True. Taiwan is an important ally, unofficially. The folks the US is feuding with right now are also allies, but officially. As are Japan and South Korea. It can't be encouraging.
I didn't grow up in the US, but the fact that 28% of US houses in 1956 had "two or more bathrooms" is mind-blowing. I reckon my country would've run around 5%-10%, with the upper-bound being a WAG. It made for some good ole family drag-out-knock-downs, though. We still laugh about those.
Not original poster, but in my experience Excel on the Mac is a God-awful piece of software. It's like Excel-lite, and that just doesn't work for what I need. ymmv of course, depending on what you need.
Maybe. It could be true. But, in the interest of folks who just want a summary with an opportunity to dig in deeper, this piece would have benefited from the addition of a worked example in the text; simply as an explanation and a teaser. I spend enough time with spreadsheets.
I was at a company once where they were talking about trying to do a rewrite of an existing tool because the original engineers were gone. But the requirements docs were insufficient to reach feature parity, so they weren’t sure how to proceed. Once I got the QA lead talking they realized he had the entire spec in his head. Complete with corner cases.
A nice piece that outlines all the challenges, the opportunities, and the cultural and social adjustments that need to be made within organizations to maximize the chance of left-shifted testing being successful.
IMPO, as a developer, I see QA's role as being "auditors" with a mandate to set the guidelines, understand the process, and assess the outcomes. I'm wary of the foxes being completely responsible for guarding the hen-house unless the processes are structured and audited in a fundamentally different way. That takes fundamental organizational change.
The section headed "A World Without People" is the most interesting. We all need someone to tell us we're wrong-headed every now and again. Simply because we often are, and that's perfectly fine.
It might be a fair-enough interpretation. For major issues, what's ambiguously said (or unsaid) by Congress can be specifically said (or unsaid) by the Courts.
Point #2 is related, as it also connected to a requirement to interpret "intent", which is a
tricky thing even at the best of times.
As for point #3, I can't comment. I don't quite understand Roberts' logic about official vs. discretionary, but I feel it has something to do with original framers' intent also.
reply