a test pass rate of 100% is a fairy tale. maybe achievable on toy or dormant projects, but real world applications that make money are a bit more messy than that.
I definitely have 100% pass rate on our tests for most of the time (in master, of course). By "most of the time" I mean that on any given day, you should be able to run the CI pipeline 1000 times and it would succeed all of them, never finding a flaky test in one or more runs.
In the rare case that one is flaky, it's addressed. During the days when there is a flaky test, of course you don't have 100% pass rate, but on those days it's a top priority to fix.
But importantly: this is library and thick client code. It should be deterministic. There are no DB locks, docker containers, network timeouts or similar involved. I imagine that in tiered application tests you always run the risk of various layers not cooperating. Even worse if you involve any automation/ui in the mix.
Obviously there are systems it depends on (Source control, package servers) which can fail, failing the build. But that's not a _test_ failure.
If the build it fails, it should be because a CI machine or a service the build depends on failed, not because an individually test randomly failed due to a race condition, timeout, test run order issue or similar
That's not what I mean. I mean that anything but 100% is a "stop the world this is unacceptable" kind of event. So if there is a day when there is a flaky test, it must be rare.
To explain further
There is a difference between having 99.99% test pass every day (unacceptable) which is also 99.99% tests passing for the year, versus having 100% tests passing on 99% of days, and 99% tests on a single bad day. That might also give 99.99% test pass rate for the year, but here you were productive on 99/100 days. So "100.0 is the normal" is what I mean. Not that it's 100% pass on 100% of days.
Having 99.98% tests pass on any random build is absolutely terrible. It means a handful of tests out of your test suite fail on almost _every single CI run_. If you have 100% test pass as a validation for PR's before merge, that means you'll never merge. If you have 100% test pass a validation to deploy your main branch that means you'll never deploy...
You want 100% pass on 99% of builds. Then it doesn't matter if 1% or 99% of tests pass on the last build. So long as you have some confidence that "almost all builds pass entirely green".
Read my other response. It's about having 100% be the normal. There is a difference between having 99.99% all of the time, and having 100% all of the time and 99% in rare occasions.
So "100% most of the time" actually makes sense, and is probably as good as you might hope to get on a huge test suite.
When I was at Microsoft my org had a 100% pass rate as a launch gate. It was never expected that you would keep 100% but we did have to hit it once before we shipped.
I always assumed the purpose was leadership wanting an indicator that implied that someone had at least looked at every failing test.
to me, the goal of written text is to put an idea or a concept in the mind of another person. _capitalization_ is one of those "arbitrary rules" that add absolutely nothing to this process unless you're using an obscure acronym.
in my mind, it's one of those ancient rules that are completely obsolete in the modern world. its only purpose is to allow others to say "i am better than you because i use this ancient rule that someone came up with a thousand years ago, so i'm smart and you're dumb".
being a non-native english speaker, removing capitalization from my writing removed a ton of anxiety when writing text and didn't change at all the landing of my messages or my ideas.
WELL, THE CAPITAL LETTER FORMS WERE THE ORIGINAL ONES, THEN LOWERCASE ONES WERE CREATED BECAUSE THEY WERE FASTER FOR THE MONKS TO WRITE WHO WERE COPYING BOOKS. SOURCE: ROMAN RUINS. WE'RE NOT MONKS SO DEF COMPLETELY OBSOLETE. SO IF YOU WANT TO THROW OUT THE CAPITALIZATION RULES ENTIRELY, DO IT RIGHT AND USE ALL CAPS. THIS WOULD DEFINITELY MAKE IDEAS EASIER TO TRANSMIT AND RECEIVE.
Beat me to this joke by a few minutes. Today seems like non-capitalization is the fad, but there was a time when all caps was the fad, at least in Spanish. It was mistakenly believed that capitals didn't need accents in Spanish, so illiterate people wrote all caps to avoid them. All lowercase feels the same.
my point wasn't about using the "original rules", on the contrary it was about discarding uneeded ones. totally missed the point, but hey thanks for your contribution.
