Makes sense only if you assume building software is like building a house. Imagine getting an author to tell you when the novel they are writing will be finished?
Or this: imagine seeking an estimate on when a house will be built, trimmed, painted, furnished, decorated, and filled with every item needed practically and for comfort by the homeowner.
It’s a living process that requires continuous reassessment of priorities and scope, and in fact never finishes when you consider the life of the home.
So you think it’s reasonable to have no idea what it will cost, or when it will be done, when building software? You think it’s possible to run a successful business that way?
> So you think it’s reasonable to have no idea what it will cost, or when it will be done, when building software? You think it’s possible to run a successful business that way?
It absolutely is; look at some of the biggest and most successful software companies in the world. No-one has any idea what facebook will cost or when it will be done (Zuckerberg has said that he was off by at least 5 orders of magnitude IIRC). No-one has any idea what google will cost or when it will be done. No-one has any idea what amazon will cost or when it will be done. No-one has any idea what netflix will cost or when it will be done.
Google and Facebook are companies. They aren’t features. I know a lot of people at both companies, and they absolutely gave dates and estimation for many things.
On a serious note, it feels worse in every case that the end of your life is in the hand of an external actor.
Best case scenario you can do what you want and deal with whatever urge you have at your pace. Worst case scenario you don't have agency, and just stay stuck suffering instead of dying. Personally I'd take the chance.
My response, to leave them there was based on 1) not taking lives as a result of my decision, and 2) if they're alive, they might eventually find a way to stop the trolley and get off. My choice gives them that chance, in my opinion.
Would it change if you were stuck on the trolley with the type of people that seem to occupy my city's transit now that fare enforcement no longer happens and no one is asked to leave the trolley at the end of the line?
> stuck on the trolley quite literally for eternity
What "literally" means in this case? Am I completely certain that I'll be stuck on the trolley for eternity? I would think that I'm having a psychotic break and delay my decision.
Literally, as in, if a passenger finds a way of getting out of the trolley somehow, they will be put back in so the thought experiment can continue working as intended.
Absurd amendment to an absurd trolley problem.
If it were truly the one single opportunity I will ever have to choose to stop existing, it's a tougher choice for sure.
But on the other hand, I might be so curious about what in the heck happened in the world outside - the world that led to this universe where it will be impossible for me to die for eternity, and somehow I know this with absolute 100% certainty - that I still opt out.
Well, perhaps it is not possible to die in this universe, and there are several takes on this idea, see e.g. quantum suicide on wikipedia, or perhaps time starts looping (e.g. you reincarnate as yourself), or perhaps you even reincarnate as somebody else (in the future or in the past). Remember: we know very little about what is time and consciousness.
The "you have solved philosophy" message at the end of the game is very far from the truth.
That wasn't my intention, although I imagine they do play a role.
The human eye (specifically the ciliary muscles) are most at "rest" when staring at objects in the distance.
The human eye doesn't seem to be as well-suited for staring at distance less than ~20 feet for long periods of time.
I imagine learning how to read and write in general, the shift from an agrarian society to cognitive labor, and the invention of glasses all were just as important factors.
just guesses, because they are so infrequently worn these days, is that it somehow prevents eyeball deformation due to its rigidity and so the axial elongation does not occur.
I'm a little sceptical about that theory, but my own rx did not go increase much when I wore RGPs. After that I did have some progression, but also a million other things changed, so who knows.
RGPs however, are quite distinct in that they give absolutely perfect vision. better than soft contacts by a mile. Maybe some refractive thing as well, optometrist told me numerous times under-correction would lead to further progression.
Ortho-K is popular in Asia for prevention, those are rigid lenses worn at night. Deforms cornea a little, so it's like a reversible lasik thing. So, in this case, not only its rigid lenses, they also have weird geometry. Many report significant success.
People whould wear reading glasses even before myopia. And when they do get myopia, they should NOT wear prescribed glass while reading/working, but a reading glasses that factor in their myopia.
I dont understand why people especially shortsighted people still use the same glasses for everything. Why don't octometrists know better?
People wear the same glasses for everything because it is hard remembering where your glasses are, carrying them around, and swapping back and forth every couple seconds.
You only look at things relatively close to you from 9 to 5? You don't have computers or TVs at home? A smartphone? Cooking instructions?
It's not a hyperbole, glasses are massively inconvenient to those of us handicapped without, and having to hot-swap then depending on subject is massively more inconvenient.
It's hyperbole because you consistently ignore the fact that eyes can change focus for the short term, that's like the one thing they do. It's straining your eyes for long periods, at the same focal point, such as while working, that we need to help with.
PS: you are right, maybe instead of only at the desk, just wear a "near sight" pair all the time, when you're indoor, and a far sight pair when you are out. Point is you dont have to hot swap.
This significantly underestimates the eye strain from using the wrong glasses or no glasses. "Long periods" is minutes in my case.
And yes, most will just use short-range glasses all day as their only pair, which is exactly the thing you insisted that you did not understand ("I dont understand why people especially shortsighted people still use the same glasses for everything. Why don't octometrists know better?").
Sometimes it might make sense to just ask those with the handicap rather than make baseless assumptions about their situation as an "outsider".
Well I have -2 diopters glasses for myopia, started wearing them around the age of 30 I think (I am now 44). I never use them when reading, effectively they bother me. But have to use them when using the computer monitor, otherwise it's either blurry or have to get too close for comfort. It's a continuous "put the glasses" when looking at the screen, take the glasses when scribbling a paper or reading a book / phone. Got used to it.
Also don't use them while walking, they bother me. I feel like my eyes dry out or something, very unpleasant. It's a bit blurry but don't really notice it, also -2 is not really advanced myopia. I can't read car plates from the distance but I sure see the car coming and know not to bump into people.
I'm not terribly short sighted but also can't see clearly further than about 20cm. I have to use them for everything. I think far sighted people tend to have a more usable range of functioning vision left.
Why do I need glasses for reading if I'm nearsighted? Unless you mean "ignores" nearsightedness and corrects astigmatism only? (Those are what I use for computer use, when I bother to wear them.)
I don't mean literal reading glasses, just apply the same principle: glasses designated to a task, which for most people would be using computer. All prescription glasses are for your "resting" vision to be on far objects. You'd want the resting vision to be on the computer.
If you are myopic, you are not supposed to wear glasses for reading, but most people I know do this, which just worsens it. You are supposed to be without them for as long as you can.
Yes that is if you are not advanced. One you are no longer able to read without glasses you should have a differrent prescription just for computer/reading
I've worked on a service that handled credentials where we added tests like this to try to catch if a log statement gets added containing the username/password. We used a few end to end tests rather than attempting to include something like this is the unit tests for every function.
Our tests would set up the app's full context, get a hook into the logging framework to watch for log statements, then make requests to the service containing a set of dummy credentials, like { username: "foo", password: "bar" }. If a log statement containing "foo" or "bar" was detected the test failed.
It's not going to catch every type of issue, but at least some potential footguns can be preventing this way.
That gives me an idea. Create a decorator or otherwise wrap the logging function as you build the apps test context, and feed it a list of sensitive strings you want to detect. Then each time as logger is called have it assert that all those strings are not within the log message.
This way it would blow up on the test that is leaking the credential so you could track it right down and it would transparently apply to all current and future unit tests without any more effort.
Or this: imagine seeking an estimate on when a house will be built, trimmed, painted, furnished, decorated, and filled with every item needed practically and for comfort by the homeowner.
It’s a living process that requires continuous reassessment of priorities and scope, and in fact never finishes when you consider the life of the home.