30 minutes before the show?

In my local theater you also have to ‘reserve’ a seat when you buy the ticket in person. Don’t ask me why.

Ask any person above the age of, say, 40 (I’m not looking this up, but in Western countries that should suffice to qualify for ‘most’ pople) what an app is, exactly. I wonder what the response will be.

It would fall under harassment by your employer.

§5 EntgFG doesn’t say anything about an employer visiting their employee. I couldn’t find a ruling stating that knocking on someones door constitutes harassment. Of course the employer doesn’t have to open, but you still haven’t produced evidence that the visit itself is illegal.

I, on the other hand, am very happy that AI can autocomplete the n-th similar filter function I need to write.

Null pointer – sends the victim on a quest they can never fulfill.

For what? Just keep the door closed.

Can you quote a law for this?

I work in IT. We get notified when people leave.

The cruelest thing in my company is when we get to know before the person in question…

For the others: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqHh6TvGQIQ

Adults are dumb

It might be from Flight of the Phoenix (2004) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_of_the_Phoenix_(2004_film)

As I said, inappropriate but legal.

Even if they find you partying in your home, what are they going to do? You got a doctor’s note [for the Americans here: You have to get one and it’s free] saying that you can’t work that day.

There’s no law against visiting someone, even if you’re their boss and they are sick.

Highly inappropriate, but not illegal IMHO.

open a terminal and paste the following command.

Exactly the advice no-one who is technically literate enough to try Linux will ever follow. “Just execute this random code you don’t understand. Trust me.”

Have you ever had to fix anything on Linux? Even asking for help on any forum gets you the response “paste this in your terminal and give us the result”.

Meet the German word Fachidiot: (derogatory) A person who is only interested in their own trade or research area and has few or no other interests or skills.

maybe everyone here is just a rude little shit.

Or maybe you’re just a snowflake that can’t handle criticism.

Just to provide some data on the radiation dose. It’s everyone’s own decision whether a ‘willy-nilly’ PET scan is worth it.

From the English Wikipedia:

FDG, which is now the standard radiotracer used for PET neuroimaging and cancer patient management, has an effective radiation dose of 14 mSv.

The amount of radiation in FDG is similar to the effective dose of spending one year in the American city of Denver, Colorado (12.4 mSv/year). […T]he whole body occupational dose limit for nuclear energy workers in the US is 50 mSv/year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission_tomography#Safety

From the German Wikipedia:

Es ist bei einer Strahlendosis von 1 Sievert (Sv), der 100 Menschen ausgesetzt sind, mit 5 Todesfällen durch Strahlenkrebs zu rechnen […]. Man müsste also 100.000 PET-Untersuchungen durchführen, um 35 Todesfälle an Strahlenkrebs (nach einer mittleren Latenzzeit von etwa 15 Jahren für Leukämie und etwa 40 Jahren für solide Tumoren) zu verursachen, das heißt etwa eine auf 3000 Untersuchungen

If 100 people received a radiation dose of 1 Sievert (Sv), one would expect 5 deaths due to radiation-induced cancer […]. One would need 100,000 PET scans in order to cause 35 cancer deaths (after a median wait duration of 15 years for leucemia and 40 years for solid tumors), which is about 1 in 3000 scans.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positronen-Emissions-Tomographie#Strahlenexposition

Is this not rude:

I checked the code and I’m appalled. There are more BLOBs than source code

No. The commenter is voicing their own feelings and explains why they have them. There is neither blaming nor rudeness here.

And this:

I understand that removing BLOBs isn’t a priority over new and shiny features. But due to recent events, this should be rethought.

It would have been nice if you had explained why you think this is rude. The author expresses understanding that the maintainers’ priorities don’t align with the author’s. This seems to be an uncontroversial statement to me.

Then the author explains (I agree, it’s more a hint than an explanation) why they think the priorities should be changed. In my view their argument is sound. Again, there is no blaming or rudeness here.

They should have opened with a complement

I assume you mean “compliment”.

I’ve often heard of the “sandwich technique” – start with a compliment, then voice criticism, end with another positive thing. I find this is an appropriate procedure when voicing open feedback, that is, good things and bad things. However, this is a Github issue. Its whole point is to point out a perceived problem, not to give the maintainers a pat on the back or thank them.