tattoo planning

I just heard back from my tattoo artist, who says he is "so COMPLETELY into doing a tattoo of a coelacanth," and says he was looking at the models at Natural History last month.

He's there 12:30-7 Tuesday to Saturday, which means I could stop by and discuss things after work, but will probably need to make a Saturday appointment (or appointments) to actually get the tattoo.

tattoo planning

I just heard back from my tattoo artist, who says he is "so COMPLETELY into doing a tattoo of a coelacanth," and says he was looking at the models at Natural History last month.

He's there 12:30-7 Tuesday to Saturday, which means I could stop by and discuss things after work, but will probably need to make a Saturday appointment (or appointments) to actually get the tattoo.

Undocumented features

That's programmer/hacker snark, as in "it's not a bug, it's an undocumented feature" when the code doesn't do what it's supposed to.

Only sometimes there really are undocumented features: deliberately created by the programmers, tested, doing what they're supposed to, and part of the running software, but deliberately not documented.

In this case, I've run across one that is deliberately undocumented, but will be explained to anyone who writes to tech support and says "I want to do this thing". As far as I can tell, this has the effect of adding to the workload of the support staff, and rewarding people who either don't read the documentation or assume that it's incomplete, while depriving people who figure that if it's not in the documentation, they can't do it.

I can't see how this is a win for anyone.

The feature in question isn't one I have any particular interest in--it controls how much of your LiveJournal [1] is syndicated via RSS. But (a) this strikes me as a bad idea, and (b) I wonder what else they have tucked away that I might want to use.


[1] more precisely, the publicly visible posts therein

Undocumented features

That's programmer/hacker snark, as in "it's not a bug, it's an undocumented feature" when the code doesn't do what it's supposed to.

Only sometimes there really are undocumented features: deliberately created by the programmers, tested, doing what they're supposed to, and part of the running software, but deliberately not documented.

In this case, I've run across one that is deliberately undocumented, but will be explained to anyone who writes to tech support and says "I want to do this thing". As far as I can tell, this has the effect of adding to the workload of the support staff, and rewarding people who either don't read the documentation or assume that it's incomplete, while depriving people who figure that if it's not in the documentation, they can't do it.

I can't see how this is a win for anyone.

The feature in question isn't one I have any particular interest in--it controls how much of your LiveJournal [1] is syndicated via RSS. But (a) this strikes me as a bad idea, and (b) I wonder what else they have tucked away that I might want to use.


[1] more precisely, the publicly visible posts therein