It's hard to take your argument of "removing capitalization has made my writing better" seriously when your comment history shows that you do capitalize your written text. But leaving that aside:
Capitalization makes it easy for the reader to know where a concept ends and a new one begins. Without capitalization, your comment reads like a run-on sentence - a period in my display is 2px tall while a comma is 3.5px tall, the lack of capitalization makes my brain read them all as commas, and therefore your text is harder for me to parse. So I'd say yes, removing capitals did change the landing of your ideas for the worse.
That reminds me of an interaction I had with a foreign exchange intern at my uni. I was working in an organization that organized these exchanges and I was giving him the orientation on his first day, including introducing him to his employer. The employer wanted him to write an email to some other person in the company, and he 1st wrote it with no caps n txtspeak, and when he was done he went back through it so it would have proper sentences...
If you want something to be clear you need to take time to re-read and revise it. If you really want to be sure there needs to be a full day between writing and revision (otherwise you will read what you meant to write, not what you actually wrote). For a presumably non-native speaker I expect he needed that extra effort.
Technically I should wait a day to hey the reply button here. I don't see anything wrong with this post now, but it is a reasonable bet that there is something that someone else sees.
Haha, yeah. I was face palming some obvious typos in an important email earlier. Even after reading it four times. I find this helps in writing music as well. I come back a day later and so many things stick out that my brain would just gloss over.
> It's hard to take your argument of "removing capitalization has made my writing better" seriously when your comment history shows that you do capitalize your written text.
right, because i couldn't have adopted this writing style in the past few weeks.
to address your second point, i could probably make better use of punctuation, but the original message is still delivered without all the fluff IMO.
My personal take is that it's easier for me to read your sentences if you help me see where they begin and end and this is part of capitalization's value. So at least for me your goal of putting ideas in my mind may be a little less effective
Yes... though I think Chesterton's fence definitely belongs in the "technically correct advice that actually does more harm than good" bucket, like "premature optimisation", "if it works don't fix it", the Unix philosophy and so on.
This doesn't apply to capitalisation, but generally especially in computing if there's something that looks useless you should remove it. If it breaks the fault lies with whomever left something useless there without a note to explain it.
The current project I'm working on has about 3 copies of every component because nobody bothers to clear up after themselves - dead code isn't doing any harm and it's better to leave it in case it's needed right?
Well sure, if you want me to work about 3x slower than I otherwise could. Not an exaggeration.
It's not technically correct, it's blatant historicism. There has to be a physical cause for the fence. If whoever put up the fence decided that it wasn't important to list the cause then their fence was ill-conceived from the start.
In some cases the fact that an object survived for so long might make it unique and worth study, but a million little (usually unenforced) regulations left around like so much garbage should be swept up.
> _capitalization_ is one of those "arbitrary rules"
If you're going to qualify capitalization as an arbitrary rule, then it wouldn't matter if it's all lowercase or all uppercase. It's not a whim of scholars, it improves readability, it emphasizes, it carries meaning.
All uppercase looks loud today, but early computers were also all uppercase and it was normal. All lowercase looks bland and sloppy, only a few steps removed from "what u doing lol?" texting shorthand.
- meh, i asked what happened to Virginia Guiffre and it told me that she's alive and well living with her husband and children in australia
- i pointed out that she died on 2025 and then it told me that my question was a prank with a gaslighting tone because that date is 11 months into the future
- it never tried to search the internet for updated knowledge even though the toggle was ON.
Sonnet told me I was lying when I said that gpt-5 was a model that actually existed. It kept changing the code back to 4o and flatly refused to accept its existence.
Perhaps for extremely basic products. Most non-engineers can barely write and untangle their messy thoughts and you think they can just build a spec for an AI to build a product? Hopefully I'm wrong, but I doubt it.
This is what gets me... Even at companies with relatively small engineering teams compared to company size, actually getting coherent requirements and buy-in from every stakeholder on a single direction was enough work that we didn't really struggle with getting things done.
Sure, there was some lead, but not nearly enough to 2x the team's productivity, let alone 10x.
Even when presented with something, there was still lead time turning that into something actually actionable as edge cases were sussed out.
> so if you’re hosted there, it should be about the same latency as using their managed DB service.
yes and no. In my AWS account I can explicitly pick an AZ (us-east-2a, us-east-2b or us-east-2c) but Availability Zones are not consistent between AWS accounts.
