#116: Coding Pop Quiz Part 3 (Back to JS)

breakout your wireframes and heat up those get repos, we’re ready to tackle topics ranging from accessibility to front end design, user experience and beyond. You’re listening to the drunken UX Podcast with your hosts, Michael Fienen. And Aaron Hill. Well, hello, everybody, and thank you for joining us on The drunken UX podcast. This is episode number 116. For June 6 2022, we’re gonna be talking about JavaScript quirks. And I am your host, Michael Fienen.

Michael. I mean, Aaron. Yes.

User?

an old joke. That she checks out, sir. Why? What is the you stand for?

I thought you were leading into something but

You were you were setting me up to fall down. I was said I was setting

warn me first is sort of the problem, right? I’m sitting here with a slice open underneath my eye because I played with my dog a little too rough. And she said Michael back off, and I paid for it. So I’m going to be drinking some some whiskey tonight to numb that down just a hair. Hey, everybody. That’s a change. This is the third episode in our series on quizzing each other on different technology. Episode Number one was 114, where I tested Aaron on JavaScript, episode number two was 115, where he tested me on Ruby. And now we’re going back to JavaScript.

But with another twist. We don’t want to just do the same thing over again. So I found a page that had some pretty good questions, at least I thought, and instead, we’re both going to do it together. I’m going to be sort of the Smart kid at the front of the class and Aaron’s going to be the the hooligan behind me who is looking over my shoulder trying to steal my answers. And so we’re going to talk through distracting

not that I’ve ever had an old school except that. So this is gonna be from Dimitri pollutants blog. He’s got a series of seven questions lined up. And so we’re gonna look at those. Before we do that, I do want to talk real fast about what we’re drinking. So my painkiller is not an album by three days. Grace, it is something a little different. I’m going to show this to you, Aaron, as I’m saying it, it is I’m gonna route emirate Oh, I’m okay. Indian single malt whiskey. Interesting, bottled at 46%. It’s apparently been produced since the 40s.

I’ve never heard of this. I was in our local store. And the owner was like, and I asked him, because he’s an Indian gentleman. And I was like, I haven’t heard of this. And he’s like, Oh, no, it’s very good. Any Indian restaurant you go to, they’re gonna have this if they’re a good restaurant, and and it was cheap. I don’t remember what I paid for. But I think it was under 50 bucks. And I was just like, You know what, let’s just see, you know, Japanese single malt is a thing. And it’s great.

You know, there are other folks even like here in the states now that are trying to do like variations on the idea of single malt and whatnot. So I thought, hey, I’d give it a chance. Turns out it is actually pretty great. It’s not real complex. It’s kind of like a maybe like a glenmoor ng tin. Just a very simple, young Highland type scotch, it’s sort of lightened feathery, doesn’t have hardly anything on the nose. That was what struck me real hard with it was a rather didn’t strike me hard. When I say it’s not like it didn’t strike, or it didn’t strike me hard.

I had to like bury my nose in the bottle to like, get anything off of it. And it was just like the sort of light floral and like a generic like floral and the flavors kind of like that. It’s not strong. It’s very sort of, you know, yellow grass forward. Sweet Grass wheats. You know, that grainy flavor kind of comes through a little bit of that just malt funk that you can get. And that’s about it. Like it’s not crazy. It’s warm. It’s 46%.

So it’s it at least, you know, does the job and pretty unoffensive for the most part I was surprised I’m gonna say not anything that’s going to be like an OH MY GOD favorite like I mentioned last week with the Glenlivet listen still, I got this in the same batches that though I was kind of on an adventure, so I just got some stuff, but I would not not recommend that and certainly throughout an Indian restaurant and they have it, I think it’s very much worth trying. All right.

I thought you come in watch the video. That’s when I don’t know the right pronunciation pronunciation ensemble dry.

a Gaelic didn’t want to be butchered. They shouldn’t use less vowels. And if you are weird consonants together.

just there’s, there’s a law and I forget exactly where this is. But the in the UK where they have to print their signs in English and Welsh. And yeah, it kind of like in Quebec, how they do English and French. And there’s this picture of the site. And this may be totally internet like bullshitter II, as far as I know, but I think it’s real. And the signs that the English on top, which is perfectly normal on the bottom is is Welsh, which did there’s no possible way for me to read it.

