How will you deal with it? I successfully convinced $big_important_group at $day_job to not implement a policy of failing their builds when code coverage dips below their target threshold > 90%. (Insane target, but that's a different conversation.)
I convinced them that if they wanted to treat uncovered lines of code as tech debt, they needed to add an epic stories to their backlog to write tests. And their artificially setting some high target coverage threshold will produce garbage because developers will write do-nothing tests in order to get their work done and not trip the alarms. I argued that failing the builds on code coverage would be unfair because the tech debt created by past developers would unfairly hinder random current-day devs getting their work done.
Instead, I recommended they pick their current coverage percentage (it was < 10% at the time) and set the threshold to that simply to prevent backsliding as new code was added. Then, as their backlogged, legit tests were implemented, ratchet up the coverage threshold to the new high water mark. This meant all new code would get tests written for them.
And, instead of failing builds, I recommended email blasts to the whole team to indicate there was some recent backsliding in the testing regime and the codebase had grown without accompanying tests. It was not a huge shame event, but good a motivator to the team to keep up the quality. SonarQube was great for long-term tracking of coverage stats.
Finally, I argued the coverage tool needed to have very liberal "ignore" rules that were agreed to by all members of the team (including managers). Anything that did not represent testable logic written by the team: generated code, configurations, tests themselves, should not count against their code coverage percentages.
You could ask the same thing about tests themselves. And I'm not talking about tests that don't exercise the code in a meaningful manner like your assertions on mocks(?!)
I'm saying you could make the same argument about useful tests themselves. What is testing that the tests are correct?
Uncle Bob would say the production code is testing the tests but only in the limited, one-time, acceptance case where the programmer who watches the test fail, implements code, and then watches it pass (in the ideal test-driven development scenario.)
But what we do all boils down to acceptance. A human user or stakeholder continues to accept the code as correct equals a job well done.
Of course, this is itself a flawed check because humans are flawed and miss things and they don't know what they want anyhow. The Agile Manifesto and Extreme Programming was all about organizing to make course corrections as cheap as possible to accommodate fickle humanity.
> Like, what are we even doing here?
What ARE we doing? A slapdash job on the whole. And, AI is just making slapdash more acceptable and accepted because it is so clever and the boards of directors are busy running this next latest craze into the dirt. "Baffle 'em with bullsh*t" works in every sector of life and lets people get away with all manner of sins.
I think what we SHOULD be doing is plying our craft. We should be using AI as a thinking tool, and not treat it like a replacement for ourselves and our thinking.
The overton window has shifted so much that we can call balls and strikes as we see them without creating too much reee'ing. As long as people stay civil, it's good.
Apple famously abandoned per-window menus per Fitt's law[1]. Wiki[2] says:
> Apple experiments in GUI design for the Lisa project initially used multiple menu bars anchored to the bottom of windows, but this was quickly dropped in favor of the current arrangement, as it proved slower to use (in accordance with Fitts's law). The idea of separate menus in each window or document was later implemented in Windows and is the default approach in most Linux desktop environments.
I recall hearing a quote that said Jobs called the menu the ultimate discoverability tool in the designer's arsenal, but I couldn't find the quote.
I am thankful for the menu junk drawer in Firefox. Better to give me everything I can discover in a menu rather than make a zillion fugly buttons and cluttering up the chrome. Although, anything that isn't frequently used by users should at least go under a few submenus to echo OP's criticisms. If Copy Clean Link is the "right" thing to do for users, then make "Copy Raw Link" a sub-menu item.
Hey what's with the jerky tone? Are we competing for dominance now? Was Steve Jobs a bad guy and so I am by mentioning him? He had good taste, and people aren't one-dimensional cartoon characters, you git.
> hundreds of items
Pedantry. The ellipsis items covers some categorized feature drill downs that don't get top billing, the sub menus others.
> This isn't the only alternative
Captain Obvious does it again ladies and gentlemen!
Many managers have to show engagement with their feature to be successful and would love to shove it in your face with a shiny button. See the copilot button getting added to every Microsoft Office product even if it's not integrated at all - shameful!
> It isn't very discoverable, there is no search
Thank goodness I can save face here, 'discoverable' is a binary quality: something either is or isn't discoverable and a browsable menu IS.
Plenty of vendors put a search on their Help menu. (It usually sucks, to be fair.) Jetbrains has an auto-completing action search that exposes practically every action the IDE can effect by their titles.
Wow, search CAN help, amazing insight! Why aren't you advising diplomats and statesmen?
Discoverability was why I decided to discuss menus in the first place and I was being a bit of a contrarian by expressing happiness for the kitchen sink aspect to the "right-click" context menu.
