When I read this type of stories I cannot help but think that the world would be better off if we banned that type of predator-like behavior, those super aggressive strategies that aim at getting the concurrence out of business by lowering the price more and more until you get a monopoly.
No-one can deny that what he did was a huge innovation, the fact that it is still being used 60 years later is a testament of that, but how much innovation was killed in the egg when competitors were forced out of the market?
Wow, that was a very measured response to my comment.
From what you wrote it looks obvious to me that you completely missed the point I was trying to make, but I share the responsibility for that at least as much as you do, it is not easy to get points across through HN comments, especially when you have no clue who you are talking to (+ I am not an english native speaker in case that was not obvious yet).
I could try to re-explain things better, but you have shown that you are not in a state to take in anything that I say anymore, so I hope you will eventually find a friend who can explain it to you better than I did (and that you will refrain to insult them just because you feel attacked).
You say that you don't brush it off at all, but just before you said "But IME, those folks are few and far between.". Your experience does not really matter here if you are not a woman that experiences that type of harassment.
What the person you were replying to was trying to tell you is not that the problem are men who start the conversation with "hey pretty girl, can you sit on my face?", but rather people who start with a polite conversation, and if they feel they are met with a warm reaction think it opens the door to more.
It might be only a small percentage of guys who follow up with inappropriate actions, but when as a woman you get 20+ men a day starting to make small talk with you, you end up with a high probability of having at least some of them being weirdos.
On the other hand if the woman answers coldly to the small talk tentative, some people may take it in a bad way. The line you have to walk to not appear too warm to weirdos and not too cold to easily offended people is very thin.
If you can't understand that under these circumstances some women become anxious at the idea of men starting small talk with them, well that's too bad.
As for what you can do, maybe start with asking women you know how they feel about it. Maybe they are all fine with it. It is also very dependent of where you live. If you live in a dense city women get harassed way more often than in a suburb area, it's kind of a number problem.
This exchange is a very good illustration of what happened with the #metoo movement: a woman explains the toll that street harassment has on their life, and a man that has never experienced that brushes it off with a #notallmen.
While I agree that having small talk with strangers once in a while could be very healthy, I also try to remember that a woman has to unwillingly interact tens of times a day with male strangers just by walking in the street, sometimes with very scary outcomes, and being like "yeah but I am different" is not an appropriate response.
This rarely happens if the parliament is elected right after the president is. Electing members of the parliament becomes: "do I want the president to be able to rule the country, or do I want nothing to happen in the next 5 years?".
The clearest example of that was in 2017, when Macron was elected, and people voted in over 300 people that had never been elected before, often were completely unknown to the public, the only thing they did was declaring : "I will vote for whatever the president asks me to vote for" (not an actual quote, but in order to get support from Macron they had to sign a paper saying they would vote "yes" for every proposition emanating from their group, and "no" to every proposition from the opposition)
> > the sole real seat of power is the office of the presidency
> is plainly wrong. The president still can lose their majority in parliament, they still can have an hostile prime minister, and they still don’t control the judges. There are many examples of the 3 powers slipping away from the president at various times after De Gaulle. A minority president is also becoming more and more likely as the candidates struggle and the parties keep shooting themselves in their respective feet. Not a great start.
Since 2002 you are wrong. The reason being that the president is elected every 5 years, and the parliament is also elected every 5 years, only a few months after the presidential election. This means there is no such thing as "losing their majority in parliament". If people elected a president, 2 months later they will vote for the parliament the president wants as there is no time for the president to f*ck up in the meantime and make people change their minds.
When the presidency was 7 years then the president could indeed lose their majority in the parliament.
> * sometimes, a candidate that would win against all others has a too low score at the first turn to pass to the 2nd turn (this is what happens in 2007 where all polls said that François Bayrou (who was center/moderate and more consensual) would have won both against Nicolas Sarkozy and against Ségolène Royal, but couldn't get enough votes to pass the 1st turn)
I am surprised you chose this example when an even clearer example was the Jospin/Chirac/LePen situation during the previous election
I loved the first paragraphs but then they lost me with their list of examples.
Those are not examples of asking stupid questions. Those are examples of asking good questions in a stupid way, almost like he is trying to look stupid, for no good reason. Why don't you give your interlocutor some context so they can help you better? Is your goal to instead make them look stupid? I truly don't understand.
I know which company you are talking about :). I agree that abuse of mocks is bad for tests 100%. But when I clicked the link I was hoping to read an article giving a nuanced description of mocks, with some analysis on when to use and when to avoid mocks. Instead the article is just an opinion piece that just says "Stop using mocks" as if that was actually an option.
When I am developing a feature, I want to know very fast whether or not my code's logic is correct. It is not rare during the development cycle to run the same test dozens of times because I made a silly mistake (or a few), and obviously if the test takes 30 minutes to complete it completely wastes my day of work.
Having a set of very fast running tests is absolutely necessary in my opinion.
Once I have validated that the piece of code I wrote is doing what I intended, then I want to run other tests that do not use mocks/fakes, e2e tests that can possibly take a whole day to complete and will allow me to see if the whole system still works fine with my new feature plugged in. But this comes AFTER fast unit tests, and definitely cannot REPLACE those.
The author seems to believe people either mock everything or don't mock anything. Obviously using mocks for all your tests is a very bad idea, but that's not how things are done generally.
Unit tests allow you to validate a unit's behavior very quickly. If your unit test takes more than 1 second to run it is probably a bad unit test (some would argue 1/100 second max so your whole unit test suite can complete in a few seconds). In unit tests you use mocks not only to keep the test hermetic, but also to keep the execution time as low as possible.
Then you should have integration & e2e tests where you want to mock as little as possible, because you want a behavior as close as production as possible. For those you care less about how long they take. That's because you usually don't run those tests at the same stage as unit tests (development vs release qualification).
The author does not make the distinction between different types of testing, the resulting article is of pretty poor quality imho.
When I read the title I thought it was going to be an article praising Google, but the author seems to actually think less clicks is bad?
I remember back in the early 2000s when I had to click through 1st to 10th result trying to find what I was looking for, sometimes even having to go to 2nd page of results.
Now I use search for everything : name of a built-in function, quick calculation, checking the spelling or wording of a sentence, short biography of someone... For none of that I will need to click on the result because the answer is given to me without needing to click anything.
No-one can deny that what he did was a huge innovation, the fact that it is still being used 60 years later is a testament of that, but how much innovation was killed in the egg when competitors were forced out of the market?