But apparently, whoever put in for the translation sent the email over, they got the email back with the translation, they copied it, pasted it in and printed the deal. And somebody pointed out that the sign says, whatever it says in English, like, you know, so far to this place, take a write blah, blah, like it’s, it’s a handful of words. And bottom says, I am out of the office, please contact me on whatever date. So you got an auto responder in well, oh, and I’ve copied and pasted it, so

I mean, it’s believable. Like I can say it this could not be this may not be real. But we know it happens like that is not an uncommon thing, especially with like China. Oh, sure. So yeah, like Sure. The whole like Google copy and paste and things like that is very real. So it’s like I I absolutely believe it would happen.

I want to start real fast with a quick bit of news that is super timely because it was super today. And at least today as in when we’re recording which is just ahead of release. If you keep up on your WordPress news, you might have noticed a press release come out from WP Engine today. That they have acquired delicious brains.

They are the purveyors of what they’re they’re purveyors of what’s the word for like really high end food? Boutique, not not boutique?

High quality highfalutin zombies. Okay, are humans rather for zombies? Have you ever watched the show iZombie like it’s kind of like that zombie. What they also do though, like on the side it’s kind of a black market thing they make a lot of WordPress plugins so delicious brains if you if that name sounds familiar, but you’re not quite sure where they have a whole list of plugins they make they’ve done WP offload SES better search replace WP offload media WP migrate and most significantly, ACF the advanced custom fields plugin which if you are a WordPress Dev, you probably have touched and used at some point.

I’ve used that one before that’s that’s pretty big news. As delicious brains was just acquired like a year ago if my memory is right by somebody or are delicious brains acquired the people who made I can’t remember the flow like it’s so hard to remember the way all of these things go but basically all of this stuff exchanged hands a year ago and now it has happened again with WP Engine picking them up. Good, I think is my initial reaction to that i i trust WP engine without fawning too much. I will preface that by saying I am a WP Engine customer.

I use their service I’m very happy with it. The tools they built we’ve talked about on here Atlas content modeler the WP developer kit they purchased local by flywheel and have made it available for everybody. So thus far, WP Engine has not done anything to sort of, you know abuse the trust in sort of the WordPress Bass, they bought woo themes WooCommerce, the whoo organizations now owned by them. Now I’m trying to remember like all of the different acquisitions over the years. Genesis, they own the Genesis suite. So there’s, there’s a whole lot going on that they now

remain to be seen, like this is one of those things that it could get a little hinky. You know if they decided to change posture or position on all of this stuff. But I think for the moment, it’s very good, and I think it’s good for the plugins, I think it’s good for the community. And I’ll be interested to see what happens with like the Pro versions of some of these tools. Because that could be very interesting as well, if you know if WP Engine customers might get access to Pro versions out of the box. Maybe? Oh, yeah.

Right now, like the the current news is no news. It’s basically business as usual for all of the things. But you know, down the road, I think we could certainly see some changes to that model. So that’ll be interesting. And it’s going to be something to just kind of keep an eye on. And for now, the the biggest assurance to everybody is nothing’s happening, any of these plugins external, they’re still available. If you have subscriptions, those will continue as normal.

So this is one of those change without change, I think a little bit for now. And but big news, nonetheless, like these things as they move around. It’s kind of interesting to see over time, what happens to them. So cool WordPress news to kick off the light. Okay, so you got your, your quiz I

So so this is seven simple but tricky. JavaScript interview questions. These are a couple of years old. But as far as I know, they’re still pretty relevant. As far as that goes. I mentioned I had skimmed it, but I did not pay attention to the answers. Aaron is not looking at the answers. And we may totally embarrass ourselves. And I think that will be pretty damn funny if that happens. So let’s see what happens. And let’s just kick off with the kickoff.

Right. So what we got is an accidental global variable. We have a function foo. Yes. And in function foo, we say let A equals B equals zero, then we a plus plus, which is an incrementer. And then we return a, then what they do is they run through and then they say type of A and type of B.

I have the initial chunk of information, I think. So. One of these is easy. Which one do you think is the easiest? A or B?

is the type of a? Let’s start this right. What are our type options here? That would probably make sense. Number.

I, while it’s an option, there’s no string involved in the function. Right? So I think we really have three, three types. We could have here, right? We could have a number, we could have a Boolean, we could have an undefined.

