The article seems to equate QA with testing, which is a short-sighted view. QA also includes things like standards, and importantly, design and code reviews, which are actually the best way to improve quality.
A good QA team will be the definitive experts on a piece of software. They have more complete and in-depth experience than sales, engineering, or anybody else. A single software engineer might know their specific piece, but your QA tester will know everything.
I wonder if you might be relying on a stereotype of victims. Here's some recent data: "The 2024 FTC Consumer Sentinel Network reported that 44% of all 20-somethings claimed losses in 2023". More data here: https://www.synovus.com/personal/resource-center/fraud-preve...
This is a fun idea. It occurs to me that I would enjoy seeing unvisited phones on the map in a different color. [Edit: Oh, now I see green dots for visited phones. Was this always there and I just hadn't noticed?]
I know of a working payphone that is not on the Payphone Go map. Photo: https://i.postimg.cc/Dw4sCDpJ/payphone.jpg
The fact that I know of one makes me wonder, are there are others? Is the list the author obtained from PUC incomplete? Is this phone operating unlicensed? Has the phone died since I last visited a year ago?
Geez, how is this comment so far down the list? Reading Dario's list of all the bad things AI could do, I kept asking myself "who would be so stupid as to give AI control of said instruments of destruction?" Dario writes as though the AI just assumes control of the physical world because it is SO POWERFUL.
I'm guessing it doesn't handle images because you'd have to upload the image, right? I tried one in this format:
with no luck. (Update: it works with URL links)
It doesn’t support local images yet since it currently only renders uploaded Markdown, but I’m looking into ways to make it work. thanks for the feedback!
Perhaps off-topic, but: "Testing doesn't show the absence of errors, it shows the presence of errors"
Willison says we need to submit code we have proven to work but then argues for empirical testing, not actual correctness proofs.
