sakjur

Each file should be represented by at least three API requests, one to upload the file, one or more to check whether it's done, and one to download it. Together with the other calls of their API, I'd guess a files-to-API request ratio in the order of 1:10 rather than 1:1.

It's also way more expensive to issue a recall on a million cars than to do it on a thousand cars.

Christian von Königsegg mentioned in a radioshow (Sommar i P1, Swedish) a while back that the reason he got into luxury cars is that it was what he could afford having the mechanic skills and time but not a heap of research or automation money.

> If an entrepreneur did that with no domain expertise, imagine the potential liability.

It seems to me as if the current entrepreneur playbook largely is to run really fast and hope the judicial system doesn't catch up.

You're affected by the choices others make too.

If we realized tomorrow we had the speed of light slightly wrong, we wouldn't change the length of a meter, we would change the definition of the meter. We've redefined the meter thrice already.

I still dial my parents by number rather than using their contact largely to keep that memory fresh and flexed.

Such is the version of history the US wrote, yes.

> So... do we restrict the meaning of the word "bug" only to the mismatched (developers') expectations, or do we extend it to cover bad expectations too?

Good thoughts and framing, thank you for that. I think I'm in the former camp, because I think fixing bad expectations is a matter of thoughtful redesign that should follow a slightly different process to fixing bad implementations (what I would call a bug). Not every issue in a program is a bug, and that has nothing to do with the importance or urgency to fix the issue.

Assuming a rigid product organization, I think developers _should_ ask testers to escalate "works according to spec" even if the spec is unreasonable. Otherwise developers might be torn between QA, UX, and architects fighting about how something should or shouldn't work. At least for me, finding myself in such a position is a recipe for excessive meetings and losing focus on other equally important matters.

In video games, you're typically resting one hand on the mouse and the other on the keyboard fairly consistently.

Going back and forth between the keyboard and the mouse is what's awful about bad interfaces in my opinion, not the mouse as a pointing device.

And the singular makes a huge difference there.

If I'm a hundred meters away from a tourist site that I'm not overly interested in but can snatch a quick picture to send to friends? Well sure. I'd admit to that.

I visited the world's largest paving stone in Brussels to grab a picture for a friend who had told me about it.

> For 18% of respondents, an obsession with photos and social media can be considered a red flag when choosing a travel companion.

This is the number that surprised me. I'd thought that would be much higher.

I first thought this was a tongue in cheek joke before I realized you were the original commenter and looked them up.

I've described some prior experiences with some interviews as failing my litmus test and have cancelled further interviews when people start demand much too much from me before I'm on a payroll.

I'm not sure why string level manipulations would be necessary in a structured data format to begin with. You'll update the URL using tooling regardless, so why not utilize the language for it at the expense of a little bit of verbosity?

  !!schema: { url: "https://example.com/people.tn" sha256: "c4d5e6f7…a2b3c4d5" }

Then perhaps this isn't for you.