I experienced this when working at a giant company where all the teams were required to report their "code coverage" metrics to middle management.
We had the flaky test problem too, but I think another angle of is being shackled to test tech-debt. The "coverage goals" in practice encouraged writing a lot of low quality tests with questionable and complex fixtures (using regular expressions to yoink C++ functions/variables out of their modules and place them into test fixtures).
Fiddling with tests slowed down a lot of things, but there was a general agreement that the whole projected needed to be re-architected (it was split up over a zillion different little "libraries" that pretended to be independent, but were actually highly interdependent) and while I was there I always felt like we needed to cut the Gordian knot and accept that it might decrease the sacred code coverage.
Not sure if I was right or what ever happened with that project but it sure was a learning experience.
> This is less historical record than medieval propaganda piece
I think you could make a good case that the title is a little sensationalistic, but you could pick at US civics class in exactly the same way (and not just in recent history). The branches of government we learn about fail to include (or at least emphasize) the fundamental role of regulatory capture, lobbyists, and opaque/undemocratic three-letter agencies in real-world governance. Not to mention the fact that even the founding of the country was based on high ideals that were highly caveat-ed ("all men are created equal" unless those men are property).
Regardless of the extent to which ideals are lived out in practice, to many people it's notable that those ideals are there at all. In my experience as a US citizens, most people educated here seem shocked to learn that there can be any ideals behind monarchy besides divine right of kings/"I am the state" [1].
Separation of powers as it’s described in civics class also doesn’t even pass the sniff test. As soon as you hear the idea your first question should be “why wouldn’t the 3 branches collude to the detriment of the public?”
> The funny part about the young author example, how older authors are not exciting to discover? Yeah the richest and most successful author of all time was discovered when she was 32. J.R.R. Tolkien published The Hobbit at age 45. Little House on the Prairie? Published when Laura Ingalls Wilder was 65.
Agreed. I felt like this article was grasping for something good, but remark that "45-year-olds aren’t discovered, they’re uncovered, like toxic waste, or a political scandal" is ass-backwards.
Tolkien and Wilder and both great examples of writers who produced landmark works basically as a byproduct of leading full and interesting lives -- not by orbiting the publishing world and champing at the bit to churn out some flashy yet forgettable novel at a record young age. When this happens, the only embarrassment is for the establishment "publishing world" which pretends to represent "literary greatness," not for the author who is "uncovered." Personally, I suspect that "uncovered" authors will endure at a higher rate than the "discovered" ones.
Also I have to add that I rolled my eyes at the "evidence" of Emily Dickenson killed herself. So did Hemmingway, who was first published at 26. What's your point?
Despite all this, the core insight that "suddenly you’re old, and find yourself in a permanent state of imperfection, which you must reckon with" I believe is very true. Even those who succeed in one area of life (being published) have to grapple with it. What options did they leave on the table in order to have that success? What options have been lost due to fame and success (only a fool would believe there are none)?
Becoming a particular (and necessarily, imperfect) person instead of a potential person is a kind of horrifying first taste of death. I think that the healthy way to deal with it is to make peace with the fact that our ability to change ourselves is limited and our ability to change the past is even less. The serenity prayer and AA-adjacent ideas do this.
As a last note, I thought the movie "The Weatherman" did a really good job exploring this.
Can't believe I never noticed this. I've used GLM a bunch before.
It's funny, and it's nice, but it's not quite the ironclad level of "NO MILITARIES" as I'd like. Plus, enforceability becomes a question with classified military stuff, not even going into the actual legal discovery process. A common license would suffice for me, as I'm not going to modify the GPL as they did.
Good review: I hadn't heard the Christian Science take on The Secret Garden before and am surprised the wikipedia article doesn't mention it, but it's pretty obvious now. The title imagery really makes me think of:
I think this is actually hitting much closer to the intention of Levitical law than people realize. Data and debt are very strongly connected, and I think probably always have been.
> Compared to resistive heat, sure, but a heat pump powered by fossil fuels isn't much better than a gas furnace. My point is that we need to stop burning fossil fuels for electricity so that heat pumps make sense.
Technically, heat pumps can absolutely achieve greater than 100% efficiency (considering their input electricity as a starting point).
It's also true though that there are also lot of caveats about their effectiveness based on temperature differential, maximum output compared to a furnace, efficiency with which the upstream electricity is generated, etc.
The insult-people-for-being-car-skeptics trope is starting to show its age [1].
It's true that old fogey skeptics who have vested interest in the old ways are disposed towards motivated reasoning, but they're also the ones most able call out the motivated reasoning by the few who make disproportionate profit most from pushing new technologies.
> they're also the ones most able call out the motivated reasoning
I strenuously disagree. The people with most to lose have the least objectivity and the greatest tunnel vision. There’s no silver lining to such bias. Being able to shoe a horse doesn’t give you special insight into civil engineering and sociological trade-offs.
> was ever a thing. i still don't.
I experienced this when working at a giant company where all the teams were required to report their "code coverage" metrics to middle management.
We had the flaky test problem too, but I think another angle of is being shackled to test tech-debt. The "coverage goals" in practice encouraged writing a lot of low quality tests with questionable and complex fixtures (using regular expressions to yoink C++ functions/variables out of their modules and place them into test fixtures).
Fiddling with tests slowed down a lot of things, but there was a general agreement that the whole projected needed to be re-architected (it was split up over a zillion different little "libraries" that pretended to be independent, but were actually highly interdependent) and while I was there I always felt like we needed to cut the Gordian knot and accept that it might decrease the sacred code coverage.
Not sure if I was right or what ever happened with that project but it sure was a learning experience.