The comparison is somewhat awkward, because the rails example presumably produces a date, while the python one is referring to an interval of time.
Just from the meme it’s not obvious which was the actual intended use, so labeling either as inaccurate requires us to make assumptions.
Personally, the concept of “10 years ago” is a bit nebulous to me. If today is February 29th, is ten years ago March 1st? Doesn’t seem right. Or particularly useful.
What do you mean? For what purpose would you sort variables or functions?
The nastiest typos are autocompleted similarly named (and correctly typed) variables, functions, or types. Which is why it’s a good idea to avoid such name clashes in the first place. If this is impossible or not practical, at least put the part that differs at the start of the name.
Can only speak for myself, but bookmarks are not at all the thing I want.
There’s more cognitive effort needed when creating a bookmark (not to mention several clicks and key presses) - I need to classify, organize, assign a folder, think about relevant tags.
More importantly: while I expect to need the tab again in the near future, it is likely to be completely useless in a few days. Creating a bookmark for that is going to be wasteful clutter that I need to spend more mental energy cleaning up.
The parent comment expressed incredulity at being able to manage that many tabs. I’m not sure how converting them to bookmarks instead helps. It just seems like I’ll need more clicks to get to my site.
Also, I care about the state saved in my open tabs and don’t want to reload the page every time I visit it. Many websites are built in such a way that loading the URL again doesn’t even restore the same state, and sometimes it doesn’t work at all.
Bookmarks are useful, and I do use them, but they are not a workable replacement for tabs, at least to me.
I’m leaning heavily towards faked for the meme.
If you actually were trying to get collisions, you’d save all previously generated ids and check all of them for a match with the newest one.
Not only would this increase the chance of a collision (not enough that it should matter, but still), but it would more closely approximate a real use case - if you use UUIDs you’re not just in trouble if one specific id is duplicated, it’s usually a problem if any id is not unique.
But the presented snippet is simpler and shorter and is close enough to what a naive test might look like, so it’s well suited to getting the joke across.
The only way I could imagine this not being fake is if it was achieved in a noncompliant Js implementation. Which seems highly unlikely given the screenshot looks like the Chrome console.