1. 41

  2. 15

    🐶 Endorse 🐕

    Additionally, I always wished the “Falsehoods Programmers Believe about [x]” posts had a link to something like the big list of naughty strings, to better help beef up the systems that make too many assumptions. (naturally, doesn’t apply here! 😛)

    here are my guys.

    1. 4

      OMG they’re so cute!

    2. 17

      Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Cats

      1. Cats would never eat your face.
      2. Cats would never eat your face while you were alive.
      3. Okay, cats would sometimes eat your face while you’re alive, but my cat absolutely would not.
      4. Okay, fine. At least I will never run out of cat food.
      5. You’re kidding me.
      6. There will be a time when your cat knows enough not to vomit on your computer.
      7. There will be a time when your cat cares enough not to vomit on your computer.
      8. At the very least, if your cat begins to vomit on your computer and you try to move it to another location, your cat will allow you to do so.
      9. When your cat refuses to move, it will at least not manage to claw your arm surprisingly severely while actively vomiting.
      10. Okay, but at least they won’t attempt to chew the power chord while vomiting and clawing your hand, resulting in both of you getting an electric shock.
      11. …how the hell are you even alive?
      12. Cats enjoy belly rubs.
      13. Some cats enjoy belly rubs.
      14. Cats reliably enjoy being petted.
      15. Cats will reliably tell you when they no longer enjoying being petted.
      16. Cats who trust their owners will leave suddenly when they’re done being petted, but at least never cause you massive blood loss.
      17. Given all of the above, you should never adopt cats.
      18. You are insane.

      (Source: I have had seven or so cat roommates over my life, including two super-friendly and only vaguely homicidal ones right now, who love my child very much, I assume, since he’s still alive.)

      1. 4

        The city where I live allows for a maximum of two dogs per household. Three dogs, as far as the city is concerned, is too many dogs.

        1. 5

          Time for regime change.

          1. 3

            Where is that?

            In the US, limits on the number of dogs in a household were struck down in a district court decision a long time ago but many cities still have the law on the books and enforce it tactically, knowing that not a lot of people would try to fight it despite a precedent that may or may not apply in their judicial district.

            1. 2

              That sounds familiar, but a district court would only have impact on…well, the district. If it had then been appealed and denied ceriorari at both the appellate and Supreme Court level, it’d (within at least the narrow confines of however the decision was written) potentially have national appeal, but otherwise, it’d have been a local decision. Do you know the case, or anything about it?

              1. 1

                I may have misremembered the scope. I thought it was a federal court decision, but it appears that it was a Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court decision. So, it only applies to PA.


                There are other cases, such as one in Minnesota at the MN state level, too. I know that there is not case law declaring such laws unconstitutional in Kentucky, as an acquaintance of ours lives just outside of Louisville because Louisville has limit and breed laws that are apparently aggressive enforced. A contact in the metro government there confirmed this.

                Breed clubs and responsible breeders have better info on this, such as on https://omalmalamutes.com/omal/doglimits.htm, from an older AKC bulletin on the subject:

                Several courts have agreed that limit laws are unjust. In 1994 the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania struck down an ordinance enacted by the Borough of Carnegie that limited residents to five cats or dogs per household (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Creighton, 1994). Similarly, a two-dog limit in Sauk Rapids, Minnesota was challenged and ruled unconstitutional (Holt v. City of Sauk Rapids, 1997).

                The modern AKC position is documented in http://images.akc.org/pdf/GLEG02.pdf. More info here: https://animallawcoalition.com/are-you-a-victim-of-pet-limits/.

                Source: family breeds and I’ve had litters in my house yearly for the last several years. Entering it by relationship, I’ve covered all of my bases. Limit laws are still on the books in most municipalities, preferring citation of case law should the educated plaintiff take the matter to court. Uneducated law enforcement presents a risk to dogs with complex medical and behavioral needs.

            2. 1

              Considering carbon footprint impact of dogs I would limit myself without waiting for the city to enforce.

            3. 2

              Falsehoods programmers believe about falsehoods: https://gist.github.com/dmbaturin/948a8eb8ddf93dc3f430d9e3b2fdb2b7 The ultimate snowclone.

              1. -1

                Dogs can be food too.

                  1. 0

                    Sure, you can make that comment on a falsehoods programmers believe about humans post. Getting downvoted as offtopic, troll and incorrect on satire is hilarious. I guess people are just blinded by dogs and think they are something special.

                    1. 0

                      I think dogs are special to a people because they are their close companions. Just like most programmers will also be reluctant to smash a computer when they’re ask to do so, I suppose, even though they know computers are just a pile of logical gates and flip-flops.

                    2. 0