j1mr10rd4n

Lunar elevation (aka "altitude" in celestial coordinates) is sidereal, so the maximum range is determined by the viewer's latitude. The moon's orbital plane is not perfectly aligned with that of the sun-earth so there's another component there, but this only varies +/- 5 degrees of the sun's declination.

Lunar phase is synodic, so there's no significant variation in the observed illuminated portion with the moon's elevation over one night.

The full moon occurs when the moon is on the opposite side of the earth from the sun, so it rises at sunset, transits the meridian at midnight and sets at sunrise, (+/- a few minutes for seasonal variation).

A test should communicate its reason for testing the subject, and when an input is generated or random, it clearly communicates that this test doesn't care about the specific _value_ of that input, it's focussed on something else.

This has other beneficial effects on test suites, especially as they change over the lifetime of their subjects:

* keeping test data isolated, avoiding coupling across tests * avoiding magic strings * and as mentioned in this thread, any "flakiness" is probably a signal of an edge-case that should be handled deterministically and * it's more fun [1]

For example, I "know" how to do things like write constructs that make complex collections of programmable switches behave in certain ways, but what do I really "understand"?

I've been "taught" things about quantum mechanics, electrons, semiconductors, transistors, integrated circuits, instruction sets, symbolic logic, state machines, assembly, compilers, high-level-languages, code modules, editors and formatting. I've "learned" more along the way by trial and error. But have I in effect ended up with anything other than an internalised store of concepts and interconnections? (c.f. features and weights).

Richard Sutton takes a different view in an interview with Dwarkesh Patel[2] and asserts that "learning" must include goals and reward functions but his argument seemed less concrete and possibly just a semantic re-labelling.

hardtime.nvim[1] (or vim-hardtime[2] if you're old-school) do exactly this but within your editing session. There's an associated blog post[3] explaining the rationale behind some of the workflow choices and you can of course bring your own.

Babashka is another amazing tool for interacting with a shell with clojure (or a very close dialect thereof).