Hmm really? Even on the Wikipedia page for 7 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/7), one of the first things it says is “7 is often considered lucky in Western culture and is often seen as highly symbolic.” And FWIW you can see the Wikipedia edit history, that isn’t a recent edit, nobody here is messing with it :)
“Lucky Number 7” is a common phrase, there was even a popular movie that played on this, “Lucky Number Slevin” (https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0425210/). It’s one of the first numbers I’d think of as a “lucky number.”
Huh really? Whenever I’ve taken the train in Germany it’s been pretty punctual, and looking at the board that’s been the case for most trains. But maybe I just got lucky and/or it’s changed over time.
Flakiest trains I’ve experienced anywhere in Europe were in Italy - rolling strikes among train workers are crazy frequent and cause so many delays and cancellations.
I hope so, but for different reasons. Agreed they spit out plenty of gibberish at the moment, but they’ve also progressed so far so fast it’s pretty scary. If we get to a legitimate artificial general super intelligence, I’m about 95% sure that will be terrible for the vast, vast majority of humans, we'll be obsolete. Crossing my fingers that the current AI surge stops well short of that, and the push that eventually does get there is way, way off into the future.
I want to be able to easily read and understand configuration without having to pop it into a converter. The YAML I encounter in the wild is ~80% pure block style, ~20% mixed (within a single file, mostly block style with some flow style). And I just find the block style hard to read, I have to either spend significant mental effort trying to understand where the objects vs. arrays are, or I have to pop it into a converter (to either JSON or flow style) to understand. Whereas JSON/JSON5, it’s immediately clear without any mental overhead.
Where arrays and objects just look too similar (IMO), white space is significant, most strings are unquoted, etc. And personally I find it quite difficult to really understand what’s going on there, at a glance, compared to JSON (or JSON5).
Fair, YAML has a lot of usability warts, and those suck too. Although personally I really do hate how tough it is to tell apart arrays and objects, at least with the most common YAML array/object style.
I’m a fan of JSON5. A common criticism is “we’ve already got YAML for human readable config with comments,” but IMO YAML’s readability sucks, it’s too hard to tell what’s an object and what’s an array at a glance (at least, with the way it’s often written).
When dealing with large YAML files, I find myself frequently popping them into online “YAML to JSON” tools to actually figure out WTF is going on. JSON5 is much easier to read, at least for me.
I think you’re reading way, way too much into this. Read the piece and it seems like just a goofy little oddball story, makes for a light and enjoyable read, I’m really not picking up any political angle in this piece.
The Guardian are certainly a left-leaning, frequently political paper, but that doesn’t mean every story is political, and IMO this one isn’t.
Agreed, it’s a lose-lose situation really. But the reason most companies just settle is that going to trial is so expensive, and the American legal system allows these frivolous lawsuits while generally awarding either no compensatory damages, or damages far below the cost of the defence.
You can see why, though. Even in this case where they thoroughly won, and got damages, the damages were just $225K, and they probably spent millions on legal fees, employee/founder time, etc.
Ultimately, the American legal system is pretty broken. If someone brings a frivolous lawsuit against you, and you defend yourself in court, nearly 100% of the time you’ll be losing money, often a lot of money. This is the core reason why patent trolls exist, why companies normally settle out of court - it’s cheaper to do so.
Ah fair, definitely a very different environment than what I’ve worked in! Have only worked on SaaS, where all forms of testing (automated and manual) are a thing we do internally, without customer involvement. We’ll do things like turn features on/off for customers, have them provide feedback, but that’s more product feedback than them being part of the testing/QA process.
I have worked on software where individual customers pay millions for it, but not billions, and it’s also not a physical thing that can literally crash into earth or fly off into space if something goes wrong!
I enjoyed the humour, and the content. Personally I wouldn’t change it - it’s kind of a click-bait title, but I never would have read the article if it had a boring title, and I am glad I read it.
> Safemode is the satellite equivalent of a blue screen of death.
It’s about avoiding safemode, and more generally about the end-to-end QA/testing process for satellites before they’re sent up into orbit. It’s very clearly not about actual Windows BSODs, it’s just written in a tongue-in-cheek style. Those commenting about “wtf windows on a spacecraft” clearly didn’t read the article, just read the title.
FWIW I found the writing style engaging and the content interesting. I guess the title is a little click-bait-y, but not in a way that I minded much, and I probably wouldn’t have read an article titled “How to avoid safemode on a satellite.” It’s a fine line, but titles DO have to draw you in, otherwise you’ll never read the article.
Re: the article itself, I did think it was pretty wild that customers have to be informed of every incident where a satellite flips into safemode in TESTING! In real operations, sure, but in testing, that’s wild. Feels like having to report bugs caught in my local dev environment, that were never deployed to prod.
> I have not found an answer for testing React components that seems like a good use of resources
> …
> I'd really love to have a system that would give me a heads up that some CSS I changed has a spooky effect on a distance on part of the UI because of the complexity of selectors but that's asking a lot
I would’ve agreed until recently. I always found basically all other forms of testing valuable (unit tests of almost everything on the BE, unit tests of FE business logic, BE integration tests, E2E tests), but not testing of the visual elements of the FE.
But the company I work at, ~6 months ago we gave this product a try, and honestly it’s pretty incredible: https://www.meticulous.ai/
They basically record sessions of real usage in our staging environment, and then replay them against your branch, like taking all the same interactions, and mocking responses to all network calls. It records tonnes of these sessions and is very smart about which ones it uses for a given change. It flags any visual differences, and you can OK them (or not). There’s a bit of work to initially integrate, but then you don’t write any tests, and you get pretty amazing coverage. It has the odd false positives, but not many, and they’re easy to review/approve in their web UI. They’re also a small startup willing to work super closely with you (we share a Slack chat with them, they’re very open to feedback and iterating quickly on it).
I swear I’m not a paid shill or affiliated with them in any way, just a user who really loves the product. I was skeptical it’d work well at first, but it’s honestly been great, has caught many potential regressions, I feel we’re getting much better coverage than we would with handwritten UI tests. It’s very worth a look IMO if you’re not satisfied with your visual tests. It’s not an E2E testing tool, because the network requests are recorded/replayed (so it can’t stop BE changes that break the FE), but it’s amazing for testing so many elements of the FE.
I’ve never used it, but I’ve used the Starbucks app a bunch. Order on the app when I’m 5-10 mins away, and can just roll up and grab my food/drink, vs waiting in line, ordering/paying, then waiting for prep. Useful when you’re tight on time or just don’t feel like waiting. I assume the Taco Bell app is similar.
“Lucky Number 7” is a common phrase, there was even a popular movie that played on this, “Lucky Number Slevin” (https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0425210/). It’s one of the first numbers I’d think of as a “lucky number.”