I’m pretty certain on this one, that your backwards. Really, a is undefined and B is a number. But so here’s the question Do you trust my answer? Or do you think I’m wrong?

so here’s the thing, a, I’m 99% Certain is undefined, I’m not a 90 I’m 100% Certain A is undefined, because keep in mind let is a block scoping declaration. So let a while we are returning a we are returning the variable A we’re only returning the value of it which is zero. So a itself if we call a type of outside of the function that’s going to be undefined every time.

And so, in order to execute the expression, let a equal b equals zero. It has to assume that there is a variable b up the scope. And in the absence of one it will create it and as a result, it would be a number.

true. Yeah, yeah. No. Yeah, but no, yeah. So here’s to be clear.

No, I am. I’ve already scrolled down here. So it says no, variable B is declared neither in the food scope or global scope to JavaScript interprets b equals zero as window dot b equals zero.

seems dangerous, little funky. That’s actually a, you know, a good deal to know too, if you are working with multiple variables inside a function. And if you aren’t paying attention to like your hoisting, or things like that, or where in your code variables are being declared, you can both overwrite variables that you don’t expect to, or you can create variables that you don’t expect to especially if you’re trying to work inside of something like a private function or something like that of a class. You don’t you know, you may not want to expose some of that stuff. So

that’s index zero, which is the first item in an array,

So let’s, let’s go the same the same route here, right? So close zero. Can be could be jacket. Could be T shirt. Could be neither. could be both.

that’s fair. You’re alright. It could also be not a number. So let’s think about closed dot length. Right? So we have a property of an array closed dot length. Is that property? immutable?

yeah, so if we say closed dot length equals zero? Is that changing the property if changing and

So you you look up at my bubble sheet, and you see me filling in the bubble for clothes, index zero is undefined.

Do you want my explanation for why I think it’s undefined?

Yeah, let’s let’s do that backwards. Let’s not go with my rationale. You can’t ask me during the test. You see my answer? And right. Why would you say if you agree, why would I? How would you get to undefined? Right. I would defy that answer to yourself.

And so what would be happening in that situation? If you set it to zero?

is that what happens? Yes. Setting the length to zero truncates the array to that length ship powers like a lot of the internet dude. Similar to like, substring something. Now you if you want to have a weird thing, now, I’m saying that that’s my understanding of it. I have not scrolled down to the answer yet. But the reason for this, and the thing that will and why this stands out to me is because dot length is immutable in different circumstances.

So for instance, while you can set the length of an array to zero, and as a result, it will truncate it down. If you had, let’s say it was a string, let’s say clothes equals jacket,

That is not a question that I can answer, dear sir, all I can tell you is that is how it works. Huh? So and I’m scrolling? Yes. And so we are correct. Closed, zeros undefined because close the close array has been emptied. Reducing what what they say here. It from ACMA is reducing the value of the length property as the side effect of deleting own array elements whose array index is between the old and new length values. Wow. And that’s that is straight out of ACMA. 2015. So

That was that was a little interesting. I think it’s especially weird that it truncates on arrays, but not on strings. Yeah, the difference in behavior. There’s is kind of weird, and I’m sure there’s a reason for it. But

All right. Are you ready to keep going? Are you already heard us? Yes.

Keep with us.

weird or it gets weird. What is the content of numbers array? So this is called the eagle eye test. And I have no clue why. So okay, we have a constant length equals four. So variable length equals four, we have a constant numbers equals array.

Ver i equals zero. And then while i is less than the length, increment, or iterate i plus plus, and then what it is, is numbers dot push, i plus one.

that is an excellent observation. And I’m, I’m glad that it stuck with you. So you can you can learn, I can be taught. Yeah. So the fact that numbers is set to an empty array as a constant only means it cannot be recast. You can manipulate the array.

hour in an array, you’re gonna be so mad. Ah, this one’s dirty. And the listeners you don’t know what the problem is. I just spotted it. And now I understand why it’s called the eagle eye test. So we read off the code. Yeah. Let me look at that. Take a second there. So the the return of numbers is going to be an empty array. That’s my guess. Okay? Why? Why would I guess it’s going to be an empty array? This is dirty this is this is downright mean this this should not even be like, Uh oh, simple that tricky interview?

Yeah. Oh, for loop has a malformed expression. So in after the parentheses, but before your curly brace, they stuck a semicolon in there, which terminates? The D. So the following code never runs. That’s mean. So oh,

The answer is an array with the laundry of five.

it’s uh, yeah. Can you figure out why without?

