaws. Believe it or not, it's FUN to find failures.
* There's plenty of opportunity for programming. QA is far different from what it used to be. There aren't giant labs of manual testers as much. I and most of my colleagues lean on automation quite a lot, and in day-to-day work look much like developers (spending most of our time in IDEs, CI servers, etc.)
But, hey, the lack of competition is nice. During my last job hunt earlier this year, I pretty much had to turn off my phone and sift through everyone vying for my attention.
It's just bloat that requires fonts to implement extra, useless symbols.
Citation needed. There's no requirement. In fact, most fonts have most of Unicode missing. It'd be insane to try to cover the entirety of Unicode with each new font released. The most complete font I've found is Arial Unicode MS, but even that has vast swaths of Unicode missing.
I think it's neat that there are so many obscure and interesting uses of Unicode. If you don't agree, well, just don't use it?
** Failed to close Guantanamo, increased raids on MJ dispensaries, watered-down healthcare act... he makes Clinton look liberal!
As well, I don't believe Wikipedia is all that unique. While it may have been (one of?) the first wiki encyclopedia, and obviously now it has a huge amount of content, there's nothing inherent in Wikipedia that couldn't be recreated if necessary. I don't think the Internet would implode if Wikipedia vanished tomorrow. Would I be inconvenienced? Yes. Would it take years to build a new Wikipedia? Yes. But it's not so vital to the Internet. Whereas if Google had never existed, I think the Internet would be far different.
20 hours!? So why didn't you charge them? Sounds like they have good reason to ignore the costs if they get free help.
Just like a user won't start backing up files until they feel the pain of file loss...