But that's exactly why they introduced the AZ IDs (use1-az1 as opposed to us-east-1a), so you can tell whether you're really in the same zone, regardless of the name you see in a particular account.
(tangent) for those of us who had close experiences with addiction in our families, it's so obvious why "give them money" or "give them homes to live in" isn't a solution to homelesness. A close family member owned 3 properties and still was living in the streets by choice because of his addiction which evolved into a full blown paranoid schizophrenia. He almost lost it all but he was forcefully commited into a mental institution and rehab saved his life.
Just realize your personal experience isn't generalizable. Surveys I've seen report that about a third of homeless have drug problems, which means that the other two thirds may very well benefit from "give them homes to live in".
UCSF published a comprehensive study of homelessness in California in 2023 [1]. A few relevant points:
The ~1/3 substance use figure holds up (31% regular meth use, 24% report current substance-related problems). But the study found roughly equal proportions whose drug use decreased, stayed the same, or increased during homelessness. Many explicitly reported using to cope with being homeless, not the reverse.
On whether money helps: 89% cited housing costs as the primary barrier to exiting homelessness. When asked what would have prevented homelessness, 90% said a Housing Choice Voucher, 82% said a one-time $5-10K payment. Median income in the 6 months before homelessness was $960/month.
The severe-mental-illness-plus-addiction cases like the family member mentioned exist in the data, but the study suggests they're the minority. 75% of participants lost housing in the same county they're now homeless in. 90% lost their last housing in California. These are mostly Californians who got priced out.
There is very good research to indicate that when housing costs a lot, versus geos where housing costs a little, homelessness clearly is lower. while this is not causation, the correlation is extremely clear. I think that Gregg Colburn, The University of Washington has done a good job arguing for this correlation and it's difficult to argue against it. What's nice about his research is it's not reliant on self-reported surveys to dig out these trends.
So, if somebody is inside of the house, we definitely want to try to keep them inside of the house. I also agree with your contention that when somebody hits the streets, they actually turn the drugs. And I believe the evidence points toward the ideas of this being a system That doesn't have a reverse gear on the car. If you keep somebody in the house, they won't go homeless. But if you give homeless a house or lodging, it doesn't return them back to the original function.
But one of the really interesting facts to me, which is in the study that you linked, but also in the other studies that I've red covering the same type of survey data, is almost never highlighted.
When you actually dig into the survey data, what you find out is that there is a radical problem with under employment. So let's do that math on the median monthly household income. I do understand it is a medium number, but it will give us a starting point to think about at least 50% of the individuals that are homeless.
Your study reports a median monthly household income of 960 dollars in the six months before homelessness. If that entire amount came from a single worker earning around the California statewide minimum wage at that time (about 14–15 dollars per hour in 2021–2022, ignoring higher local ordinances), that would correspond to roughly:
- 960 dollars ÷ 14 dollars/hour ≈ 69 hours per month, or about 16 hours per week.
- 960 dollars ÷ 15 dollars/hour ≈ 64 hours per month, or about 15 hours per week.
For leaseholders at 1,400 dollars per month, the same rough calculation gives:
- 1,400 dollars ÷ 14 dollars/hour ≈ 100 hours per month ≈ 23 hours per week.
- 1,400 dollars ÷ 15 dollars/hour ≈ 93 hours per month ≈ 21–22 hours per week.
We need to solve the job issue. If thoughtful analysis is done on this, it may actually turn out to be that the lack of lodging is a secondary issue, It may be the root issue is the inability for a sub-segment of our population to a stable 40 hour a week job that is the real Core problem.
> We need to solve the job issue. If thoughtful analysis is done on this, it may actually turn out to be that the lack of lodging is a secondary issue, It may be the root issue is the inability for a sub-segment of our population to a stable 40 hour a week job that is the real Core problem.
It seems like a stretch to assume this is a jobs issue. You could make the same argument that it’s a lack of working enough hours. I’m not saying it’s either, simply that hours worked is not proof alone that the problem is the lack of jobs.
