|
Judge Schnoopy posted:I volunteered for an easy thing, and the sharks are circling for me to take care of related hard, time consuming things. Never loving volunteer for anything outside of your basic job. Never be first. Never be last. Never volunteer.
|
# ? Mar 23, 2018 11:13 |
|
|
# ? May 26, 2024 06:15 |
|
The Iron Rose posted:I think they're looking for someone who finds IT genuinely interesting and engaging. I know I've stayed up till 2 am once or twice researching cool new things I'd like to implement at work, just seeing how they functioned in the wild. But I've also only done that like, once or twice this year most days are just home->crash on couch->rest->repeat
|
# ? Mar 23, 2018 12:57 |
|
The Iron Rose posted:most days are just home->crash on couch->rest->repeat It's just occurred to me that the idea of achieving a genuine rest between bouts of work is foreign to me.
|
# ? Mar 23, 2018 14:35 |
|
Methylethylaldehyde posted:Top Ramen, Hot Water, ketchup? Did you get the order wrong? Water not hot enough? Spaghetti with oil and garlic (with less oil than the recipe calls for because 3/4 cup ends up being a lot.) I heated up the oil too much and ended up making a bunch of garlic chips. Still tasty, though. Collateral Damage posted:The best way to kill your interest in anything is to make it your job. I'm a real big dumb ol baseball fan and have my own blog that I sporadically update (also as an excuse to setup Wordpress on a VPS) and my friends and family are always asking why I don't try to get a job doing baseball stuff and aside from being woefully underqualified for any "real" job in the industry I think if I had to write X number of articles per day/week I would burn out in a month.
|
# ? Mar 23, 2018 14:51 |
|
Humphreys posted:
I'm sorry, but this made me laugh hard enough my co-worker asked me what was going on, so I showed him and he started laughing too.
|
# ? Mar 23, 2018 16:18 |
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:Fuuuuccckkkk yyyoooouuuuu forever. That's not my loving job. Just say no.
|
# ? Mar 23, 2018 22:02 |
|
How do you explain to a new hire that installing Steam on his work laptop is a bad decision and calls his judgement into question, especially given that on his first day, he was instructed not to daisy chain power strips? No, he's in his 60s.
|
# ? Mar 23, 2018 22:34 |
|
ME! I'm the think pissing me off today. On Monday I made a ticket to get an account manually created for someone. On Tuesday, I got notified they already had an account and had been told so by the account team. So I shrugged and moved on. Today they contact me and told me they still didn't have an account, and they hadn't heard anything back yet. So I went in to panic mode, trying to figure out where the mistake was. Talked with account creation team, and they verified the account was there. So I found the original ticket I made, and compared it to the email that was sent, in case I made an error in which system was needed, or something. I completely hosed up the person's last name. They had the same first name, including spelling of someone in a similar position, but for how different the last names were? It's like Jackson vs. Smith. Seriously.
|
# ? Mar 23, 2018 22:44 |
|
The build is broken the build is broken!!!! *checks commit history* code:
Well just look at it! It literally unlocks and then locks again instantly. Uh.... read those variable names again..
|
# ? Mar 23, 2018 23:12 |
|
Not so much pissing me off as confusing the heck out of me, you can bind a server to the same port on different local hosts and as such localhost:3000 was routing to two apps simultaneously.
|
# ? Mar 25, 2018 16:46 |
|
Any OS worth a poo poo will be all "uh that port is already in use, gently caress off." So which one let you do this?
|
# ? Mar 25, 2018 17:08 |
|
If it's an HTTP endpoint then it's pretty standard to be able to differentiate by hostname Edit: Oh wait they we both localhost? Strange.
|
# ? Mar 25, 2018 17:18 |
|
if its 2 devices then localhost is defined as an ip somewhere, if its on the same device then lol
|
# ? Mar 25, 2018 17:21 |
|
xzzy posted:Any OS worth a poo poo will be all "uh that port is already in use, gently caress off." The thirteenth version of the tenth operating system. Thanks Ants posted:If it's an HTTP endpoint then it's pretty standard to be able to differentiate by hostname Not usually two processes on the same port. Thanks Ants posted:Edit: Oh wait they we both localhost? Strange. One on `localhost` and one on `0.0.0.0`.
|
# ? Mar 25, 2018 17:21 |
|
pre:ruby 26374 10u IPv4 0xb743e3d52fabf5f 0t0 TCP *:3000 (LISTEN) ruby 26594 21u IPv4 0xb743e3d5f3c221f 0t0 TCP 127.0.0.1:3000 (LISTEN) Jaded Burnout fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Mar 25, 2018 |
# ? Mar 25, 2018 17:26 |
|
Yeah that's a pretty silly bug. Linux screws a lot of stuff up, but at least the kernel only lets one process open a port on an interface at a time.
|
# ? Mar 25, 2018 17:53 |
|
Half expected one to be IPv6 and the other IPv4 but nope
|
# ? Mar 25, 2018 17:55 |
I thought maybe one was on 127.0.0.1 and the other on 127.0.0.2, I think both should technically work as "localhost".
|
|
# ? Mar 25, 2018 17:57 |
|
Nope, that's a different address. Though there's no technical prevention from changing the config to make localhost resolve to something else, every machine on the planet defaults 'localhost' to be 127.0.0.1 in /etc/hosts or whatever equivalent file the OS uses.
