sh1989
But it's somewhat cross-purposes talking.
When people typically talk about automating the testing, they're talking about taking rote-based manual checks and automating them. Absolutely fine, no complaints from me.
But that's not automating "the" testing. It might be automated their testing, and those two things are different.
You can easily tell by whether they're doing it to get rid of the testers (cost-saving), or freeing up manual testers to do what they're good at: context-driven exploration of the problem space.
Because seriously, you're asking why a clear demonstration of how someone doesn't understand/is ignorant of power dynamics isn't a sign that person shouldn't be anywhere near positions of power and influence?
And maybe the explaining that needs to be done is yourself.
Just because they botched the implementation doesn't lessen the intent.
But they did have some kind of force. Enough to storm the capitol. With a noose, zip ties and cries to hang people in the line of succession.
While the President agitated them and then watched on monitors.
This clear and present danger was obvious, and places the imperative on supporting services to question whether they want to aid and abet sedition.
But sure, ignore all the stuff that contradicts your argument to minimise the impact of an assault on democratic institutions.
There's a line where continued operation becomes aiding and abetting, and it's also clear the content of that site represented a clear and present danger in the short term.
This isn't a theoretical discussion. This is a direct consequence of an attempted coup.
https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/sweden?countr...
In my opinion the regulation and reporting of political campaigning and advertisments is absolutely necessary. The ground has shifted below the regulators so much and it's perfectly reasonable to keep regulation up to date.
A relevant operator includes telecommunications services, defined in s193(11) as "any service that consists in the provision of access to, and of facilities for making use of, any telecommunication system (whether or not one provided by the person providing the service)"
This has been slightly changed, now that the IP bill is no longer a draft: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2015-20...
The above draft is now re-written as:
s217(4)(c): "obligations relating to the removal by a relevant operator of electronic protection applied by or on behalf of that operator to any communications or data".
There's an appeals process, but the gist is that they're not outright banning backdoors. But if they come knocking, you better find a way to remove any protection that's there. Which is rather chilling.
That said, the quality of the Android documentation has vastly improved since then. The training guides are excellent and the design section is good (although I much prefer the more practical Android Design in Action Youtube series).