Some devs are 10x. Some people are talented designers. I'm a regular dude.
But I have one little flex few of my colleagues have: I got specialized in dev and training missions in hard-to-reach places.
Those missions have different requirements that traditional ones. You can't assume you'll have anything at hand, so you need to pack all sorts of things, from a bar of soap to HDMI cables to protective gloves to a hunting knife.
You'll pack 2 laptops, 2 IDs, and assume one will get lost, stolen or destroyed.
And you'll set up a lot of software to be available to work offline.
Indeed. I jumped the gun with that bitter comment, having just spent two weeks trudging through 700 pages of Murakami's The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle, which was far too weird for my liking.
Absolutely hellish to maintain once you get into territories of different localization, A/B testing, engineering teams that constantly change small things in UI (for valid reasons). I think it might work on a product that changes once a year, but not sure about maintainability past that.
Every time I worked with dedicated QA teams, we (core engineering) ended up leading the effort of writing maintainable automated tests. At some point, it was much easier to just do it ourselves.
Well, that's kinda the point, isn't it? Have the tests run after each PR, and it flags all the changes for you. For the intentional ones, that means the tests have to be updated (often just changing a line or two). But it also catches all your unintentional changes that you didn't mean to break.
This is especially important in complex UIs where everything from localization to state management to A/B testing can accidentally break things you didn't even mean to touch.
Isn't it better for the devs to spend a few minutes looking at a broken test (which they can easily fix themselves) than for a user to discover it and have to go through triage months later, when it's out of everyone's memories already?
Realistically the build will fail, but since QAs used some action capturing thing, devs will have to either recapture the same flow or delegate it back to QA. Now you have the pipeline blocked, QAs most likely working on some other stuff so they need to reprioritize, devs are also annoyed as their build is not going through.
I completely understand there are pros and cons to every set up, but if higher velocity is more important than complete correctness, such set up might be detrimental.
In our setup, we had the ability to either fix the test ourselves, comment out those tests as useless, or just force a build and bypass any hooks if we needed to force a new deploy and we were absolutely certain the tests aren't important. But at least they would be caught, even if they served as a soft warning rather than a forcible barrier.
> but if higher velocity is more important than complete correctness, such set up might be detrimental.
I guess it's a cultural value thing: move fast and break things vs polish before shipping. As a user I always prefer the latter, but hell, I don't run these multibillion dollar companies that are always shipping buggy things, lol
Totally agreed, it really depends on the case. I’ve been user of both types of products where I value extreme correctness (think of anything financial, or core software that I want to never crash like a browser), but also really don’t care if something like Spotify or Twitter doesn’t work 5% of the time I use it. Obviously that barrier is different for everyone, but that’s where the product development planning and prioritization comes into play.
You're not wrong, but a good, well resourced QA org can both help write or develop more flexible tests, and also help fix brittle tests when they do break. The idea of brittle tests that break often being a blocker is predicated on practices like running every type of test on every commit that exist to deal with a lack of QA effort in the first place.
Maybe recorded integration tests are run on every release instead of every commit? Maybe the QA team uses them less to pass/fail work and more to easily note which parts of the product have changed and need attention for the next release? There's lots of possibilities.
You're assuming an absolute. If none of the fish had moved to fresher water, I imagine there'd be a lot more fish washing ashore. If all of the fish had moved to fresher water, there would be no fish washing ashore. Also, abnormal ocean currents have caused this before.
Very few of those are about consent. Which is quite striking, as practically all of the spyware nags are illegal and thus the consent is violated probably billions of times every day.
Given that I encounter at least one violation a day, it's really a small list.
It should contains hundred of thousands of entries.
Like fines for speeding.
Imagine if you had a page for parking tickets since 2018 (!) and it contained only a few hundred penalties.
This is ridiculous, especially since:
- it's not hard to find most cases. Just take any cookie banner that makes harder to opt out than opt in, and that's it, you have a violation. It can even be automated.
- it can bring a lot of money to a system that is dying for it.
Are you reporting such violation? How authorities would know about it?
Also the jurisdiction is in question. Who should enforce? Country where user is? Country where domain is registered? Country where data center with servers is? Country where nominal owner of the web page is? Country where final beneficiary is? Country where creator of the banner is?
The jurisdiction is EU (GDPR is binding legislation for all member countries, not dissimilar to US federal law), and the enforcer is primarily the country where the company that owns the website has European incorporation.
In theory anybody can report to their country's data protection officer, although at least in Finland they don't care about individual citizen complaints.
The NGO noyb is sending out batches of these reports. They have some minor wins, but as you can probably tell from all these nags around, by and large there's not much effect.
Such as? I can't really think of any benefit besides providing jobs and funding for contractors (so kicks backs etc.)
Then again it's not particularly surprising, the EU is well know for wasting massive amounts of money on all sorts of nonsense while ignoring things that actually matter.
No, but I trust you. However the US tech industry is doing just fine without too much government funding and intervention so it's not such a huge issue (in this specific area of course, not in general)
Giving the load of bollocks teachers propagate themselves, I suspect the first problem after automated homework will be students calling out the BS. I recall the system really didn. T likd it.
Some devs are 10x. Some people are talented designers. I'm a regular dude.
But I have one little flex few of my colleagues have: I got specialized in dev and training missions in hard-to-reach places.
Those missions have different requirements that traditional ones. You can't assume you'll have anything at hand, so you need to pack all sorts of things, from a bar of soap to HDMI cables to protective gloves to a hunting knife.
You'll pack 2 laptops, 2 IDs, and assume one will get lost, stolen or destroyed.
And you'll set up a lot of software to be available to work offline.