That's about what I would expect from an organization named Government Accountability Office: hold the government accountable to its written guidelines (or at least report on how well it's doing at meeting them).
One reason there's no Perforce support for Gerrit/Rietveld is that Google doesn't use those tools for changes to code that's stored in Piper. Instead, they use Critique:
I haven't found anything external that's as good, and am astounded that GitHub's incredibly lackluster PR review tooling is acceptable to most people. If anyone is aware of something in Critique's league, I'd love to hear about it!
Edit: I tried to do a reasonably thorough survey a couple of years ago when I left Google and https://codeapprove.com/ was the closest I found, but there were still many gaps.
A lot of academic reputation, as well as performance evaluation (for example toward tenure) is based on being published in "prestigious" journals. If you could fix that problem, I suspect the parasitic journals would evaporate overnight.
What's the security story? I would love to adopt cloud dev environments that are constrained enough that I can safely run agents in YOLO mode, but not so constrained that they are useless. I would want it to be safe enough to run 80 to 90% of typical development work without supervision, and then have an escape hatch that allows doing other things with human supervision.
edit: and if anyone knows of an existing service that has these properties, I'd love to know about it.
It helps a bit more than you imply, though: if you can launch from a higher altitude, you have less atmosphere to plow through. That lets you use more of your propellant to speed up instead of to push air out of the way.
The first version was part of Code Search proper, and wasn't super useful for much more than just typo fixes, since it was essentially just a textarea edit box. That was eventually deprecated and replaced with a button that did the same thing, but opened in Cider instead.
I'm curious: have you done a (single or double) blind test where you prepare dishes (selected at random) with or without MSG/aspartame/yeast extract and record the effects?
To be clear: not saying you should, just wondering how you came the conclusion that those ingredients are the trigger.
A recent Atlantic article [1] by someone involved in the Mississippi reforms gives a good outline of what they did/are doing. It includes science-based reading curriculum and holding kids back (as you mentioned). It also includes other forms of accountability, including parental notification and empowering the state to force recalcitrant districts to improve. One notable quote:
"The law allowed the state to abolish these districts’ local school board and remove the local superintendent in favor of a state appointee who would report directly to the state board of education. A later amendment provided that removed local-school-board members would be barred from serving in that capacity again."
Politically unpopular in some cases (which local jurisdiction wants the state coming in and replacing your local school board?), but seems to be pretty effective.
Are you sure it was fake scarcity for Gmail? IIRC they did it because they were worried about systems falling over if it grew too fast, and discovered the marketing benefits as a side effect.
Yes, or pretty close to it. What we don't know how to do (AFAIK) is do it at a cost that would be acceptable for most software. So yes, it mostly gets done for (components of) planes, spacecraft, medical devices, etc.
Totally agreed that most software is a morass of bugs. But giving examples of buggy software doesn't provide any information about whether we know how to make non-buggy software. It only provides information about whether we know how to make buggy software—spoiler alert: we do :)