After reading this, Its killing me not knowing what they built, used, or implemented instead of using sshd. It would add much more context.
Is the author a
Lead? Manager? Architect? On the same team, or department? A direct peer?
All of this matters in order to better answer the main question presented in the article.
Why wasnt more than one dev involved in discussing a design or possible solutions before the work was performed? If that was the case, where was the author when that happened?
Why didn't you just already know they weren't using sshd?
Thanks! Actually, no there isn't a pressing reason. I figured it out as a child myself, so perhaps it's less of an issue than I anticipated. Have an awesome Christmas!
Thank you so much for your input! I've been concerned about mine being 'the kids at school', causing a chain effect for other kids and parents to handle the aftermath.
Totally get that. I told my kids after they knew it was their job to help keep the magic for the kids who still don't. I just used the comment that "you wouldn't want someone to have ruined your magic so don't be that kid and ruin someone else's" etc.
Funny part is my step daughter knew before my daughter, and my step daughter was the one who was a bit bitter and hurt and so we used exactly this to make sure she didn't hurt my daughters feelings by spoiling it. She got into it after a little while and was having a blast helping us do creative things with the elf on the shelf that year before my daughter figured it all out.
Everybody can contribute to the project. The source is at https://github.com/cristicismas/beautiful-programmers-stone. I've cleaned up a lot of the html to make the code easier to edit, but I forgot to write the source in the initial post.
One fallacy I've seen is a reviewer only looking at the diff on Github, where a minor change in the middle of a function is made, and they don't expand the diff to notice that the new change completely invalidates a comment, params, call signature, return value..etc.
