No, this is the only way to create useful documentation (provided it's for "internal use only" and an unspecified readership).
It's no use (re-) writing "network admin for dummies".
There's only one thing worse than no documentation - outdated documentation.
Just write down, what you need in a form you can use.
Chances of anybody else reading through these papers is close to zero:
Your _potential_ successor has
to know that documentation exists
to be able to find it
to think it contains anything valuable
to have time to read it
to habe the capability to understand it and make use of it
99,99% of all known possible successors will just hotfix problems as they arise and blame everything on the predecessor.
So just write up the things you need and tend to forget in a way you can use...
But doing opensource programming might be the road to survival for some. Even without job, becoming a major contributor of a suitable open source project just might
Say each rater gives a "truthfulness score" between 0 and 100.
Web browsers need functionality to individually weigh these rankings by a user definded factor based on the trust of the user in the rater, say from 0 to 1 (float) to gain a weighed ranking.
Do an average about theses products, and you arrive at a nice truthfulness percentage.
Of course it should be possible to collect the weightings from the users to preload the credibility of the raters...
It's interesting to note that conservatives seem to be mostly interested in conserving
our financial system, which largely depends on wasting and throwing away,
and not not conserving much else (like natural resources, energy, the human race, the planet).
If cattle is fed on grass, there's no problem.
You need approximately 10kg of wheat to produce 1kg of cattle meat. So the "cattle industry" becomes ineffective when cattle is not grown on a grass diet (like egyptian cattle, just read the other day that the egyptian "cattle industry" largely depends on U.S. wheat).
No, really. You can overdo it this way, severely limiting senior developers capabilities.
For example, a C++ project I worked on several years before had the following guidelines, which obiously were designed according to your focus:
Multiple inheritance was banned (whoa, dangerous). Result: Couldn't combine object hierarchy and technical interfaces.
Templates were banned on reason of "code bloat problem". Result: Superfluous copy-pastelike code (bloated anyway).
So sticking to these guidelines made good design somewhat tricky.
We ended up restructuring the rules, going for "rules" of code formatting and naming conventions and "guidelines" for preventing buggy code.
Each rule and guideline was supplemented with reasons for this rule, examples, and a list of conditions permitting rule violation.
Slashdot Mirror
It's about proving you're doing it right.
Some technological wonder working in a way the observer doesn't understand may be perceived as 'magic'.
I think the same holds true for AI.
For problem fields seeming easy for humans, but hard for machines, the solution must be AI.
If a solution is found, the solution suddenly consists of procedures, if's, else's, and that dispells the magic.
So, in a way, AI may never exist.
No, this is the only way to create useful documentation (provided it's for "internal use only" and an unspecified readership). It's no use (re-) writing "network admin for dummies". There's only one thing worse than no documentation - outdated documentation.
99,99% of all known possible successors will just hotfix problems as they arise and blame everything on the predecessor. So just write up the things you need and tend to forget in a way you can use...
You're not talking about the food, are you?
Web browsers need functionality to individually weigh these rankings by a user definded factor based on the trust of the user in the rater, say from 0 to 1 (float) to gain a weighed ranking.
Do an average about theses products, and you arrive at a nice truthfulness percentage.
Of course it should be possible to collect the weightings from the users to preload the credibility of the raters...
This could have interesting consequences.
It's interesting to note that conservatives seem to be mostly interested in conserving our financial system, which largely depends on wasting and throwing away, and not not conserving much else (like natural resources, energy, the human race, the planet).
Getting people worked up about things nobody can change is simply an ace-in-the-hole for politicians.
Uhm... the whole point is that we can change something.
If cattle is fed on grass, there's no problem. You need approximately 10kg of wheat to produce 1kg of cattle meat. So the "cattle industry" becomes ineffective when cattle is not grown on a grass diet (like egyptian cattle, just read the other day that the egyptian "cattle industry" largely depends on U.S. wheat).
Bigges geek producing machine ever. :)
No, really. You can overdo it this way, severely limiting senior developers capabilities. For example, a C++ project I worked on several years before had the following guidelines, which obiously were designed according to your focus: Multiple inheritance was banned (whoa, dangerous). Result: Couldn't combine object hierarchy and technical interfaces. Templates were banned on reason of "code bloat problem". Result: Superfluous copy-pastelike code (bloated anyway). So sticking to these guidelines made good design somewhat tricky. We ended up restructuring the rules, going for "rules" of code formatting and naming conventions and "guidelines" for preventing buggy code. Each rule and guideline was supplemented with reasons for this rule, examples, and a list of conditions permitting rule violation.
Looks like how my head feels after 10 hours solid maintainig legacy code...