Gojko Adzic

There are 13 users with 1000000+ and the top 100 all have over 450000. (http://twitterholic.com/) But, long tail and all that, I hear average follower count is in the 120 range, you're right there. (http://gojko.net/2009/03/16/qcon-london-2009-upgrading-twitter-without…

If you know what Colab's definition of abusive or disallowed use is (or even whether they have such a definition), please let me know. This isn't meant as a gotcha -- I actually haven't been able to find a full TOS or anything like that, despite looking for one at the outset and then again while writing the linked post. If it exists I want to know. As I said in the post, the closest thing I can find is the FAQ at https://research.google.com/colaboratory/faq.html (this may be what you're thinking of -- there is no "initial setup process," anyone logged in to a Google account can immediately connect to a runtime and execute notebook cells). It says the following: Why are hardware resources such as T4 GPUs not available to me? The best available hardware is prioritized for users who use Colaboratory interactively rather than for long-running computations. Users who use Colaboratory for long-running computations may be temporarily restricted in the type of hardware made available to them, and/or the duration that the hardware can be used for. We encourage users with high computational needs to use Colaboratory’s UI with a local runtime. Please note that using Colaboratory for cryptocurrency mining is disallowed entirely, and may result in being banned from using Colab altogether. To me, this doesn't sound like "please don't use this wrong or too much, and we assume you know what 'wrong' and 'too much' mean here." Consider how this is written as an answer to a…

> This is known as Behaviour-driven development (BDD). FWIW, I'd say that "writing tests using a tool like RSpec/Cucumber/etc." isn't really "doing BDD" by itself. Tools like RSpec are a way of organising test code. I'd recommend "Specification by Example". IIRC the idea is to come up with example output of a feature, refine this to a specification. Tools like RSpec help align the test code with the specification. https://gojko.net/books/specification-by-example/ > I think there are real problems with these BDD(-ish) test tools, as they obfuscate what you’re actually doing. ... The more layers you add on top of [assertions], the harder it will be to debug. Sure, but the point of naming a test case (or adding in statements like `it("should ...")`) is to make it more apparent what a test is trying to do. I doubt that even something like Cucumber makes it that much harder to debug the program code. Executable Specifications also try to be 'living documentation', which (if it works out) is a benefit worth the added cost of writing the tests that way.

That's what's predicated by "Specification By Example" [1] practices. Gojko elaborates into the tooling and requirements preservation aspects in "Are tools necessary for acceptance testing, or are they just evil?"[2] [1] https://gojko.net/books/specification-by-example/ [2] https://gojko.net/2010/03/01/are-tools-necessary-for-acceptance-testin…

If you need workflows, there's also VisualReview [1] with some basic workflow for approval testing, and Applitools [2], a commercial tool with integration with Selenium, Appium and Protractor that can do screenshot and video comparisons. I wrote about them as part of the 'Automated testing: back to the future' tools review [3]. In the article, I also mentioned DomReactor, but that seems to be discontinued now. [1] https://github.com/xebia/VisualReview [2] https://applitools.com/ [3] https://gojko.net/2015/11/16/automated-testing-future/

I can't say for certain these came from HN, but they most likely did, so here goes: Gojko Adzic's "TDD as if you meant it" article: http://gojko.net/2009/02/27/thought-provoking-tdd-exercise-at-the-soft… William Zinsser's "Writing English as a Second Language": http://www.theamericanscholar.org/writing-english-as-a-second-language… Steve Yegge's "Execution in the Kingdom of Nouns": http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/execution-in-kingdom-of-nouns.… Mencius Moldbug's "Wolfram Alpha and hubristic user interfaces": http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/07/wolfram-alpha-and…

You need to provide evidence or a sense of where you're coming from, yes. But sometimes just tying in two disparate links can do that. http://scrapbook.akkartik.name/post/4424779/are-crowds-wise-or-dumb-gr… I make it clear what data I'm summarizing, but the summary also seems more timeless to me than the data. I can imagine it being derived from other books about the wisdom of crowds. Like this blog post: http://gojko.net/2008/08/05/bulding-smart-teams