Die Beitragsbemessungsgrenzen werden doch regelmäßig (jährlich/fast jährlich?) angepasst, ist bei steigendem Lohnniveau ja auch sinnvoll.
Aber ich finde es gleichzeitig auch gut, dass die Diskussion um die Grenze für die Krankenkasse anscheinend erstmal wieder weg ist.
I thought it was a non-issue that tooling should take care of anyway until stackoverflow published this:
https://stackoverflow.blog/2017/06/15/developers-use-spaces-make-money-use-tabs/
Spaces all the way
Good questions, I could probably write a lot, but I'll try to keep it short. I usually apply TDD and there are different schools of thought within it about how to structure the development process. But no matter how exactly you do it, if you focus on writing the tests while writing your code, you won't end up with an application that you then have to figure out how to test.
what to test
Well, what is the application supposed do? That is what you test, the behaviour of the application.
So in a codebase without any tests, the first thing you should write a test for is the happy path. That will probably not be a unit test. So for the web server example, set it up in a test with a file, start it and check if it serves that file.
Then you can add tests for all the error cases and for additional functionality. You can write unit tests for individual components. The ideal places to test are interfaces with clear boundaries. Ideally you should not have to look at the code of a method to be able to write a test for it. In reality that's not always so easy, especially in existing code bases, but if you have to set up more than one mock, it tends to lead to brittle tests.
Every time you encounter a bug/issue, reproduce it in a test first. And do measure code coverage, but don't make it a target, just check for places that are lacking.
Here you go: https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/
But on a more serious note, I don't really agree. Writing more code needs to be a conscious choice, but going for the shortest code too often creates a mess. I know, since I was that junior dev who just wanted to get stuff done and I would ignore project architecture in order to have to implement less, like accessing the database in GUI code.
Shorter code with the same amount of coupling between components and with the same readability is always better though.
But does it have to be? I haven't touched non-web GUIs since 15 years, so my perspective on this is limited. And web frontend is not what I would call a well designed system for it's current purpose.
Nice, so they are hot takes :D
If the design of a code change is bad, noticing that in the PR stage is not desirable. It should be discussed before someone actually went ahead and implemented it. It can also happen if people misunderstand the architecture, but again, that should be cleared up before actually implementing a change. Code style should be enforced automatically, as should test coverage and performance. Code review is also pretty bad at finding bugs from my experience. That imo leaves very few things where code review is useful that are not nitpicking.
As for programming languages, the amount does matter for individuals and for teams/organisations. A developer who can only use a single language is not very good, and using a many different languages within the same team is not good either.
Even better is to ship small increments often.
Unfortunately in many organisations, leadership doesn't really understand that instead of reducing quality, scope should be reduced in order to ship faster. And developers rarely have a say in these things.
While I agree that it can be considered a hot take industry wide, I don't think for most devs that is a hot take, the ones whom I've seen ship broken stuff were rushed on tight deadlines and didn't have the experience/motivation/political capital to fight back on deadlines.
Not sure if these are hot takes:
Ein Wort dagegen: Arbeitgeberwechsel
Hatte sowas auch bei meinem ersten Job abgeschlossen, aber die Arbeitgeber danach haben es nicht weitergeführt bzw. hatten andere Anbieter.
AfD aus Protest zu wählen ist wie sich selbst in die Hose zu scheißen damit andere es riechen müssen.
Die Studie ist interessant, aber sagt auch selber:
Although we cannot prove that watching television is causally related to poor educational achievement, the associations between viewing time and educational outcomes were strong and independent of the known confounding influences of intelligence, socioeconomic status, and childhood behavioral problems
Korreliert stark, aber Kausalität ist dadurch nicht bewiesen. Danach wird auf die möglichen Mechanismen hinter dem Effekt eingegangen und der genannte Hauptgrund ist, dass das Fernsehen andere sinnvollere Tätigkeiten verdrängt.
Ein weiterer Punkt, auf den eingegangen wird, ist dass Fernsehen auch positive Effekte haben kann. Zwar gilt das nicht für das meiste was Kinder so schauen, aber es ist doch wichtig das Thema differenzierter zu betrachten als "Fernsehen schlecht".
Nominallöhne sind doch gestiegen, siehe destatis
Reallohnentwicklung einfach nicht beachten, es gibt da nichts zu sehen.