I used to do this at the beginning of a game as a kid, because the earthquakes were pretty harmless without buildings to knock down. You'd just load up on cash, then start building!
Not the poster you replied to, but I've been thinking of it lately in a different way. Functional tests show that a system works, but if a functional test fails, the unit test might show where/why.
Yes, you'll usually get a stack trace when a test fails, but you might still spend a lot of time tracing exactly where the logical problem actually was. If you have unit tests as well, you can see that unit X failed, which is part of function A. Therefore you can fix the problem quicker, at least for some set of cases.
It could be that this sort of thinking contributes to the massive number of JS frameworks out there. You think React is bloated, so you make a "React in 70 lines" ... realize there's some things you missed... fast forward to two years later and you've got another framework.
We used to do a "feely score" of 1-5. It sort of worked to gauge how the team felt (positive or negatively), but it eventually devolved into everyone arguing over whether 3 or 4 was the baseline for an unremarkable day.
I live in Albuquerque, and this sort of thing varies greatly around here. There are certainly places that are $35-50 for a hair cut and require appointments, but there are also barber shops and chains where you can walk in and get a haircut right away for $10-15.
Back when I worked there (mid-late 90's) the chick-n-strips were actually marinated in the same stuff as the Chargrilled chicken sandwich. Both items are no longer on the menu, and were vastly superior to their offerings today, IMHO.
I remember implementing this for a class years ago, and then the professor suggested doing the inverse to try to expand the image width. The idea was you would duplicate the lowest energy seam... but all that did was create a lot of repeats of the same seam.
I never did finish that weird idea, but I probably needed to try something like increasing the energy of the chosen seam (and its duplicate)... I may try that again, just because I'm curious what would happen.
One supermarket I went to tried that... but the user experience is so awful that no one wants to do it, so the scanners just sit at the entrance, lonely and unused.
That's kind of the key, right? If you're buying one or two items, the self-checkout is great! If you're buying a week or two worth of supplies, it's terrible.
Here in the US, at least at the stores I shop at, each item requires that you scan it, wait for the machine to tell you to place the item in the bagging area, wait for it to register the weight, then you're allowed to move to the next item. If you accidentally wait too long, and the attendant just clears the wait state (which they do all to frequently just to get things to move along), then it won't let you put the item in the area, and instead you have to call the attendant over to clear the "unexpected item" state, which just makes things take so much longer.
Then there's the times where some older person tries it out, gets really confused, and the attendant is spending all of their time with them, and everyone else gets held up by the quirks of the system.
I'm not debating that he said that, I'm just suggesting that it was a marketing ploy, either to buy the teams some time to iron out the details with the app store, or some clever product strategy to release the app store later (which was hugely popular when it did come out)
Did you mean to say "just under $1000/month"? It seems kind of strange to claim that you make under an amount, because technically $0/month is under $1000, and "actively losing money" also counts. Just curious.