I think TDD is best in the situations I enumerated because writing tests for single behaviors of single functions is easy, fast, forces you to discover errors that cause your tests to trivially test, and forces you to discover bugs in your understanding of the problem.
Continuous "Deployment", I guess. The term may have existed before I realize, but it certainly wasn't in popular use before this:
The most important thing you can do for your career is:
* Accept a job somewhere
* Get promoted (doesn't matter how)
* let yourself get hired away from your current company
Getting hired away from your current company is the only way to get a fair raise based on increased experience. Companies never give substantial raises to current employees.
Apple, Google, and Amazon will all make similar offers.
My initial offer from Google was $150k base, ~15% holiday bonus, and came with >$100k in stock vesting over four years, and they give another four-year stock grant each year. I have 7 years of industry experience and I interview well.
TDD is best when you're writing code that talks to other code. So APIs, database models, etc. Pure functions, and code that has dependencies you can inject and mock. You should never abandon TDD in situations like this.
It's true that it's harder to write TDD for code with side effects or that draws UI. It doesn't really make sense to use TDD for this.
You shouldn't conflate the two. Also, "always pass the majority of tests" is a trap. You should always pass all the tests.
Source: I've been managing and working in automated testing and continuous integration systems for 8 years, dating back to before the term was coined. I was the manager of the system, at IMVU, that coined the term "continuous integration". I've also worked on testing at Sauce Labs and Google.
> Continued advancement doesn't mean that it is accelerating, and even if this does represent an unexpected achievement that doesn't mean that future development will maintain that pace.
Advancement faster than predictions does mean accelerating advancement, coupled with the (true) fact that people's predictions tend to assume a constant rate of advancement [citation needed]. Actually, all you'd need to show accelerating advancement is a trend of conservative predictions and the fact that these predictions assume a non-decreasing rate of advancement; if we're predicting accelerating advancement and still underestimating its rate, advancement must still be accelerating.
It even seems like this latter case is where we're at, since people who assume an accelerating rate of advancement see to assume that the rate is (loosely) quadratic. However, given that the rate of advancement tends to be based on the current level of advancement (a fair approximation, since so many advancements themselves help with research and development), we should expect it to be exponential. That's what exponential means.
However, the reality seems like it might be even faster than exponential. This is what the singularitarians think. When you plot humanity's advancements using whatever definition you like, look at the length of time between them to approximate rate, and then try to fit this rate to a regression, it tends to fit regressions with vertical asymptotes.
It sounds like the point of this story is to illustrate by analogy that starting from first principles is sometimes a silly way to approach a problem, and by extrapolation that it's a silly way to make an AI that plays Go well.
Making an AI that plays Go well is not (and has never been) the real goal. They're trying to learn how to build a AI that can solve any problem.
> Perhaps it was an attempt at nodding to the Las Vegas themed "bad behaviour" after dark, combined with a nerdy attempt at being funny
Switching from it-never-happened to maybe-she-misunderstood pretty quickly, no? Evidence of the latter would be enough to cost you $500. But It's pretty wild that you think someone who understands and plays the audience that well would misunderstand their intent.
I get the feeling that you actually realize how little you know about the event, and I encourage that. Weird things happen all the time, especially in Vegas.
FWIW, the event in question actually did happen - I'm not just taking sides in an internet argument here; I know it for a fact.
That is a monumentally stupid thing to say, and that's coming from a guy who's an active reader of /r/mensrights. I know the author personally and she's telling the truth.
Women with careers who accuse others of rape are telling the truth. False rape claims always come from someone who believes she stands to gain, and women with careers ruin their careers by reporting rape. Because of mouthbreathers like you. Go climb back under your rock.
We try to show ads that people will click on AND THEN buy/use whatever's on the other end. This maximizes advertiser value, long-term Google profit, and user experience all at once.
So we're trying to show you ads that you want to see, rather than ads that try to provoke you into clicking (like Buzzfeed articles)
This is because (as I think you implied) HN, in a show of consistency with other online forums, is fond of reaching conclusions that are contrary to (any) conventional wisdom. This is a source of bias: I'm a current Googler who thinks Google is great, but this opinion doesn't change anyone's mind.
But this bias is a good thing. It causes internal disagreement, hindering solidarity, but it increases the rate at which we learn new things.
This seems like a great article, but I missed the part where it's relevant to hacker news. Did the community's focus shift or broaden in the months I've been away?
Continuous "Deployment", I guess. The term may have existed before I realize, but it certainly wasn't in popular use before this:
http://timothyfitz.com/2009/02/10/continuous-deployment-at-i...