By this reading if you can argue if you're not a stupid person ripping it down actually is permitted.

I hyperfocused on "maximizing" and "safe". The concept of "safe" in the context of electoral districts has a real definition in political science. Which is probably exactly why they put it in quotes.

It's like calling a Chihuahua "big dog".

OK yeah, it just really hits my eyes and ears strangely.

Like that spinning ballerina silhouette... I really gotta squint and fold my brain to make her spin the other way kinda thing.

you're right though: those quotes do heavy lifing and in a specific direction.

They could, but they won't.

The major way they broke capitalism was by not going public. Gabe has to answer to nobody, so the usual gang of corporate fucking idiots can't force him to do short sighted shit to make a short term squeeze at the cost of long term viability.

This is the key. It's the WHOLE thing. A runaway cap table destroys companies, always. Investors have different exit horizons and they are fundamentally incompatible with long term viability.

All you need to do to compete with a publicly owned company is capitalism is wait for their investors to get too greedy.

Exactly the opposite.

Instead of winning one district by a lot and losing 2, you redraw the map to win all three by a little.

The result isn't more safe districts, it's less.

It's unclear in my viewing EXACTLY what life support is doing.

It's clear that it has very refined monitoring of compounds present, filtering mechanics, and essentially arbitrary disbursement of reagents.

LaForge: "Computer: flood cargo bay 2 with [the most exotic deep-cut compound that ever was]"

Barret: "Consider it done, I've got tons of that shit fucking ready to go and dumping it exactly in the one room is no fucking problem whatsoever"

It was my head cannon that starship operation leaked a ton of not great stuff into the air constantly, and that ongoing room-by-room analysis was always happening and carefully measured filtering and counter-disbursements was just constant. "Make oxygen" was part of it, but wasn't by a large margin the whole of it.

This is based on nothing other than my feeling that the atmospheric management systems were way too extra.

Don't copy that floppy!

Nobody even HAS to sell their shares, the second part is what does all the lifting here: "and nobody ever buys the shares again".

If overnight, everyone just said "I have no interest in buying at any price" that's the end of it. The shares are now worthless.

Every seller needs a buyer. If "everyone sold their shares", all that happened is the share owners changed.

If you run under the presimise that anything Plato ever thought was strictly the opposite of true, then it follows.

It's a relatively common and flawed structure. People just usually say Hitler or Stalin or Obama or whatever.

That's a lot, so I'll be forthright that I'll probably be giving a relatively terse and gappy response, but that's more because of my own limitations as a mobile user.

Fundamentally every test unit, integration, ui, manual is still the same thing:

Given X do Y expect Z.

Mocks, fakes, whatever you want to call them, they're fundamentally the same concept too: "given some idealized version of P"

All you've done is pushed where that line sits. If I update my company writer to prospend all my company names with "corp.", and my company read API test seeds without it and something at your read service layer strips ".", if I forget to update the "given" in my read test seed data, that bug stays invisible.

It's the same class of issue. We just kicked the can down the road.

You could do writes and reads in the same test, but even then you're still kicking the can down the road that your front end is calling the API correctly at all. Maybe that the buttons even render to an end user given their authority.

One might then conclude, then, that everything should be an automated UI test.

But would it catch a bug where the bottom collapsed to 1PX? Is that part of the test too? Maybe manual testing is the real way to go.

A further step back why do we even test anything at all? To provide some ultimate guarantee that everything works perfectly at all times? Is that the gate for a PR? A deployment to prod?

There are various gates, at different levels of certainty, and there is an economic scaling for the different levels of assurances. AND they scale with the overall complexity of the system.

And that isn't a bug, that's a feature.

It's ALL behavioral contracts, up and down the pyramid.

There is a bang, there is a buck. Get the most bang for your buck. The distribution will vary by complexity and structure of your project.

That being said, I've said it before and I'll say it again: int and UI tests make it very very easy to write fucking garbage code, the VALUABLE architectural pushbacks on poorly patterned code that unit tests avail is AT LEAST as much value to the overall tech debt accumulation of a project as the results themselves.

Please don't read this as me shitting on int tests. It's me trying to impress that unit tests are worth writing, and justifications for forgoing them usually are fundamentally driven by an underlying code smell. Sometimes the smell is "our architecture is already so fucked that writing a meaningful unit test would involve re architecting large swathes of our system".

And in that case I'd say "it is what it is", recalibrate the testing posture towards int tests, and accept that is the reality.

But I would NOT conclude on the blanket statement that unit tests SHOULDN'T be at the bottom of the testing period generally. Just that I'd inherited or failed to maintain a strong system design, and take the opportunity to reflect on how things came to that state for the purposes of becoming wiser.

Addendum:

Even int tests can reveal insane system architecture, just at a different layer and scale. I worked on a system at a fortune 500 company where the architecture was too far gone to even have meaningful integration tests. They were too far gone to even have automated front end tests. All material testing had to be done by hand. They had engineered their system with that staggering level of incompetetence. At the risk of making a slippery slope argument... It's a slippery slope.

Alphabet shares record? That's nice, I wonder if its 45 or 78RPM.

The degree to which share price discovery is fundamentally rooted in optimistic speculation, as opposed to any actual evidence... at some point talking about "value" becomes a little weird. "Overvalued by 15%" reads like a chemist doing a titration.

People were more interested in selling than buying yesterday.