The one-eyed cat has updated the latest information on Jujutsu Kaisen. Honestly, I don't know how to comment on it. Adding a setting to forcefully remove Gojo from the scene.
It's not that I can't accept Gojo being taken out, I just can't accept him being removed in this way!!! The previous chapter was going well, with a cool combo, but in the next chapter, it's just a flash and then he's gone??? One-eyed cat, can't you put more effort into developing Gojo's character? Is it just this half-hearted?
But if you look at it calmly, there are actually quite a few small details in this. First, it follows the idea that "a sorcerer will not die without regrets," and Gojo intentionally mentions it, asking why he has no regrets. Second, why say goodbye to those dead people? Isn't Gojo a dying person? What does it mean for Nanami to face south and Gojo to face north?
Personally, I think the one-eyed cat is playing with the audience again. Gojo has been stabbed in the head so many times in the past and still managed to recover, so it's really unreasonable for him to be defeated so easily.
I saw Kaiyi recommend some input methods and suddenly came across a small and beautiful input method. As someone who is a purist when it comes to input methods, I was convinced to give WeChat input method a try starting today. As for why I was easily convinced...
First of all, I really like to put spaces between letters and numbers... I think it looks clearer that way. This feature is really convenient.
Secondly, I have been troubled by the native input method's word library for a long time. I always feel like when using the macOS input method, I have to search for words for a long time, which is very annoying.
So, I'll give this small and beautiful input method a chance and see how it performs. Double pinyin players, please come forward!
At work, my project manager got really angry, but it's really not my fault.
I know her well, and she's usually quite gentle, so I don't know what happened. Of course, I still had to put out the fire.
While putting out the fire, I reported all the problems to her and explained the solutions. But she habitually said:
"Is this something that so-and-so changed? It looks like he wrote it, right? Is it something he did before?"
I was shocked. The code on my screenshot, the blame on the left, all have my name on it. Why would she suspect another colleague?
After explaining that this bug is an ancient bug and fixing it, I went to find out what the other colleague had done. Oh my... he caused three accidents in three days... he's always fixing problems... I haven't been working on this project for a long time, it's just him maintaining it, and it's really a disaster every day.
Seeing other people's predicaments, naturally, I have to reflect on myself.
For example, after going live, the project manager asked him to test the simple jump function to see if it's working properly. He went to test the jump function in his own feature, not the login jump. As a result, after going live, the login function had a problem, and the implementation logic of cookies was incorrect, causing users to be unable to log in. The project manager was furious: "Didn't I ask you to click it before going live? Didn't you say you clicked it and there were no problems? Did you click it or not? Can't you understand what I'm saying? Did I ask you to test the jump function in your feature?"
The problem actually lies in "ambiguity."
The project manager is concerned about whether the functionality is stable and whether the project is running smoothly. When we release a version, we are most concerned about:
- Whether there are any errors as soon as the website is accessed (meaning there shouldn't be any obvious errors after going live).
- Whether the current functionality being released is working properly online.
If we really think from the project manager's perspective about what "jump" means, I would never come to the conclusion that "she wants me to test the jump function in my feature that I'm releasing today." It seems to contradict the second point, but we need to realize that the project manager doesn't care about all the technical details like us. She probably wouldn't specifically emphasize testing the "jump" function in today's release! It's not like she implemented it, so why would she think of testing it?
The problem lies here. The answer varies depending on who is listening to the sentence. If a sentence has two meanings, it must be made unambiguous! He should have thought about this and asked, "What jump should I test? The login jump or the jump in my feature?"
Of course... I wouldn't ask such a question. When I go live, I usually log in and use the feature in the normal way like a user, and only when it's working properly, I finish my work... This process will definitely involve login jumps, so my approach can also avoid encountering the same problem as him.
After persisting for two days, I'm now riding my bike home from work to increase my exercise...
I don't know if it's just psychological, but after exercising these past two days, my mood is not as emo, and I have a bit more energy at work. It feels like things are getting back on track.
I'm currently working on solving the problem of easily lying on the chair and playing with my phone when I get home. Later, I realized that I can install a waterproof phone case and stand in the bathroom, so I can watch videos while taking a shower...
It's amazing, but when I did it today, I felt great. Taking a shower was comfortable, and I could watch videos. After I finished, I could put it down. It's really nice.
End. Let's just stop here.