I’ve never been declined a warranty reimbursement for lack of original packaging. That would be crazy to me.

It’s a room with a big mattress you can sleep on - but please, my name’s not Matt.

LOAD “*”, 8, 1

If I were an overworked teacher, I’d still rather award the point. Just throw down a checkmark and move on. I don’t need to write an explanation, and the kid/parents are not going to complain.

Dried stevia leaves are subjected to purified water first. Then followed by a precipitation process with ferric chloride and calcium hydroxide to remove non-soluble plant materials & other impurities and follow filtration.

So they’re washed with soap and water? Must we use the scariest language possible here?

For you

This is technically responsive, but I think you have a fair criticism. A single rule like this would be much more maintainable:

#content .grid-container {
	width: 90vw;
	min-width: 12rem;
	max-width: 75rem;
	padding: 2rem 0 1rem;
}

Obviously, media rules have their place, but not for something that’s consistantly a full width container like this seems to be.

I’m a new developer. Is that referring to page 123 of the in-house documentation? Version 12.3 of the code? I have no clue.

You’d have to call it something like calculatePersonalIncomeTaxPerTaxCodeSection1_2_3, but I get exhausted just looking at that. There comes a point where the cognitive work of reading crazy long camel case names is more trouble than it’s worth.

An explanation of what specification a function was written to implement is a perfectly appropriate comment. Could be improved by a direct link where possible. But it’s worth noting what that comment isn’t doing - specifying any implementation details. For that, I really can just read the code.

There must be a better way to bankrupt a company than flushing your personal reputation down the toilet. He’s just dumb. No contradiction.