Not everyone will understand the dilemma that UX designers have about surfacing their features without causing clutter and distraction, and I was trying to start a conversation about that.
Maybe worthwhile to encourage a heavier reliance on right click menus going forward, then? Seems to make sense in a future VR world.
I have noticed that Mac Sequoia I'm running now has some memory as to which process last focused on each display and now is able to show a different menu per display, albeit grayed for displays where the user is not currently focused. It's a little janky, but kindof a graceful devolution of the original single menu vision.
Context menus are specifically for actions on the particular thing you click on (for example a file in a file listing, or an object in a layout program). It still makes sense to have a separate application menu bar. But personally I think menu bars are really more intuitive attached to the application window rather than at the top of the screen, potentially relatively far away from the window.
With today’s wide screens, a vertical menu bar at the side would perhaps make more sense than the usual one at the top, though, similar to vertical tabs.
I don’t see a future VR world other than for casual use, because keyboard and mouse/trackpad will remain the highest-bandwidth way to interact with a computer.
That's a good point about context sensitivity and the need for process-level controls needing a top level menu. I would say that part of the friction with window-level menus is moving targets. It's less cognitive effort to find and hit menu targets that are always in the same place on the screen.
Part of the discoverability of menus is learning what actions are modal (titles have the ellipsis) and learning what hotkeys and key chords do what in the app. There's nothing faster than hotkeys. Ideally, users train themselves to use hotkeys to get work done and forego the menu except to discover additional features.
> With today’s wide screens, a vertical menu bar at the side would perhaps make more sense than the usual one at the top, though, similar to vertical tabs.
That's what NeXTSTEP did for application menus, along with right-click context menus (which MacOS X did keep).
> With today’s wide screens, a vertical menu bar at the side would perhaps make more sense than the usual one at the top, though, similar to vertical tabs.
Yes, please. Bring back the NeXTSTEP menus for desktops! But on laptops, it's still pretty common for almost all windows to be full screen most of the time, so having the menu bar at the top of the screen is still the best choice for that environment.
That gap between what's best on a laptop and what's best on a desktop with large or multiple displays has been growing since desktop displays broke free of the 1080p but they were stuck in. But I don't think it's anywhere close to wide enough that Apple or Microsoft would be willing to implement different UI paradigms. It's hard enough getting them to understand that tablets and laptops need different UIs.
If you open yourself to be cranked up, you'll get cranked up constantly.
Pollution is real - a legit problem and a worthy cause, but the anthropogenic global warming thing was always just wealth extraction by elites. They cranked up at least three generations scaring them half to death and making them crazy and depressed and now, oh ... it was nothing, we need more power for AI data centers, you can go sod off now. No one can claim otherwise: the models' predictions never panned out and the data was always cooked for $$$. The trash we sort into the blue bin goes to the same landfill as the grey bin.
Almost all the latest crazes are like that. How fast did we go from Covid-to-Ukraine-to-destroying Tesla dealerships? Just don't get cranked up, it is all intended to stun you. Live your life. Focus. The people doing this to you need you to be unproductive and vulnerable.
I said "almost all" because the wars are real. The isolation and despair brought on during Covid lockdowns was real, oxes were gored, people were emotionally stunted and scarred. Covid itself likely came out of a lab, and it seemed to be designed to kill the elders.
Regarding the real harms that happened to real people and myself, I keep them separate as lists in my mind, I try to remember to hold scoundrels accountable if I am ever personally given that honor, and I try not to go to bed angry and to forgive people.
"Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold."
> “anthropogenic global warming thing was always just wealth extraction by elites. They cranked up at least three generations scaring them half to death and making them crazy and depressed and now, oh ... it was nothing, we need more power for AI data centers”
This kind of conspiracy-driven anti-science crankery is part of the problem.
The group of people pushing large AI data centers have essentially no overlap with the people who raising the alarm about climate change based on very strong scientific evidence.
> Covid itself likely came out of a lab, and it seemed to be designed to kill the elders.
More crankery.
Apparently some people deal with the concerns raised by OP by retreating into weird fantasies that give them an illusion of understanding or control. It’s a mild form of insanity.
I don't hate you. But I object to your unwillingness to understand science, and your willingness to jump to conclusions that aren't supported by evidence.
Wilful ignorance like that is exactly what leads to many of the kinds of issues OP is raising.
The points you raise are indeed wilful ignorance, easily rebutted.
I gave you a link which summarizes the subject well, with plenty of references. If you're genuinely interested in understanding the world, you would study that. But what you're doing instead is cherry-picking reasons to refuse to accept strong evidence. Al Gore, really? You're really scraping the bottom of the denial barrel.
