Only because there are too many software engineers, not the fact that AI will replace those jobs. Experienced software engineers are still required for successful businesses.
Other than the humor in it, makes you wonder why they'd pick 418. It does sometimes feel like some errors are missing from the http codes, prompting developers to either create their own, or repurpose some, like 418, where they feel relatively safe that it won't conflict with something.
It never ceases to amaze how http status codes can be misused. My favorite is still the customer who had built a service that would return "200 OK" and then in the response just be the text "500". We had asked if they could return a 500 error, if there was an error in the API, rather than a 200, so they swapped out the 200 in the response, but not the headers. "200 Created" is also up there, in terms of developers with limited understanding or weird framework limitations.
There are definitely missing codes, which is why sometimes the WebDAV status additions get used in purported RESTful APIs—which is semantically wrong, but often carries a lot of helpful meaning. For example, things like 422: Unprocessable Content or 423: Locked are really helpful to convey meaning, but not available in plain HTTP.
I honestly would have thought 400 Bad Request would cover that? Might be too generic though. Is "422" "ok, I admit it's formatted correctly, but I can't process it for some higher-level reason than syntax"?
(Just reading through 4xx codes, and I think I need to use 410 Gone a lot more often. Does anyone know if search engines treat 404 and 410 differently?)
The issue I have with 400 Bad Request is that it's very broad. The request might actually be fine, but the data posted is not. Now you could argue that it doesn't matter why the request is bad, formatting, protocol or data, 400 for everything. It just feels a lot like throwing a generic Exception and attempting to convey the details in the message body.
From personal experience search engines don’t honor 404 or 410.
I switched much of my personal site to returning 410 over a decade ago and Googlebot still returns on a routine basis re-requesting a document that hasn’t been on the site since 2012.
Out of paranoia I just checked and yeah, GoogleBot actual (and not the dozens of fakes) requested each 410'd URL at least once a month, some URLs get multiple requests per month. All have been marked 410 since 2014 or earlier.
> Is "422" "ok, I admit it's formatted correctly, but I can't process it for some higher-level reason than syntax"?
That is my understanding. Something to say that the request is understood as an HTTP request (therefore not 400) but the server doesn't know what to do with it, usually in the context of a POST, or it's otherwise invalid for processing.
They're going for a style, just because SJ declined, should not mean they cannot pursue something similar. The fact they went to SJ in the first place means they had good intentions of getting a well founded voice.
Likely a voice professional can detect clear differences, as it's not convincing to be SJ from an outsider.
"My closest friends and news outlets" doesn't include family. Also, depending on how you ask, it's pretty easy to get any response. I wouldn't rely on that information.
This one always comes to mind when I see some fancy toilet designs at various venues. Which one do I press? Normally in UI a bigger button usually means a more used feature. I can't imagine the average person doing number 2 more than number 1.
Most toilets around here have the same size button but an icon with a big circle representing a big flush and small circle for small flush. The buttons being the same size makes the icons have more "meaning".
I have just gotten used to that is not always the case and they actually went for small button = small flush. It makes sense physical-wise but UI-wise not so much.
So glad I'm not the only one. My house has four different two button toilets and I can't for the life of me figure out which does what. My wife says smaller button is for less water, but on one toilet the small button is tiny and integrated into the bigger button which makes me think it can only be there for when you need a power flush and you press the whole thing. I have no idea.
That takes the fun out of it! No in reality there doesn’t even seem to be a material difference in the amount of water used by each button. But I think in the spirit of this thread, why isn’t the interface obvious. At my last house it was a two lever flush where the “eco” flush was a green tab. Much more obvious.
The toilets in our house have two large buttons that are the same size - even after repairing the mechanisms a few times (which is a bit like keyhole surgery as everything is built into the wall) I still have no idea if they do different things.
Oh man me too. First i recall dual flush in Australia in the 80s when I was a kid and it was a push down for full, pull up for half - labeled in English - now I have no idea! Now, I always resort to just push both buttons to be sure.
I've always assumed that pushing the smaller button means a smaller flush, but... with many of the ones I've used, pressing the small button also pushes down the big button, and I frankly have no idea what that indicates.
Yes! This is the root of the confusion. Certain dual button flushes have the small button to combine with the larger one to make the complete flush but on others the small button does the small flush.
At what point does the small button cross over from meaning big flush to small flush!? I swear on most toilets where small means small you need steady hands of a surgeon to hit it!
If you came into the comments section to discuss Kubernetes Helm before opening the link and understanding what it was referring to, then that's on you not the project.
FWIW, it's very unfortunate that the tables are laid out according to hex rather than octal, since (much like x86) the sm83 instruction set is designed around octal 2+3+3-bit bytes, and using hex significantly obfuscates the underlying structure. (It also makes the table much wider than it needs to be, which would a acceptable tradeoff if it actually corresponded with the instruction set structure, but here just adds insult to injury.)
Edit: Went digging, and almost immediately found (a hidden-by-CSS-nonsense link to) https://gbdev.io/gb-opcodes//optables/octal, which uses the more sensible layout. Still kind of disappointing that's not the default, though. (Also CSS, but at this point I'm past disappointed and into "well, what were you expecting?".)