|
# ? Mar 25, 2018 18:01 |
|
nielsm posted:I thought maybe one was on 127.0.0.1 and the other on 127.0.0.2, I think both should technically work as "localhost". in linux localhost is defined in the hosts file. code:
e:f;b. I will say I have some some weird poo poo with an app that used 127.0.0.69 or something like that hardcoded as the loopback interface it used.
|
# ? Mar 25, 2018 18:03 |
|
RFC2324 posted:in linux localhost is defined in the hosts file.
|
# ? Mar 25, 2018 19:04 |
|
anthonypants posted:Debian-based distros will assign the hostname to 127.0.1.1. i just pulled that off an Ubuntu box so
|
# ? Mar 25, 2018 19:06 |
|
anthonypants posted:Debian-based distros will assign the hostname to 127.0.1.1. code:
(That is FROM my Debian box.)
|
# ? Mar 25, 2018 19:13 |
|
There's no place like 127.0.0.0/8
|
# ? Mar 25, 2018 19:16 |
|
RFC2324 posted:i just pulled that off an Ubuntu box so Samizdata posted:
|
# ? Mar 25, 2018 19:46 |
|
anthonypants posted:Are you telling us that the hostname of your Debian box is "localhost"? All dig does is a lookup. If you lookup localhost, it will tell you what it resolves to(normally 127.0.0.1, as shown).
|
# ? Mar 25, 2018 19:52 |
|
RFC2324 posted:All dig does is a lookup. If you lookup localhost, it will tell you what it resolves to(normally 127.0.0.1, as shown).
|
# ? Mar 25, 2018 20:01 |
|
anthonypants posted:Maybe they fixed it? Here's a question from a Xubuntu user about a year and a half ago No. It's named Portia, but I didn't want to redact anything, so I just copied and pasted the text over, minus the prompt. Besides, my whole point was "This happens. Always." answers. Not "This sometimes/used to happen" answers. Samizdata fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Mar 25, 2018 |
# ? Mar 25, 2018 20:02 |
|
anthonypants posted:How do you explain to a new hire that installing Steam on his work laptop is a bad decision and calls his judgement into question, especially given that on his first day, he was instructed not to daisy chain power strips? Just tell him that a work laptop is not for personal use?
|
# ? Mar 26, 2018 10:41 |
|
Just let him play Into the Breach and use PDUs as extension cords, c'mon.
|
# ? Mar 26, 2018 11:47 |
|
Is Into The Breach good? It looked fun, but I still haven't finished FTL with every ship...
|
# ? Mar 26, 2018 11:55 |
|
Glowing reviews from everyone i've heard talk about it. Doesn't look like my thing though
|
# ? Mar 26, 2018 12:50 |
|
I normally hate strategy games (especially turn- and grid-based ones) but every time I play it I end up engrossed for hours.
Paper Triangle fucked around with this message at 13:02 on Mar 26, 2018 |
# ? Mar 26, 2018 12:57 |
|
Customer's ordering system allows them to place orders with due dates in the past. I'm sure for some reason this is intended behavior, but would like to know how/why that came to be (just for shits and giggles) This works out great because if someone doesn't catch it on our end, and contact the buyer to fix the date, we get dinged for a late or missing shipment
|
# ? Mar 26, 2018 15:22 |
|
Bob Morales posted:Customer's ordering system allows them to place orders with due dates in the past. I'm sure for some reason this is intended behavior, but would like to know how/why that came to be (just for shits and giggles) How often does this get abused? Because I can see someone less than ethical would go all out to reduce costs on their end by dinging your company left and right.
|
# ? Mar 26, 2018 15:50 |
|
Co-worker is working from home today because "he woke up late." Normally wouldn't care much, as he's slow anyway, but all this week coworker 2 has meetings about our new ticketing software, which means I'm the only physical presence at the desk. I'm not going to be able to get any actual work done. It's taken me 20 minutes just to write this 3 line post.
|
# ? Mar 26, 2018 16:35 |
|
Nothing quite like starting Monday morning with 31 layoff tickets, including a few for people I really liked.
|
# ? Mar 26, 2018 17:25 |
|
So after this round of layoffs, my team which handles desktop support for multiple sites spanning the entire US will drop to a ratio of over two hundred employees to each staffer from the already difficult ~130:1. Ffffffffuuuuuuuuu it's time to go.
|
# ? Mar 26, 2018 17:40 |
|
AlternateAccount posted:So after this round of layoffs, my team which handles desktop support for multiple sites spanning the entire US will drop to a ratio of over two hundred employees to each staffer from the already difficult ~130:1. Ffffffffuuuuuuuuu it's time to go. While I agree that it's time to go, I'd like to figure out exactly how bad that is. Does that include coverage for days off needed for any reason? Is that a flat ratio of total employees to desktop, or number on-shift at a time? Because it seems like over 200:1 might be generous.
|
# ? Mar 26, 2018 17:50 |
|
|
# ? May 26, 2024 06:15 |
|
Avenging_Mikon posted:While I agree that it's time to go, I'd like to figure out exactly how bad that is. Does that include coverage for days off needed for any reason? Is that a flat ratio of total employees to desktop, or number on-shift at a time? Thankfully we don't really cover weekends, just business hours(but coast to coast), so thats flat all staff vs. all of my team. And no, that doesn't cover the many weeks of vacation that are due every year. The layoffs hit the company to an overall %, for some reason they hit desktop support at about a 30% higher rate than the company at large. And we were already understaffed by any metric you'd care to examine.
|
# ? Mar 26, 2018 17:54 |