There is also a middle ground. You don’t have to prepend your message with several sentences of fluff, but asking a question instead of stating your message can be much better receives. Just stating facts may sound like an accusation and especially if your analysis is not correct it makes your message poorly received.
The question does not specify where you or the car are. It specifies only that the car wash is 50 meters away from something, possibly you, the car, or both.
It could also mean there is literally no possible way to reach it, because that's on the other side of a river, and there is no bridge. You should still not "walk there, because come on don't be lazy, a bit of walking is good".
I self-host a git site to keep my code private and to integrate an issue tracker. The maintenance effort is very low. I'm running Gitea on my local network Ubuntu server.
Autocleaning: get the last accessed time from a file and only auto-clean files not accessed in the last n hours, e.g. 24 hours? Should be reasonably safe.
It is shocking how many people fail at this. If you were the employee and did not have enough information to perform the task, speak up. You are not going to get in trouble or whatever other type of situation one might imagine for not asking.
What is the point of assigning something to a new hire, if they can't do it without another person watching the whole thing over their shoulder AND they are unlikely to benefit from this knowledge in the future (since it's a legacy page that is supposed to be deleted)?
Anytime a website is created, the information/text to used in the site is provided to the devs. You provide the same data to the QA team to ensure the Dev team did their job.
How are we seriously this obtuse? Is it deliberate?
Instead of snark please re-read the entire comment thread
from the beginning and you'll realize that the scenario you're imagining is completely different from what is being discussed.
I often assign things to new hires because I expect them to approach the question without the biases of long-time team members who have learned to overlook and normalize some bullshit. Either the new person is wrong, and I explain why, and they learned something, or they're right and the existing stuff can't be defended or justified, and I learned something.
Imagine that instead of a forced "Children" account your Netflix would show an account "Thomas" (or any other name which is not yours or your family members') you cannot get rid of. Would that not annoy you one bit? And if not, you cannot emphasize with people who are annoyed by that?
“Children” -> Easy to understand the benefit. ~40% of households have children. Some households which do not have children will have children visiting at times. People taking care of children have an obvious and clear interest in wanting to provide entertainment at an appropriate age level.
“Thomas” -> ??? Who came up with this idea? This is an awful idea. It doesn’t make any sense.
We can empathize with people, but ultimately, we don’t have to agree with their complaints. If you have 300 million customers, there’s no one set of UI choices that annoys nobody. The current UI seems to annoy a very small number of people and, in turn, benefits a very large number of people. Needs of the many, and whatnot. I could equally be annoyed by wheelchair ramps. They’re an annoyance to me, but I recognize that they’re very useful to others.
reply