What did we just go over in that if statement in the first question?

No, no, I mean, by default, yes. Let me really rephrase that. Yes, it is being declared with var, but var, that that’s the difference between var and let

equal zero, instead of var i equals zero. Yes. So yeah, so the I or the I’m sorry, the Yeah, the i ends up being scoped to the window. And our declares it globally. So we, but we were correct in that nothing happens on the push in that for loop because of that semicolon. But what does happen is the four executes. So the four fires, but all that’s happening is it’s just looping through I until I was four, and then it quits. Right, but now I equals four at the window scope.

And the curly brackets basically create the equivalent of just an anonymous function that runs that says numbers dot push for plus one.

I think to what you just said, yes.

But that’s that’s the that’s why we like using let so much. I guess so. Because let is, lets you control that scoping a lot better. And I actually will go back, I said numbers would be Oh, no, yeah, numbers would still I still would have said numbers should have been empty. I would have said the follow up and the reason why it was empty was because that semicolon would throw like an exception or something. So like, it’s not just ignoring it or whatever.

Like it would actively throw an error, but it doesn’t it does run and it results in four plus one. So an array length one with index zero being five, that one Okay, so that’s the first one that goddess

you know what, that’s funny that you saw that and just read it because what was what did I just say about like this? This is not an interview quit like this is a bad interview question. Because it’s shitty. It is it is a trick. It is absolutely a trick. Yeah, I don’t like that. Good on him for not going through with that company. Because

It would take you five minutes to catch that navy. Take care of it.

Yeah. Okay. Well, I hate the name of the next one already. It’s called automatic semicolon insertion. immediately realize me look at what this code is doing and be suspicious. Right? Right. So we have a function array from value, and it takes an attribute item, or I’m sorry, it takes an argument item.

Actually. Yeah, I think I agree with you. I think the return is undefined for that. Yeah, for that exactly. I think at the end of the day, because I know I’ve ran into this with with JavaScript and stuff when I’m writing, it’s like, I don’t have to put semicolons in the end of the line is a presumed semicolon on those things, unless you like are doing nested if you can do if statements and stuff that are like single expression type deals.

But yeah, I think what’s happening here, because as soon as the return fires, then it doesn’t ever even do anything with the item array that gets returned. And the answer is undefined. Yeah, yes. For exactly what we said. So it automatically interpolates a semicolon after the return. That means the function is done. The fact that they put the item argument inside an array is irrelevant, does nothing and

Yeah, the title definitely was a clue on that one. Yeah. Especially because it was short. That was a pretty short sample. So it’s not like there was a lot of places to look, the indenting also makes it look funny the way they did it. Okay. The classic question, a tricky closure. Now, we’ve talked about closures before. Yeah. And about the availability of variables after something has ran. Right. So we have a let AI. So this time, what do we know about AI?

Yes, yeah. That is that returns a value, or does in this case, the console dot log is like an implicit return.

I, I equals zero, I three i plus plus. So the obvious answer is that would log 123. Right.

I think you’re on the right track there. So what what do you think the answer is? Let’s start with that.

Yeah, so I mean that that would be undefined is what you get in that situation. You do you sneak a look over my shoulder. Are you concerned that maybe you don’t fully get what’s out? happening? Are you going to

answer

I right? So I must be right. Who

no, no, it’s not. It’s one of those things. Like, it’s weird. But it does make sense. Because we’re talking about closures, right? And how, you know, the availability of variables outside of their function calls and things like that. So think about what’s happening. First, we let AI. So the AI variable is declared inside of whatever block this is. Maybe it’s a window, maybe it’s some other function? We don’t know. But we know that it is declared before the for loop. So that means it’s available outside of the for loop.

exactly. Okay. And the reason for that is because the for loop completes with a set timeout. And so it’s saying, hey, in 100 milliseconds, run log log is the flow rate log is the thing that’s available to you outside because it’s been allocated by the for loop. But when the for loop originally runs, it’s three times it’s creating cost log, it’s not executing what’s in there, it’s creating something you can reference. But that for loop, it does that three times to no consequence, except that I get incremented, then the set timeouts, fire 123.

But each time it’s outside of the for loop, that that set timeout is running. And as a result, I because I is scoped above four, it set to three, because just like the other loop that we looked at, where we ended up with five, right, because that four, you end up with the last value. And so you’re acting on the last value. That’s what’s happening here, you’re acting on three. So okay, so it’s just a case of that log becomes a closure that you can reference outside of that scope, because the for loop knew what it was.

