What grinds my gears

The fourth Indiana Jones movie is universally hated. What is the most commonly cited reason for this? Aliens. That's it. Aliens. Sure, there are many other annoyances and defects often cited as well, but the aliens are by far the most common element to all complaints. In fact, it's the first and often even the only relevant thing that reviewers and other people mention. Ok, then there's the fridge, of course, which is probably a very close second most commonly cited reason. (In fact, citing the fridge as a reason for hating the movie is even more irrational than the aliens.) Let's put this into perspective and compare it to the original three movies. A supernatural chest that when opened releases some ghostly supernatural energy that kills everybody not worthy? That's completely ok. A secret cult that can, among other things, rip the heart out of somebody's chest with bare hands, while the victim remains alive through the whole process? No problems. A cup ...

The 60's Batman TV series was basically a farce. It was basically a time when, for some inexplicable reason I cannot comprehend, TV and film producers thought that a superhero series/movie should be a wacky comedy and be really over-the-top. (I really can't understand where the connection between "superheros" and "comedy" comes from. In my mind there's a disconnect of the size of the Pacific ocean between them.) In fact, that mentality persisted for a surprisingly long time (even in the 90's and 2000's we were still getting superhero movies that were more comedy than anything else.) Tim Burton's 1989 Batman and its sequel are an attempt to make an actual Batman movie (which sadly sunk once again into a comedy in the hands of Joel Schumacher, a turn of events that's best left forgotten in the annals of history.) It was ok'ish... kind of. Yes, it was something resembling Batman, but... not really. Batman's suit is not like that, h...

This is a really small thing... but I think every software developer has been there, and it can get pretty frustrating. If you are a long-time developer, you have most probably experienced it: You encounter a problem (like a really strange error message, or a strange bug with some library that you just can't understand eg. because the documentation of the library is lacking or other reasons) and you try to search for a solution online. Surely others have had the same problem and solved it. Very often this is so, and you usually find the answer in the first few google hits. Sometimes, however, you will see someone asking the very question you are looking for, and then answering their own post with just "never mind, I found the solution", and never explaining what the solution was. You are left with nothing. A lesser form of this is when someone asks the question, another person answers it, and the first person just answers with a "thanks, I will try that to see ...

One thing I detest about job interviews is that you have to lie even if you really mean to be honest. You have to lie in order to convey your true skill properly. (Not that I have extensive experience on job interviews, but this is from what I have gathered.) For example, suppose that you are an experienced programmer and have a good grasp of how imperative/OO languages (either compiled or scripting) work, and have extensive experience on some languages, but only a very modest understanding of PHP in particular: You know the basics, you have perhaps written a hundred of lines of it in total, but you know how it works and what it offers. Most importantly, if you had to, you could quickly learn to use it proficiently and competently. However, job interviews don't generally ask you that. Instead, they ask you how much you have programmed in PHP. You have two choices: Tell the truth, or "stretch it a bit". If you tell them that you have only minimal experience of PHP in parti...

Watch this comedy routine by Abbott and Costello performing their famous "Who's on first" sketch. Watch it fully and then come back, as I have a couple of questions to ask about it. Question 1: How many times did they show the audience? Answer: Zero times. Question 2: How much did it bother you that they didn't? If you are a normal person, I am pretty sure that you didn't even notice this until I drew attention that fact. It certainly did not bother you at all . If this were being televised today as a live show, at least 50% of the footage would be showing the audience reactions. This is something that bothers me to no end in today's TV show editing. If I'm watching some performers doing an act (be it comedy, magic, juggling or whatever), I want to see the performers. Why would I want to see the audience? What possible interest would I have in that? Of course it's not the act of showing the audience itself that's so bad. It's th...

Once upon a time, when the industry had a good decade or two of actual user experience on graphical user interfaces, a set of good design rules were established. Most operating system development companies even had their guidelines for developers on how to create a standardized GUI for their programs so as to make them as easy and intuitive to use as possible. These are mostly small things, but they are important. For example, if a program has a menu (as most graphical programs do), it should always be located in the same place in all programs (at the top, below the title bar) and there are certain menus that should always have the same name (such as "File" and "Edit") and contain the same basic set of commands (such as "Open" and "Save"). If a menu element does an immediate action, it should be named without any punctuation (eg, "Save"), but if it does not immediately do something but instead opens a dialog where more options can be ...

I stumbled across a news footage video that had by chance caught the murder (or attempted murder, I'm not completely sure) of a captured child kidnapper and possible rapist by the child's father. Some police officers were escorting the perpretrator in handcuffs, and the father was disguised in some kind of public telephone booth, from which he proceeded to shoot the perpeptrator with a gun. Clearly it was not something that was done in the heat of the moment, but something planned and premeditated. I made the error of reading some of the youtube comments. In the first several pages every single comment, every single one of them, praised that father's actions. Most called it rightful justice, some called him a hero. Not a single comment of disapproval. This is just crazy in my opinion. I see two major problems with this: 1) His son had been through a horrible experience that would probably haunt him the rest of his life. He was probably emotionally destroyed and in sev...