Not necessarily, there are different types of travellers. Some people like packing many destinations into a short time and some prefer to spend more time on one place. We're pretty far off the original topic now though because not visiting China has nothing to do with the diversity or size of it but because the CCP is an authoritarian regime who can go fuck themselves. I'd like to go back to Europe sometime though.

I don't think Hawaii is really analogous but I get your point. I'd still rather chill in. Taiwan though even if it's significantly smaller.

No thanks, I don't want to deal with that type of shit at all. I'm not going to be visiting the US or China because of that, I'd rather go chill in Taiwan.

Uhhhh.... because it's...bad?

Yeah I remember seeing a really interesting video about how GDP growth can be very roughly approximated by night time illumination and how a small "adjustment" of GDP growth figures can create a huge disparity over time of the real vs official GDP. Nothing really conclusive or smoking gun but it was still really interesting and it definitely seems like these figures are worthy of a healthy dose of scepticism.

This is my headcanon when I see a simple but long lasting bug like this at a large company.

To you or I, it seems simple. Clearly things are not working as intended and the fix is trivial. Raise a bug in the tracking system if you really have to, then just fix it, right?

Here's the thing. That code was written completely according to the specification. The path there was clearly there in the requirements. So what? So...that means it's not a bug, it's a feature change. And if it's not a bug, that means we can't officially use our allocated (but always shrinking) bugfix time to work on it.

If we want to fix it, we need to put in a feature change request. That means we have to articulate the value to the business in changing this feature and explain why we think the original specification is wrong. We can't get confirmation from the spec author because they are no longer with the company. That means we have to prove that it was written incorrectly.

If...and that's a big if, we can articulate that there's business value in doing this and that the original specification was likely incorrect, then we get to the really fun part. Prioritisation.

You see, the team that built that feature doesn't exist anymore. Once the bulk of the features were done, they got disbanded and the engineers moved to other teams. Technically there should be a single team responsible for every feature so it gets maintained, but in practice it doesn't really work that way. The people on the official team that's responsible haven't touched any of that code. They're not too keen on starting either because they have their own priorities.

So after all that, the task sits in the backlog of that team, neglected. Eventually in some distanct sprint planning session it will be flagged as an old ticket. You, who raised it, would have left the company and nobody in the meeting has context about why the task was created. Isn't that miscategorised, shouldn't it be a bug? Why is it with our team, is it even worth doing? Then it will be pruned from the backlog. The sad task that was fought for so valiantly, only to die sadly in the cutting room floor of a backlog grooming session.

Then one day, the bug will annoy a newcomer so much, they'll just sneak the change in under another ticket and the bug will finally be fixed. Months before the product gets scrapped for a worse replacement. What are the specifications of the replacement software based on? That's right, the original specs of the old system to ensure backwards compatibility.

Step 1: offer sanctuary

Step 2: offer citizenship

Step 3: conscript

It's time for Russia to concede territory and end the war for the sake of all Russians.

Fuck the reactionaries, fuck this far-right, fuck all of those who would like to lock us into a war of all against all.

Uncensored for your reading pleasure. Seems pretty badass to me and brought a smile to my face.

That was seriously admirable. From memory he actually did improve quite a lot after that as well.

Firefox.

Just thought I'd get that one out of the way early.

Weird, I wonder what the common factor could be?