It is privacy oriented from the perspective of the company, not the individual. I think there is some value in that. Although it makes it no more likely to be secure or private for the individual end user visiting the site though.
Privacy oriented from the perspective of the company is at least more privacy oriented from the perspective of the user. A company harvesting my data for analytics is more private than two companies harvesting my data for analytics.
If I'm going to a site, I'm willingly sharing some of my personal data with that site. I'm not implicitly consenting to third parties harvesting my data.
I have always found integration tests most important in order to test business logic when your customers pay for your trust and especially when they rely on your code for revenue while interacting with a third party. However, they should be thrown away immediately after proving your coded logic matches business requirements as they are slow and lose value and become tech debt quickly. Unit tests, if needed, should be even more temporary in my opinion. Often a CLI can be sufficient as a "unit test" during the development process.
>However, they should be thrown away immediately after proving your coded logic matches business requirements as they are slow and lose value and become tech debt quickly.
Can you expand on why integration tests should be thrown away once validated?
Isn't the idea that when you make a change later, these tests will ensure you haven't introduced a regression?
Integration tests can be very resource intensive. In larger projects the time it takes to run and set these up these is often daunting. Yes, the idea is regression of business logic in practice, but in reality I have found it leads to test resentment (and writers of those tests) and smaller or no test being written instead. Additionally the regressions added are often to the test suite itself and not the actual application.
Neurology is still such a black box medically. Did you by any chance have a brain MRI at any point? If yes, and your willing to share, what portion of the brain was impacted? If more than one, has there been diagnostically visible change between them? Did you get any treatment? I can be reached at first at full tod moc if you prefer.
I've had a brain MRI to rule out other causes (tumors etc), but it was clean. I don't think they looked specifically for tiny damages to areas (if that's possible), but I'm not sure to be honest as I only got answer that there were no signs of disease.
I find that the more music creation and distribution is gamified, the less gratifying it is for me. Discovery of the music and people who share your distinct musical passions is such and important part of the process of enjoying music and it's creation. On first look I thought, interesting, why would they go ruin the best (if also one of the more frustrating) parts of music creation. No thanks, too derivative and solving a problem in a way that feels icky to me.
This would follow the same path as the music industry and the revival of vinyl record albums. Most are collected and not played since streaming is so much easier and portable. I would go further and say that paperbacks will fall almost completely out of favor as they are less durable and could be seen as more of a "waste" environmentally. A bookshelf in a home is still a wall of virtue and interest signals and I don't think that will go away completely.
Paper books have legal value - you have rights to resell it, for instance, that you don't have for ebooks. Until we unfuck those, ebooks will never completely replace them.
Paper books aren't particularly environmentally wasteful - if you buy one extra electronic device (say, an ereader), that basically outstrips the damage of any number of books you'd buy. That might not be relevant to the perception, though.
Books as expensive wallpaper will definitely keep being a thing while dead-tree books are common, but they're fundamentally about conveying an impression, and impressions can change - if ebooks become the overwhelming majority to the point that office decoration is the main point of books, then anyone who sees the bookshelf will assume you're a poser doing it for the image, and thus people will stop doing it. So wallpaper-bookshelves can't exist as a sole purpose of books (probably).
There’s still a large “I like the feel of a real book even if it’s a paperback” contingent. But I assume that is much less true of relatively younger people. (I’ve gotten rid of a lot of my books that are in the public domain and would largely clear out most of my paperbacks if I could magically get them in digital format.
Record stores that still exist aroud me seem to have travelled back in time, I now feel like the first days of the CD sales, where they were at a corner in a shop full of vynil records.
Also someone is buying those vynil players with bluetooth and USB connectors.
Of course rare books are valuable. The point is that if you want to buy a physical book you probably will pay $10-15 more for the nice version. The market for the cheap entry is smaller.
When paperback books came out they too were looked at with disdain. Too inexpensive to produce, therefore not trustworthy. Too easy for anyone to read, anytime. They were designed to fit into pockets. Then, even cheaper and disposable comics were created. They were taken away by parents for being junk, a waste of time. Then they got rebranded as graphic novels in order to give them more legitimatcy.
It's a term I just coined and wasn't meant literally. I was referring to interactions that make you feel good and unintentionally become a habit. Myself, I come here to feel clever and learn by engaging in subject matter that interests me. I don't always hit the mark, but I try. I also realize others use social media such as Facebook for the same reason. In my younger days I may have done the same by conversing with strangers in coffee shops or bars.
