throwaway74628

By a landslide, well outside the radius of influence Fox News enjoys. Swing voters feather their own nests, first.

We are not the same.

My guess: taking personal responsibility for the functionality, readability, and sanity of the change proposed, both atomically and in the context of the wider code base (adhering to existing conventions and patterns), to the best of the author’s ability.

I anticipate and welcome the market price of slopware dropping to zero, given that it’s now in infinite supply. Too much talent has been cohabiting with SO copypasters, MBA idiots, and management dorks for too long, time to break up.

Nit: the police chief was also stalking and harassing at least one man

“Too dangerous to release” has been exploited for marketing.

A sizeable plurality of the informed public know as much.

Regulatory capture is a thing.

Any can can be kicked down the road in the name of pragmatism, sure, but IME the kind of tech debt you’re describing often comes about from lack of fear and respect for complexity and the damage it can do. Before you can reduce complexity, you must first manage it by breaking the problem into smaller parts through categories, boundaries, and contracts; so many software engineering best practices concern this aspect.

That is to say, the rolling up of sleeves usually involves first adding tests for existing behavior and then doing more-or-less what’s described. The tools involved are aside to this; “catch as catch can”

I’ve never encountered an initiative to “shift left” that wasn’t directly motivated by clunky, slow, unreliable and unmaintainable E2E tests. Failing earlier, especially pre-deployment, with targeted integration and contract testing is fabulous but it can’t replace rubber hitting road.

I’ve had quite a bit of success in helping my dev teams to own quality, devising and writing their own test cases, maintaining test pipelines, running bug hunts, etc. 90% of this can be attributed to treating developers as my customer, for whom I build software products which allow them to be more productive.

Artists picked at random will still be subject to existing conditions, those best able to maneuver within the social and political currents will inevitably outperform those who cannot. Those running the program are ill-equipped to define it’s success, being part of the same regime which routinely delivers bottom-of-the-barrel slop.

A novel treatment for the proverbial dying man. I understand that this program is currently assigned at random but it’s prudent to assume that they’ll shift to a “merit based” system before long i.e. sweetheart deals for members of the right clique, nepotism, and the occasional worthwhile project. For concrete examples, look no further than the content funded and produced by the national broadcaster, RTE. Aside from a few decent documentary shows, the dramas and comedies produced are extremely low quality, often with the same familiar faces who are well established in the clique. The occasional exception proves the rule.

This comment sums up well how the spirit of the law is not being upheld, given that the biggest players in government, finance, and the corporate world are working together hand in glove.

>”Corporations cannot exist without government intervention”

>”Some privates companies and financiers are too big to fail/of strategic national importance”

>”1A does not apply to private entities (including the above)”

>”We have a free, competitive market”

I find it very difficult to resolve these seemingly contradictory statements.

Judith Miller re: Saddam’s WMDs

That’s my point.

Slathering oneself in mud if you need to endure harsh sun exposure is the most common answer I’ve seen to this question. Otherwise, I agree with your comment, the “best practice” of avoiding sun exposure is as unintuitive as the grain-heavy food pyramid.