SolarMech

The problem is, the way I see it, all energy use is connected. Basically the problem we have is energy consumption grows faster than clean energy production. So requiring more green energy in this context still sucks. Even where I live where all of our energy is green (at least in the grid), extra energy can be sold either via selling it to other provinces/states, or by making deals with companies to do their production here where energy is cheap and green.

Energy is a commodity on a market. If you use it to inefficiently move people, you can't use it for other things. Remember that to move a 150 lbs person in a car, you have to move about a ton and a half of car...

100 years is ambitious only if you want to remove all of the cars. There are plenty of milestones that can be attained fairly quickly :

• Smaller cars. Less energy, materials, etc. Safer for other road users (you don't get hit on your vital organs, better vision for the driver and everyone else since pedestrians can easily see over the car).
• Less car use is available now, if we just empower the alternatives (make bike usage safe, make public transport good enough)
• No more cars in cities. Bikes + trains mostly do the job, you can rent a car if you leave the city, or park it at the outskirts.
• Even smaller cities used to be liveable without a car. This could be brought back, but that's probably a tough hill to climb.

Right? If something can go wrong or has the potential to be abused we should just never do it.

I mean you could at least acknowledge that he meant the 2008 crisis, and not act like he's a complete idiot. You should very much expect people to be wary of those after that.

Professionals should care about their client's privacy though. That shouldn't be a debate.

No, but think about how we structure society.

We give people shit education, and they wind up not being able to read at a 6th grade level.

Then you basically have to navigate an entire world where you are required to pick how to sign away some of your rights/enter deals written beyond their comprehension.

This is a system that breeds suckers as sets them up as suckers, to screw them later.

Generally, you can replace some comments with variable names or comment names. Which means you must already be in the habbit of extracting methods, setting new variables to use appropriate names, and limit context to reduce the name (Smaller classes and methods means shorter names can be just as expressive, because the context is clearer). It lowers the number of wtfs per minute you get reading code before you even need whole sentences to explain why things are done in a certain way, because the names can be a powerful hint.

But realistically, you end up needing comments for some things anyways.

No, we use quatre-vignt dix (4x20+10), just like the French. If anyone is using octante or huitante, it is not common parlance to say the least.

Quebec is also messed up, unfortunately.

Now imagine having worked overtime for this project. Not that I know that anyone did, but if they did, I hope they enjoyed the journey, because all that effort was wasted.

This. Especially if your team does not follow SOLID principles (as then someone fixes a bug in a base class method that shouldn't be shared. This fixes an issue in a subclass but introduces one in another. Rinse, repeat.

Yes and no. I mean sure, if you are going to leverage this to gain a significant edge in the market, that works.

If you add a tool to the project, that you need to understand to maintain some parts of it, which adds to the learning curve of someone joining said team, then the gains have best be worth the effort.

We adopt so many librairies/plugins/tools over time that adding more complexity than you need this way is just terrible.

Yeah, but it's easy to overuse it. If your for loop is much longer. For a few lines I'd agree, don't bother using something longer.

Code should scream out it's intent for the reader to see. It's why you are doing something that needs to be communicated, not what you are doing. "i", "counter" or "index" all scream out what you are doing, not why. This is more important than the name being short (but for equal explanations of intent, go with the shorter name). The for loop does that already.

If you can't do that, be more precise. At the least make it "cardIndex", or "searchIndex". It makes it easier to connect the dots.