That said, housing prices continue to outpace household income [0], which should be a lot easier to explain as a cause for the problem that many cannot afford housing where they were able to before. Especially in California where there’s a greater incentive to hold on to a house and extract rent from it due to prop 13, and infamous amounts of attempts to constrain housing supply through regulations and lawsuits.
Do me a favor. Tell me why do you think it's a stretch (to assume that this is a job's issue). This would appear to me to be an intuitive statement and possibly is simply created because you've already made up your mind. Unfortunately, after we make up our mind to do something, our brains are heavily subject to confirmation bias, which means it's incredibly difficult for people to take in new information or to consider new viewpoints. On the other hand, if you have good rational, logical rationale, then it should be able to be laid out fairly crisply.
However, I think it's intuitively obvious that there is a social contract that people should be expected to work a 40-hour work week. And when we find they can't work a 40-hour work week, and then they are homeless, this would appear to me to be a problem. Feel free to tell me why you would think this would not be a problem.
In your reply to me, your way of dealing with the job issue is to simply take what you initially thought and provide yet one more graph. However, this meaningfully doesn't add anything to the conversation because I already stated that it is clear that there is a correlation between housing and homeless.
As I stated, I'm familiar with Gregg Colburn, who has a methodology which goes well beyond simply doing a Fred graph. In his methodology he basically takes a look at different Geos and the different lodging cost in those geos and then he wraps it back into homelessness. There is no doubt when housing becomes more expensive, people find themselves out on the street.
> Do me a favor. Tell me why do you think it's a stretch (to assume that this is a job's issue).
I already have in my prior comment:
>> You could make the same argument that it’s a lack of working enough hours. I’m not saying it’s either, simply that hours worked is not proof alone that the problem is the lack of jobs.
In other words, your logic is:
Assume rent should be this amount -> subtract last paycheck to arrive at difference -> assume hourly wages should be this amount -> divide paycheck difference by hourly wage -> assume the result is the number of hours unavailable for work -> assume lack of hours is the cause for inability to live in a home
Note how many assumptions there are. Some questions that may disqualify any chain of this reasoning:
* How much is the median rent in places where a majority of this population lives? Is it potentially higher where they were living?
* Has the rent to income ratio changed at all, especially in their location?
* Were the majority of these individuals making minimum wage before? Could they have been working gigs for less or more?
* Are the lack of “hours” worked really due to lack of work and not another factor (e.g. ability to work, transportation, skill, etc.)?
* How much is this population spending on other costs that have taken precedence over living in a house? Has that changed at all?
With all that said, a stretch is not implausible. In reality, there is no smoking gun, only a myriad of contributing factors, different for each individual.
Okay I think I understand what happened. A couple posts ago you listed to an executive summary for CASPEH. I don't believe you've ever read the complete report, which is around 96 pages.
If you dig into the details, you'll actually find out that all of your assumptions are spoken about in terms of coming out with a reasonable amount of hours worth inside a California based upon the survey data from this research. The detailed report includes the following:
Median monthly household income in the six months before homelessness: $960 (all participants), $950 for non‑leaseholders, $1,400 for leaseholders. State the obvious if the weighted average is 960 and you have two groups, you can run the math to show that the non-lease holders were 98% of the sample.
Why we do want to think about Least Holders in reality is the renters where 98% of the problems exist. This is a clear application of the Pareto Principle, and so we should look at renters as the core of the homeless issue.
Median monthly housing cost: $200 for non‑leaseholders (0 for many), $700 for leaseholders. Of non-leaseholders, 43% were not paying any rent; among those who reported paying anything, the median monthly rent was $450.
In essence, if you look at the details you'll see where you're assuming are a lot of assumptions are actually somewhat addressed by the detailed report. Unfortunately, I'm going to suggest the detailed report is pretty shabby in terms of forcing somebody to dig out a lot of information which they should offer in some sort of a downloadable table for analysis.
Computationally, we can therefore figure out the minimal amount of hours these people must have been working based on the fact that they must have made at least minimum wage in the state of California.
There's not a lot of assumptions in this. It's based upon the detailed survey data and utilizing California minimal wage, which is where the survey was taken. The issue is digging into the details and computationally extracting information and assumptions that is not blinded by our own biases walking into something.