So you still have the memory reference there that you can call to get only inside that, like you couldn’t do that outside the for loop. If you set that if you put that set timeout outside your for loop, then it wouldn’t work because it has no idea what log is.

You may not like it, but I mean, closures are no i closers are nasty anyway, like,

Yeah, no, and this is actually a pretty nice and lightweight way of demonstrating how a closure works like it’s not very complex.

Floating Point math. Oh, wait, we know this one.

So let’s we’ll walk through it anyway, just to see what you remember from the first episode. So point one plus point two equals equals equals point three. And so yeah, that’s gonna be false. So yeah, it’s, well, yeah, it is a Boolean return there. So yeah, it’s false. So why is it false?

Yeah. Yeah. So this comes back to this notion that We were doing math with lightning, we’ve trapped inside a bit of sand that we have compressed. And so there are some rounding issues. Fun fact on this on this quiz though, he links to a site. I love it, it’s 0.3000000, a bunch of zeros for.com. I’ll link in the show notes or something. But they’re, they made a site that is literally the result of that example and share it to explain why that happens. So that’s kind of neat, actually,

Well, that’s a that’s a dense explanation. That basically means Hey, we have math being done by lightning inside a piece of silicone. No, it is interesting, though, this is a very computer science problem. And I think we talked about that last time that like this is not unique to JavaScript. This is a right language problem in general. And it’s it’s pretty interesting to think that in 2022, we still have not like, solved the floating point problem, you know, because of the way we store data.

It’ll be something for sure. And it goes back to this idea of like, how we do math with money, right? Like we convert everything to cents first. Then do all that and convert it back to make sure we don’t get the Superman three rounding warm air or office space if you prefer that one. Well, crap that. That’s short circuiting us to the last question. And though we’re coming up on time here, so Oh, and we get a hoisting hoisting in? Great.

Yeah, in this case, the thing of it like you’re using it in the in a terminal or it’s got console log wrapped around it.

I think this one’s trickier than they’re letting on.

with both of them being undefined. Okay, which feels wrong because that feels like the obvious answer. But my reasoning is, and this is where let’s let’s see if I can humiliate myself by totally describing hoisting. hoisting works with like functions and things like that, but not with a variable declaration. So if the variable like if var my var is not set before you try to call my var, then it comes back and define it I’m going to assume that the same is from Mount.

Okay, now all all reverse. I think my var is undefined. I think my const is 3.14. I think the constant gets hoisted, because it’s a constant, but the variable doesn’t. Because it’s using the VAR declaration and is after you try to call the variable.

Does that sound like I know what I’m talking about? Because I definitely don’t this time, so whether or not trust me that

Oh no. We both wrote I don’t know, but they just threw a phrase at me I don’t recognize. So they say hoisting is

never heard of a temporal dead zone. Okay, okay, so there but here’s the thing, there is a difference between let and const and VAR in all of this. So they have a little kind of graphic here.

So accessing my var before declaration evaluates to undefined, a hoisted var variable before its initialization has an undefined value. So it exists, but it isn’t set yet. So yes, so we were both right with my var. However, accessing my const before the declaration line throws a reference error const variables are in a temporal deadzone until the declaration line.

so I was, we were both like half right half wrong. Yeah, we’re half right. On the undefined I was half right that the const behaves differently. And that var does not the value of VaR does not get hoisted up. Right. Wow. Temporal dead zone. That’s interesting. I’ve not seems like some bullshit off to look that up and see if that’s a new thing out there. Or what?

There is a link here that will share to that from Dimitris own stuff that gets into variable hoisting, and all of the sort of stuff that goes along with that, because that’s another thing that similar to like, closures can be a little difficult to grasp, but it’s very good to learn for a whole lot of reasons.

That wasn’t that bad.

there was one that was dirty, the semicolon one was dirty. The rest of them were what they were.

