SolarMech

I know people who go by nicknames in some places because their name is apparently censored.

"we need more resources" is bounded by the rate at which you can incorporate new teams members without absolutely destroying your productivity, or having a bunch of untrained fools running around breaking things (of course the later is standard at many places already, so I guess it doesn't always matter).

The right answer is usually : "No". Or at least "Prioritize". Or "This is what we need to get it done" at which point they might start to get software takes time to make decently, and they don't want software that doesn't work decently in the first place.

Russia is in Europe and probably thinks that's cute.

Never touched it? A website? What about updating frameworks for security issues?

The closest I got to this kind of job., is the closest I got to running away. I'm much happier elsewhere now.

This, to a point.

Other things help :

• Unit test to help catch regressions. If you are confident in your test catching a good portion of bugs from refactoring, at least you feel confident refactoring. Worst case, at least you ensured your code is testable. There is nothing worse than refactoring untestable code.
• Self-documenting code and when it fails to self-document, comments or refer to a wiki page.

If you do it it's not ok and you should feel guilty all of your life. But if we did it it's totally ok.

Actually you should still feel guilty all of your life because one of your ancestors sinned or something. And I've made you a sinner by definition.

-- God, priests and other representatives of God, probably.

Or just racist.

This stuff depends on context.

If it's the first time someone is told this, sure. If someone is asking not to be constantly harassed for having done this once, then that person is right. Once they've been told once, it's plenty if education is the goal. If the person knows to tell you not to tell them that, they've been told once. If someone is asking that the guy who leaked the nudes be acted against, then that person is right. If someone is excusing shitting behavior because the victim should have protected themselves better, they are blaming the victim, shame on them.

I think this depends on the crowd. Unfortunately, the intelligent crowd and the crowd with money and power is not exactly the same. Though hopefully there is overlap.

I think this points to a large problem in our society is how we train and pick our managers. Oh wait we don't. They pick us.

Since you seem to be surprised people got offended or hurt, I will try to decode this interaction for you. Based on seeing essentially this discussion online over and over again.

I mean my take on this is the original post is essentially saying :

"Please be understanding of women turning you down in less than ideal ways (ie: Ghosting, etc.), they are afraid for their safety because they keep hearing stories of violence from men angry that women did not do what they wanted them to do. "

Then you essentially say :

"There are many good men too". It's also very easy to read into what you say "And we should be talking about how they don't get talked about or remembered" even if you didn't mean to say it that way

This is besides the point. It indicates that you either did not decode the original message right or lack empathy for the situation. I mean, it's very likely the first, but the second is why people can get angry at a reaction like this. If you want to start a discussion on a different topic, why does it need to be in this thread?

What we haven’t even mentioned

There are a LOT of things we haven't mentioned. I don't understand why you feel the need to change the topic a second time in a thread asking for empathy.