I put together a few "ADS-B receivers" recently (using Raspberry Pis, RTL SDRs, etc.) and, for a few days afterwards, was watching all of the aircraft in my vicinity pretty intently.
I live a few miles from the Monroe County, Indiana, airport, KBMG, and (on 16 November 2015) saw a small airplane go over my house that had just taken off from there (heading east at altitude 2700 feet). I looked up the tail number, N721AL, and saw that it was registered to the US Department of Justice.
A little bit of Googling (the tail number) turned up an article [0] entitled "Track 115 Aircrafts the FBI uses for surveillance". I was left wondering why they'd be performing any such surveillance in my area (if that is, indeed, what they were doing), as we're not exactly a "hot spot" of criminal activity, but I suppose no one is exempt.
Shame there's not a carfax like service for planes that used something less mutable than a tail number. After that last flight, it was almost certainly sold to some CIA front company, given a new number, and sent back into the air.
Hey skatenerd -- I will follow up with the applications. We have slowed our engineering recruitment processes while we hire a CTO. But I will reach out to the team and get feedback sent through :)
Of course I had to google it, and I seem to have missed whatever's so disgusting about it (guessing an insect-infested wound or something based on reactions here).
"Trypophobia is a claimed pathological fear of holes, particularly irregular patterns of holes. ... Shapes that elicit a reaction were said to include clustered holes in innocuous contexts such as fruit and bubbles, and in contexts associated with danger, such as holes made by insects and holes in wounds and diseased tissue."
I wish I hadn't googled that. It may be time to license photoshop on a certain kind of ethical requirement to not create certain images. Those images are so disgusting, my teeth hurt.
You are right, and then it becomes a genuine question of accessibility. I wish the deployment of IVR were specially reserved for these markets - my sense is that IVR is still seen as a hip cost-saving measure even for companies in markets where internet access is easy and plentiful.
This resource is clearly-written, and it distills what a lot of what people gradually learn over years of practicing TDD.
There is a lot of solid reasoning (and examples) leading up to this point, but one notable point was this conclusion:
```
[London-school TDD] sits at the extreme end of the trade-off between coupling and design feedback: incredibly rich feedback about the design of the system, typically resulting in small, hyper-focused units with carefully-chosen naming and easy-to-use APIs. They come at the cost, however, of significantly decreased freedom to refactor the implementation aggressively, which is why Discovery Testing recommends developers default to deleting-and-redeveloping local sub-trees of dependencies when requirements change significantly. This can result in reliably comprehensible designs, but with an increased base cost to requirement changes.
```
I really agree with this. I spent a few years working with a consulting company which preaches London-school TDD. We did a lot of work in dynamic languages, and refactoring was particularly difficult because we had to make sure that all of our mocks (and other test code) lined up with the refactored APIs.
I hate to take the discussion here, but I wonder how Static Typing changes the experience of London-school TDD. Does it become easier and less-frustrating to refactor your test-code?
Naturally it does, because a good typechecker is like an automatic test suite that guides you through refactoring. It means you need fewer unit tests, which means less test code to maintain.
I am working on a Rails project and a Haskell project simultaneously; the Haskell project requires far fewer tests because the compiler can catch so many potential bugs. Then when you add ghci (Haskell REPL) it becomes almost as flexible and exploratory as a dynamic language. Some Haskellers even like to say that TDD stands for Type-Driven Development. Combine that with REPL-driven development, add in property-based generative testing with Quickcheck, and you have a lot of very powerful tools to help you build the thing right.
That is an incorrect assumption if it's made universally. The answer is that it depends on what you're testing, why, and how. It also means what you mean by refactor.
For a flavor of what everyday Chinese propaganda looks like, consider following @PDChina and @XHNews on Twitter.
This doesn't give you the full picture, since the Twitter accounts are intended to be consumed by foreigners. Nonetheless, it's really easy way to get some idea of the typical tone/topics.
