avensec
e.g. If I am running a long-running UI-test scenario, I absolutely don't want test-5 to walk through 80% of the UI that was already exercised in tests 1-4. I am creating test coupling, but I'm saving cost/time by doing so.
But, you'll also hear why not to do this, because it creates test coupling / breaks atomic tests, which is generally seen as bad.
If that is a local integration test and those early steps run is millis? Then maybe we keep things uncoupled to allow the system to exercise the pathways without explicit expectations.
There was enough info in his repos to find his aliases and social media accounts. He is a preteen and simply doesn't yet have the foundational understanding needed to begin to grasp the problem or the social constructs involved.
I see the temporal disconnected strong here. The author is young-ish, and appears to be exploring ideas of many that have come before him. And, that he'll likely continue to explore on his journey. You can see his thoughts and see echos of long debated thoughts about consciousness, language, meaning, bottom-Up/top-down processing, not being our thoughts, etc..
Thanks to those who are leaving their knowledge, book references, quotes, and etc., to help myself and others who are somewhere along the continuum of understanding ourselves more thoroughly!
Given your code-base is mature enough, please don't have a single Skill/Steering/Persona/Ruleset (or whatever) for your "QA Engineer." This is just the same "my behavioral file can one-shot the entire system build" kind of thinking that will give you expensive, marginal results as the system grows.
If you want to have success in this space, get really fine-grained. Every single test scope needs its own behavioral files.
Have your core behavioral file define some simple specifics around Test Pyramid, Test Purposes, checks for tautological tests, etc. Then get _really_ specific;
<test-type>-architect (plan)
<test-type>-engineer (execute)
<test-type>-resolver (problem solver, maintenance, how to manage a failure, etc.)
e.g., playwright-architect, etc.
Then create additional ones for Unit tests, API tests, contract tests, or any other required test layer for the SUT.
Overengineered? Maybe given the size of your codebase. But for anything significant, you are codifying what humans and their skillsets do.
Specifically, I do a typical 3FP and own VTSAX, but I don't read bogleheads or anything. True set-it-and-forget-it, but I do want to read more if things are shifting.
I just want to raise my voice that, in my experience, yes, I had hair loss issues on creatine. Every time I respond to a comment on reddit, youtube, twitter, here, there is always a sea of "Nope, sorry" comments that I must be mistaken. My hair line disagrees. The extra rep isn't worth it.
100% correct on shedding after mino stoppage however.
I am now on Minoxidil and Finasteride, with no creatine, and no longer have shedding.
iTero scanners (owned by Align Technology) use parallel confocal imaging via red light lasers. Their newer models also use Multi-Direct Capture techniques.
Kinect used a Light Coding technique, an infrared projector and camera. It was developed by a company called PrimeSense, which was later purchased by Apple.
Time is a non-renewable resource You can't exit the journey Without leaving a legacy of early-career hustle And our professional landscapes are forever disrupted We're pivoting to a new normal The more you iterate, the less you feel the friction Have a growth mindset Buy into my vision Trust the process, trust the grind That we can drive change That your efforts aren't a sunk cost We're not just employees, we're thought leaders Q4 Q4 Q4, high visibility Q4 Q4 ... Wow, lol
It appears they've been associated with a lot of hype/fear copy-paste companies that offer highly inflated monthly access to their trades and research. Note that they were named "Game of Trades" before rebranding.
In attachment terms, loneliness can be a signal that we haven't yet internalized a stable sense of safety and worth. I wasn't missing others, I was missing an internal relationship with myself.
I was anxious even with others, because safety, worth, and regulation were outsourced to my relationships. I needed others to constantly help me feel those things. That was me externalizing my self worth.
I was avoidant with myself, because the connection with myself felt unsafe or unfamiliar. I leaned on things, status, money, in order to avoid looking deep within my heart. In the end, I had to do a lot of internal work. I had to learn that I matter even when no one is affirming me. Leaning on those <things> was self-abandonment in disguise. I would think, "If only I just had a little more knowledge I could solve this." We generally don't solve heart problems with our head.