Ironically, in your attempts to not be conned by grifters, you're falling for one of the biggest cons of all: the ongoing oil company attacks on anything that threatens the oil industry. If you're not getting paid by them, you're being suckered.
Aside from the reference I gave, you would also benefit from reading books like "Asking the Right Questions", by Neil Browne & Stuart Keeley; Carl Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World"; and "Thinking and Deciding" by Jonathan Baron. These will help you distinguish between rational thinking and rationalizations.
> So, spare me your shame game identity politics.
Nothing I've said even remotely approaches anything like that. I'm describing well-documented and well-supported facts, and pointing out that refusing to try to understand or accept those is problematic, and that by doing so along with millions of others, you're perpetuating major problems in the world. But your victimhood mentality fits right in with the conspiratorial mindset.
It never occurs to some people that systems they operate in and trust could be 1) total and 2) corrupted to some extent at every level.
Nothing I can ever say, no link nor reasoned oratory could ever change your mind because, as I said, I believe you are captured by the system. You are emotionally invested in it and you work for it for free.
To convince me, people have to work, I'm not cheap and I'm unforgiving after corruption is uncovered. Putdowns and shame have no power because power is everything, and I understand the games people play.
The money will drain away and chase the next incompatible bubble or grift like AGI. Climate alarmism will become too much work to grift off of and people on the sidelines will gradually stop worrying about it. It's a good thing.
The winner that deserved to win might turn into the complacent monopoly pf tomorrow. It might vow to Not Be Evil for a while, but the investors will demand that it does whatever it takes to grow.
Enshittification usually means you are right over time. It still kindof depends.
To be fair, I also dislike abstract platitudes that are overly optimistic as I think you might be.
"Diversity is our strength"?? I mean, I guess diversity of _opinion_ is desirable to a point so we get all the ideas on the table. But not at the sacrifice of unity and shared goals. Unity is our strength. Discord and wasteful politicking are our undoing.
Consumers are not voting with their wallets, they do not care. Surveillance for profit will be illegal. Time for the Internet Bill of Rights. Trust me, it's coming. tyfyattm
Good hit him with her car and he is law enforcement. She should have put her car in park and surrendered to the officers as they were instructing her to do. The agents and the Goods both didn't appear there in the street out of a vacuum, clearly she was there to obstruct. Seemed like Good was afraid and chose to flee consequences.
Pretti may have had an accidental discharge of his gun, which he took to a confrontation with law enforcement. Sad and foolish way to go out, seemed like a suicide by cop situation to me.
Everything I just wrote is opinion, just like everything you wrote. Who is right? Maybe neither of us, it's complicated/messy.
Considering only the timing of these events, I conclude this ice stuff is poorly concocted psyops meant to enrage people and distract from other news.
if government agents can kill people on their own authority, without following due process, when they aren't threatening the safety of anyone, without any investigation, then all the other freedoms you supposedly have are useless. I would hardly call that a distraction from real issues.
Get to work, ha. People are too fickle and their brains are too easily hacked with the latest craze to trust them to do the right thing, whatever that is in your opinion, especially en masse.
I just see right through each of these latest crazes. Power is everything, divide to conquer. I don't play along with the identity games that destroy people anymore.
Beyond that, there is no consensus on any of these gobbledygook movements - all these comments up and down these threads make the implicit assumption that we all agree.
I convinced them that if they wanted to treat uncovered lines of code as tech debt, they needed to add an epic stories to their backlog to write tests. And their artificially setting some high target coverage threshold will produce garbage because developers will write do-nothing tests in order to get their work done and not trip the alarms. I argued that failing the builds on code coverage would be unfair because the tech debt created by past developers would unfairly hinder random current-day devs getting their work done.
Instead, I recommended they pick their current coverage percentage (it was < 10% at the time) and set the threshold to that simply to prevent backsliding as new code was added. Then, as their backlogged, legit tests were implemented, ratchet up the coverage threshold to the new high water mark. This meant all new code would get tests written for them.
And, instead of failing builds, I recommended email blasts to the whole team to indicate there was some recent backsliding in the testing regime and the codebase had grown without accompanying tests. It was not a huge shame event, but good a motivator to the team to keep up the quality. SonarQube was great for long-term tracking of coverage stats.
Finally, I argued the coverage tool needed to have very liberal "ignore" rules that were agreed to by all members of the team (including managers). Anything that did not represent testable logic written by the team: generated code, configurations, tests themselves, should not count against their code coverage percentages.