Again, there is excellent work out of University of Washington to suggest that higher housing costs lends itself toward greater rates of homelessness. That's not under debate here. The issue is from the survey data, it's very reasonable to do some basic computation to put some parameters around the data. It's not assumption, it's critical thinking.
You may be confusing jameslk with me - I'm actually the one who linked the CASPEH exec summary. Your underemployment math is interesting, but I'd note the study also reports 34% have limitations in daily activities, 22% mobility limitations, 70% haven't worked 20+ hours weekly in 2+ years. When asked why, participants cited disability, age, transportation, and lack of housing itself as barriers. So the causation may be more circular than "fix jobs first" as the same factors driving underemployment are driving housing instability, and being unsheltered makes holding a job harder.
But thank you for actually some very insightful comments and actually digging into the details. And I do agree with your contention that there is some sort of circular system issue going on here (ala Jay Forrester out of MIT).
It is pretty interesting. While you reported everything perfectly, I'll just paste in the detailed section at the bottom as it does add a little more detail and really does give us something to think about. FDR in 1944 suggested that there should be a second bill of rights. In many ways I am attracted to his framework. In his second bill of rights, the very first one was "The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation."
It strikes me that having gainful employment in which you feel like you are contributing in some method to a society is incredibly foundational to good mental health. I think FDR recognized this and I don't think he was thinking about communism. I think he was indicating that we need to find worth for individuals. Of course, with World War II and his health issues, the somehow seemed to go by the side.
This is not somebody telling somebody on the street to get a job. It's a question of how do we enable people to get a job? And I believe if there is an opportunity for the government to spend tax dollars, it may be in incentivizing employers to take these individuals and be creative in how they employ them for direct benefits. It's hard for me to imagine that there isn't some economic way of incentivizing business to show entrepreneurship if we incentivize them correctly.
This doesn't mean that you don't figure out how to solve housing. It simply means that we think about things systemically.
"Participants noted substantial disconnection from labor markets, but many were looking for work.
Some of the disconnection may have been related to the lack of job opportunities during the pandemic, although participants did report that their age, disability, lack of transportation, and lack of housing interfered with their ability to work. Only 18% reported income from jobs (8% reported any income from formal employment and 11% from informal employment). Seventy percent reported at least a two-year gap since working 20 hours or more weekly. Of all participants, 44% were looking for employment; among those younger than 62 and without a disability, 55% were."
The vast majority (that accepted accommodation) destroyed the spaces and eventually fled back to the streets. It is generally not productive to simply rehome all the homeless en mass. There are first order drug abuse and mental illness issues that cannot be ignored.
As with any survey or most research really, it’s the sample the determines the finding. Homelessness is not easy to define precisely. Drug addiction, setting aside the fact that surveys are self reported, is a bit more cut and dried but from your response it’s not clear if alcohol is included, or drug history. Like if someone did some bad shrooms or had a bad acid trip and wound up homeless would that person be in the 2/3rds?
> Just realize your personal experience isn't generalizable. Surveys I've seen report that about a third of homeless have drug problems, which means that the other two thirds may very well benefit from "give them homes to live in".
100 years ago people like Rob Reiner's drug addict son's dealer would probably have been hanging from a tree.
note: this is not commentary on drug legalization, just commentary that "community efforts" were more involved in addressing negative social externalities than they are now - for better or for worse.
Not likely at all, most likely the drugs wouldn't have even been illegal, but an addict would certainly have been housed and institutionalized. More than half of mental patients were alcoholics and addicts.
So you claim to know for certain that it virtually never happens that someone winds up homeless for financial reasons, like their rent got raised or they lost their job and couldn't find one that paid enough for the prevailing rents.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain how you determined this. Did you for instance survey homeless people in a number of US cities? Or perhaps you used some other method.
Yes, it works with pgBouncer, which is recommended in production. Centia.io will connect to pg/pgBouncer with different PG user creds, so pgBouncer must be configured for that. You can also use whatever managed PG service you like.
"Hallucination machine, responds with hallucinations".
But seriously, entreprise customers (and any big spender account) usually get access to a dedicated (human) account rep and private support channels in Slack, so they never really interact with this.
reply