It's not clear to me why they booed him. you think for only asserting predictions that benefit him? Not because they agree on those predictions and don't want that future, blame him for this role in it?
I really thought that this was unintentional. It's hard to believe that you think this is fine to do because one can opt out. Take it for whatever it's worth, this is not OK. It is really bad. You want people's data to help you make your product better? Make it opt in and ask for their help.
I like the separation of planning and execution. I think the right set of artifacts to pass on to the execution will evolve but may be it's different for different types of work.
From the project: "The plugin enqueues the input and a daemon picks it up - planning, building, reviewing, and validating autonomously."
The part that is not clear to me (and causes most problems for me) is the "validating". It makes a mistake, or decides mocking an interface is fine, etc. declares success and moves on to the next. The bigger the project the more small mistakes compound. It sounds like the agent is doing the validation. What's the approach here for validation?
In Great Automatic Grammatizator by Roald Dahl was one of the
stories that stayed with me through the years. In the story, there is a machine that can write stories, replacing authors but they were at least paying real authors to use their names.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Automatic_Grammatiza...
@cebert Have you looked at us serverless specific solutions like Thundra (my company), Serverless.com, etc.? I think the cost for use case may be order of magnitude lower since the pricing is only based on number of invocations.
What if it was easy to see why a test is flaky, compare failed/successful test runs like a code diff? Would that be useful?
This is what we're building at Thundra (foresight product), instrument the tests as well as backend services to enable devs to quickly diagnose failing/flaky tests. Would appreciate any feedback you may have, here or privately.
This happened to me as well. I wanted to share how we dealt with it was it was different from most comments here and may be useful to you. We paid. My company was sued along with few multi-billion dollar companies. I only found out because one of their lawyers called me as they were planning to fight back and wanted to check whether I wanted to join forces.
I found a good patent attorney and explained the situation. After learning that we were a small company with less that $500K revenue that year, bootstrapped and only had couple hundred thousand dollars in the bank, he suggested that I talked to the patent trolls lawyers by myself without a lawyer first. His rational was that they were not really after us as we were small, and once they learned that, they would either drop it or ask for a small amount to settle.
I followed his advice and had a call with them and it went exactly as he predicted. Upon learning that our US revenue was only few hundred thousand dollars, they asked $30K to settle and sent me an agreement. He reviewed the agreement for us, and recommended that we settle. We did. It was a ridiculous patent yet all of the companies that were sued settled as well. The experience was traumatic and was one the main reasons I decided to raise money from investors later. I slept better knowing that we had the funds to fight lawsuits if need be. Patent lawyer was happy to take the case if we needed to, but warned us about how expensive it would be.
Given that you're a single person company, you're likely small fish for patent troll. The best option for you may be to let them know that and see what they do. Best of luck!
Good point. There are also some software solutions (picus security, etc.) that tests your validates whether your environment is exposed due to specific CVEs. It's a good way to prioritize which vulnerabilities that you should tackle first.