Loneliness eased when I stopped trying to get my sense of self from the external world. I had to become someone that I could be with. Someone I didn't need to escape from.
How I accomplished it was not a short journey, but in summary it looked like:
1) Knowing my past, tolerating the discomfort, and sitting in it without judgement. I did this with a therapist.
2) Having a safe individual who always nurtured me, and taught me how to be OK with my big feelings. This was with an emotional intelligence coach. I felt the loneliness ease greatly once I could affirm myself.
3) Now that I had the knowledge to know my heart and my worth, I could then create connections outside of myself. I see this like, having the book knowledge, but now being able to learn how true it was experientially. This led to meeting my best friend and partner in this life. Having someone close to co-regulate, when I need support, and providing that in return, has been the final piece of the puzzle.
I firmly believe that most people need someone to co-regulate with. We can't white-knuckle our way to knowing ourselves better, but boy did I try!
Thanks again, and best of luck on your journey if you are on it :).
While it is true that loneliness can arise from a lack of community, people, and related factors, for some people, the problem stems from not knowing how to be alone. At its core, the question becomes, "Am I externalizing my world, or internalizing my world?" When you externalize your world, you require something external. We are social creatures, and I do believe we need other people. I'm only suggesting that sometimes people need to look internally first.
Personal anecdote: No amount of community would have helped me feel like I wasn't alone, because I needed the world around me to provide some sense of my self-worth. It felt counterintuitive, but for me, I had to learn to be alone. Only then could I feel like I wasn't alone. It all came down to attachment theory and self-worth.
Those ends would say that suffering is a product of our own making. It is a choice. Bad things can happen to you, but your perspective on the situation creates the suffering (resistance, guilt, personalization, inability to see it as a change agent, etc.).
Related: "Delusions by design? How everyday AIs might be fuelling psychosis (and what can be done about it)" ( https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/cmy7n_v5 )
What most people describe as Loneliness is a specific form of loneliness that represents the degree of disconnection they feel from others. When you don't feel seen and heard in a friendship, you are more likely to feel alone. More people "proving" they don't want to know you or see you, reinforces the idea.
Another way I can tell that Bambu changed everything is through second-hand market prices. Before Bambu, I could sell most 3D printers for not much less than I purchased them or more, depending on the mods. I just struggled to sell a Voron 2.4 300 for $800 (near $1800 build price after extras). There is still a market for enthusiast printers, but the leap in user-friendliness is known. What they provided for the cost was a vast market leap.
When someone says they are experiencing burnout, my first question is, what type of burnout is it? Have they broken down the problem yet?
Is it Overload? Their pace of work could be more sustainable, work/live commitments are imbalanced, or there is a mismatch in where they spend time vs. where they wish they were spending time?
Is it Under Challenged? Do they not feel stimulated by the work, are their abilities not being developed, or are they wasted in their current role? Are they more interested in what comes next?
Is it Neglect? They don't feel recognized for their efforts, they don't have a good mentor or sponsor, they give up on themselves when faced with challenges, or they abuse themselves through unhealthy habits (neglect can be self-neglect)?
I'd suggest that the balance between Unit Test(s) and Integration Test(s) is a trade-off and depends on the architecture/shape of the System Under Test.
Example: I agree with your assertion that I can get "90%+ coverage" of Units at an integration test layer. However, the underlying system would suggest if I would guide my teams to follow this pattern. In my current stack, the number of faulty service boundaries means that, while an integration test will provide good coverage, the overhead of debugging the root cause of an integration failure creates a significant burden. So, I recommend more unit testing, as the failing behaviors can be identified directly.
And, if I were working at a company with better underlying architecture and service boundaries, I'd be pointing them toward a higher rate of integration testing.
So, re: Kent Dodds "we write tests for confidence and understanding." What layer we write tests at for confidence and understanding really depends on the underlying architectures.
There is also a 3D-printed weight disk people use at https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:4838168 .
So, a question in balancing the regret against knowing what you know now. This situation sparked a change in you to recognize how to handle these situations better. Would you make the same mistake again in order to learn the lesson?
What strategies do people employ here?
The incessant obsolescence postulate.