tmorton

> Rather, it will use the original cost basis, pay tax on gains up to the adjusted cost basis, and the inheritors will use the new cost basis should they sell in the future.

This is just incorrect, at least in the US. The estate does not have to pay capital gains tax for assets passing through to the inheritors.

It's a great policy proposal though - this is one fix for the problem!

It's impossible for us to give you a good answer from outside your company.

Sometimes, "best practices" are pure waste. Sometimes they are even counterproductive. Sometimes they will pay off immediately. Sometimes they will pay off for the company, but only after the current team has left and won't receive credit. Sometimes they would pay off for the users, but the company doesn't care about their users.

If possible, discuss the issue with a senior engineer (or two) on your team.

I would not get too confrontational with your manager. At the end of the day, your customer is your employer. But keep a note of the compromises that you're making, and remember if they cause any problems. Determining when to cut corners, and when to break out all of the formal methods, is an important part of your maturation as an engineer.

> I've had trouble finding it, but years ago, I read the abstract of a study which looked at chess performance, pitting people who had access to some basic chess software against those who didn't. What they found is that the strongest predictor of success was whether a player could utilise the software effectively, rather than pure chess skill.

There was a time when this was true - a grandmaster and a computer was stronger than either alone. But that window closed pretty quickly. Today, even the strongest GMs' best strategy is to follow the computer blindly.

Yes, we need that too.

This happens a lot in climate policy discussions - "what about this other solution?" The answer is always "yes, that too!"

The churn now is meta-frameworks on top of React.