function x() {/* ... */}
    const x = function() {/* ... */}
    const x = function foo() {/* ... */}
    const x = (function() {/* ... */}).bind(this)
    const x = (function foo() {/* ... */}).bind(this)
    const x = () => {/* ... */}
    const x = () => /* ... */

That said, I really disagree with any precommit checks. Committing code should be thought of as just saving the code, checks should be run before merging code not saving code. It'd be like Clippy preventing you from saving a Word document because you have a spelling error. It's a frustrating experience.

I can make sure my code is good before I submit it for review, not when I'm just trying to make sure my work has been saved so I can continue working on it later (commit).

But if need be, I will spam my commits locally with `—no-verify`. Once the code is ready, I reset to head and remake them as nice, conventional commits.

> He lived and wrote in the late 200s and early 100s BCE

Shouldn't this instead be phrased as:

> He lived and wrote in the early 200s and late 100s BCE

He was born in 254 BCE and died in 184 BCE, he lived from the mid 200s BCE, started writing in the _early_ 200s BCE, and died in the _late_ 100s BCE.

So for example the Wikipedia article on Hellenistic Palestine contains the opening line,

> The region came first under Ptolemaic rule beginning in the late 4th century BCE with Ptolemy I Soter, followed by Seleucid rule beginning in the early 2nd century BCE with Antiochus III the Great.

It then clarifies that the events of the late 4th century BCE include events in ~320 BCE, and that the early 2nd century stuff happened in ~198 BCE. This is a standard usage of those terms "early" and "late" as applied to those centuries, the 4th (400 BCE - 301 BCE) and 2nd (200 BCE - 101 BCE).

To me it is confusing that they've mixed the two, even though it is convention to do so.

I was recently asked this question, and while I've had some disagreements with coworkers over minor things, I've never had a major disagreement that was noteworthy, so I (to my inevitable detriment) said: "Nothing really comes to mind at the moment but if something like that were to happen, I'd do X, Y, and Z". Given the reaction from the interviewer I doubt I passed. I still have 2 more interviews with this company.

If you don't disagree with your coworkers on some part their technical decisions on a regular basis, then you probably don't review their code

> some disagreements with coworkers over minor things

Handling minor everyday disagreements gracefully is a valuable soft skill

Yes, mediocre people like to select the same.

> Handling minor everyday disagreements

is a skill that does not need to be "prepared for" in an interview. And naturally the mediocrities that think asking the standard question and getting the standard answer back are also in for a surprise.

It's surprising how many candidates will say batshit crazy things not realizing they're bat shit crazy.

It's like fizzbuzz at this point, just cuts out a surprisingly large chunk of the cruft out.

When it comes to disagreements not being noteworthy, it could also be that you've internalized "disagree and commit." That's not a failing; that's just moving the fuck on and not dwelling on past decisions, unless they actually bear revisiting.

I agree you'd think this is the dumbest question, and most people will make up something minor, but it does weed people out.

But the presentation was more of an overview of the issue, and I don't think it's fair to argue that, because it doesn't go deeply into every data point, that it's not valid. It more about bring awareness to the issues, and grounds for further research.

So you can break (or weaken) the cycle if you improve those conditions, and this improvement propagates.

Not to nitpick but this statement implies causation (family environment causes life outcome) which you contradict right after.

Sorry to sound obtuse, but, I asked because it may seem obvious to you, but it's not so obvious to me that there will be much improvement. I've seen data that indicates that outcomes are not changed (much) when those early interventions / "investments" are made. There is _an_ improvement, but not to the level people expect. Like a person's height, access to high quality food will only do so much; some people are just going to have short stature however much money you invest into making sure they have access to nutritious meals.

edit: from the responses looks like I was wrong; the urls still point to `carfatwitter.com`. Leaving my comment up in case others were confused like me.

e.g "https://twitter.com/{acc}/status/{id}" -> "https://x.com/{acc}/status/{id}".

So if you post "https://carfatwitter.com/scam" it will be rewritten to "https://carfax.com/scam". Essentially search and replace of twitter.com -> x.com, 's/x.com/twitter.com/g'.

Note I have no direct experience with this, it's just the only way this makes sense as a phishing vector. The alternative is that it is being presented as a phishing vector, but was never actually useful as such, and people are just jumping up to yell about a security issue without it actually being one. That happens too.