looks good to me

    
if (error) {
    continue;
}

If I can't see it, is it really there?

If it wanted to get my attention it should have been an error

If it works, it works

Warnings are for ignorings :3

Eh it's Javascript. Anything goes

Warnings? We’ll come back and address those later. Maybe once we’re feature complete. Or maybe shortly after that.

Don't worry. We'll totally fix all of them soon. Promise. Hand to God. They definitely will not be here five years from now.

Meanwhile in another universe one of my biggest win was to introduce this line in our PR validation pipeline.

    
eslint . --max-warnings 0

- In a codebase with a lot of warnings is even better for me to add a disable comments for all the existing warning and then not allow any new one in.
  And then each time a part of the code needs to be touched the existing warning there should be solved too.

Actually fixing warnings is for noobs

I, too, place 2> /dev/null after every line

Yes, but 2>&1 > /dev/null is the real hero.
- No, > /dev/null 2>&1 is. If try your example but with file instead null, stderr content not in file.
  Because x>y not redirect x to y, but duplicate y and set x to y-duplicate. See bash manpage REDIRECTION (your example in that section for what not work).
  As i understand, your example set 2 to what 1 is, then set 1 to null. Now 2 not null, but what 1 before.

edit: works better when used together with StackOverflow.comment.enabled = false;

-ErrorActionPreference SilentlyContinue

I don't get it. This isn't funny. I wouldn't approve it in merge request. Most wouldn't.

Trying to hide problems and incompetence is the joke. A lot of people don't want problems solved, they just don't want to see them, and will take the easy route. If you just want that, this is the easy route.
Incompetent? Absolutely, that's the joke.