Yeah, and, and it’s gotten weirder now that we have, you know, ESX and all this and Typescript and all of that, where you can go without semicolons I am a pro semicolon person. I just am like, that’s just kind of the way that I learned stuff. And, and I like the sort of finality it gives to your statements when you’re scanning them. So what what was your what was the hardest question here as far as like, something that seemed fair to you? Like,

I’ll say that I kind of like that very first question. Actually, when it comes to the, let A equals B equals zero, to 100. Just because of like, it helps you understand the difference between let and ver and, and what happens when you reference a variable like B that hasn’t been defined yet but inside an expression and so what happens there like the the behavior of those variables, I think is another good I think I think I liked that. That was a nice

I really enjoyed this is the last episode of this run we’re gonna do so if you’re getting tired of hearing us go through these kinds of things. Don’t fret we will be changing pace in in the next episode. I enjoyed this simply because I like the exercise of it. I think there’s a lot of value in sitting down and like whatever language in go look up post I

but

you know what, I think it really does too. Because I have an example of this that like hit me a few years back was the first time I found out about JavaScript short circuiting. What so there’s a way of doing things like you can use the, the logical and or the logical or are graders to put up a statement, that will be one single line. And it will do things. So you could say something like if you said, you know, let X equal one. And then you could do something like console dot log. Whatever the variable name I just said was number or x x let console log, you could say, x.

like the word nothing, or something. And what it would do is, say, if x is set, then I’m going to show that if it isn’t, then I’m going to say nothing. And so it’s just a way or like a ternary. Operator, right? You’ve got turn Aires and Ruby

Yeah. And I think there was a question that was like this in the Ruby episode that you gave about, like true and false, you know, so what Yeah, but like to look at like a lot of code written with things like short circuits, or ternary. Operators, a ternary operator is just basically a way of doing an if else then all in one simple line without a bunch of statements, and brackets and all of that. Right.

So like these, the way you start learning about those kinds of tricks, at least the way I learned about those kinds of tricks is to take things like this little quiz and start testing myself and see, what do I get right? What do I get wrong? What do I need to look more at? And then eventually, you hit one of those? It’s like, it’s gonna throw something at you, you don’t know. And that’s how I found out about the short circuiting and what how, what it was called, I didn’t even know it was the thing.

But I saw some code like that. And I’m like, what? Trying to say, what is this thing doing here? When it’s, you know, how does it know that it should run this function based on what the statement is, and it’s just a case of the way, you know, flow through happens on those on those expressions that it’s like, it’s basically just saying, if the left hand is true, then do the right hand, or if the left hand is false, then do the right hand. And so you take what is three lines of code and make it one line.

So it’s efficiency, it’s, you know, these are the things and these start to stand out, then when you go do your code interviews, or developer interviews at other companies, when you can demonstrate that kind of efficiency and the word that I like to use now, idioms, right, that’s an idiom of the language that shows that you grasp more advanced concepts than a simple if else, you know, follow through if if else, I think that

And I think it makes a difference, just like what we’ve done these last three episodes. You know, knowing some of the idioms the way I do the while I didn’t necessarily use the right words and stuff in some of the Ruby stuff. Like I was able to kind of suss out some of those behaviors and the behaviors were a little different some cases or whatnot like it you’ll become surprised at how not different some of this stuff actually is or how at least easy it is. Once you realize what it is they’re doing.

You may not like it you may it may bug the hell out of you. But it does get easy to pick up on real fast.

very nice way. And so actually, yeah, very complimentary of you, given how much you don’t like JavaScript. So I think that’s a good note to end. On a run,

And with that thought, we will take a quick break and be out of here. I hope you’ve enjoyed this journey with us, as we embarrassed ourselves a few times, probably describe some stuff wrong, but help expose you to the thought process that goes behind problem solving and learning languages and all of that. And I think that is a worthwhile experience and use of time for what it’s worth. And now I know a little bit more Ruby to

you remember how some with the floating point

we’ve got a new change of pace coming up. I assure you on on that this has been fun. But it’s time to get back to other stuff. I hope you pay attention to the WordPress news. And what’s happy and exciting going on there. We’ve mentioned both Aaron and I have open positions at our company for web developers. Oh, yeah. If anybody wants to come and join us or look into what we’re doing, links are in the show notes to all of that. And you can certainly reach out and ask us any questions. We will be happy to help and please apply. We’d love to

that is one of those high like networking sort of values, like getting to know people. Yeah, we always know. Somebody, especially right now right now is a good developer designer market. So there’s a lot out there and that always helps having somebody who can, you know, point you in a direction?

I guess. All I can say is learn your idioms go. Take some tests, figure out what you can do. And you know what makes sense

Oh, I guess I’ll let you do that.

folks, bye bye.