> mostly at the same time

Mostly? If you can update A one week and B the next week with no breakage in between, that seems pretty independent.

This was also the case for the micro-service situation described in the article. From the FA:

> Over time, the versions of these shared libraries began to diverge across the different destination codebases.

I don't see the problem?

There's at least one employee per micro service so there should be zero problems preventing just bumping the version of the library.

This Segment team was 3 people and 140 services. Microservices are best at solving org coordination issues where teams step on each other. This is a case of a team stepping on itself.

From the author's comment up thread:

"when they learnt to run on the ball and how that influences their reward, they got hooked. I believe they enjoy not just the reward, they get a sense of how their actions influence the game and they like that. They would run on the ball so much at some point they wouldn't even bother drinking all the juice and it was just dripping on the setup."

Same for me. It has led to some awkward moments in public where it looks like I'm staring at someone from across the room, but I'm just thinking/visualizing and am only vaguely aware of what my eyes are looking at.

AFAIK only if you are booked into jail, and also for some licenses. For example, a beer and wine license for a restaurant requires fingerprints, at least in my state, not sure how it varies. Probably some types of firearm licenses as well. Not typical driver's licenses though.

What the... Is this some sort of joke I'm not getting?

"The participants who did ultimately enroll, agreed with the knowledge that the aircraft were stationary and on the ground."

It's gently reminding medical researchers not to forget about participation bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participation_bias).

Another favorite of mine along these lines is "Cigarette smoking: an underused tool in high-performance endurance training". (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3001541/) This one might actually be quite pertinent in this case, because the FDA's decision appears to rely heavily on exactly the kind of reasoning that this article satirizes.

It's a multilayered joke.

There's an old joke about the lack of randomized controlled trials for parachutes. The joke is deployed when people complain about the lack of formal studies for things whose benefit is obvious.

Then somebody went ahead and did it, just to be funny. But you can't actually do a randomized controlled trial on parachutes, so you get a third layer of joke, about studies that don't actually prove anything.

As a side note, I've seen it mentioned when discussing the common question of "why no parachutes on commercial flights?".

The question has relatively simple answers and it's sometimes used in risk management discussions to explain threat models.

If you put measures in place to prevent someone from accessing a computer, and they circumvent those measures, is that not a criminal offense in some jurisdictions?

"Many people have a fear of flying, or get claustrophobic or motion sick on planes, and windows give them a greater level of comfort in an otherwise stressful environment."

Sometimes after 20 of climbing, turning, and getting jostled by rough air, my inner ear will be screaming at me that we're falling. Being able to see clearly out the window definitely helps, so I choose it when possible. On the other hand you are farther from the central axis so you feel rolling motion a little more, but that's pretty minor.

I, for one, will remember the "m" at the end of your username and not associate you with the hate-filled, sociopathic screeds of the other poster.

Probably not much consolation, but, hey...good luck

Yeah, I also think you're mixing up pleasure and happiness.

>> never participated in good faith

> aren't in lockstep with liberal/progressive ideals

These aren't the same thing

I know, that's my point.

Increasingly (from my limited view), people with a progressive viewpoint seem to be making this claim ("account X never participated in good faith and therefore should be banned") without any real grounds for doing so.