I worked on the system sysco uses for their order guide management, and we had a bug that let anyone order cheesecake factory cheesecakes for a brief moment and that was a red alert issue for us
What about changes that don't cause test failures? A really quick one I can think of is a pure addition. Lets say you have tests for Feature A in 3 places. You add a thing to Feature A, and find 2 places where Feature A is tested, add tests to those, feel like you did your due diligence and move on. Co-located tests would fix this problem
It looks like the poster is the author here, so hopefully he sees this feedback. Please, please, please pick a better contrast ratio for your text. Grey on slightly-lighter-grey is a terrible color combination for reading. I read the first paragraph and gave up on it because it wasn't worth the eye strain.
This isn't always true. Some shows release specials that aren't linked to any season, but go between seasons. Some shows (like web serials) release in one continuous stream. Sure there are workarounds/hacky solutions to these, but assuming all shows have the exact same hierarchy is a bad assumption to make.
MyAnimeList has a pretty good navigation list IMO. For example on https://myanimelist.net/anime/25777/Shingeki_no_Kyojin_Seaso... there is prequel, sequel, other (spinoffs and specials), and "alternate version" (condensed movie summary or remake). Maybe the naming could be better but those relationship types are the basic set for any kind of serialized media. Note that the media type is not fixed, e.g. the sequel to the last (TV) episode of Firefly is Serenity (a movie).
Now it's true that some shows aren't really designed to be serialized, e.g. for the Fate series there is a complicated mess of a graph (https://i.redd.it/6fz5fzz6sfv11.png) and most relationships will have to be encoded as "other", but since it's so messy, almost any watch order is reasonable, so there isn't much structure lost.
This is a Windows subsystem. It is a system that runs inside of Windows, so it is a Windows subsystem. What is this subsytem for? It is for running Android (or previously Linux) applications and software. I agree that it is confusing, but I think it is incorrect to say that the name is outright wrong.
To be fair to op I did expect this to be a link to something that allowed Windows to run on Android as well.
In software 'for X' commonly refers to what it runs on. 'Doom for Windows' would run on Windows. A Windows subsystem for Android immediately implies a Windows subsystem that runs on Android.
It's a very common usage and language is formed by the common usage. Microsoft have this backwards.
It also commonly refers to what it does. 'Doom for blind people' would not run on blind people. 'Doom for trackballs' would not run on trackballs, it would let you use trackballs with Doom.
> "It's a very common usage and language is formed by the common usage. Microsoft have this backwards."
Product names aren't formed by common usage, they're defined by the company which creates them.
Every graph on this page comparing the USA and the USSR needs a legend, they are unreadable unless you pick them apart with context from the surrounding paragraphs.
The advice that I was given when I temporarily took a team lead position is to overcommunicate everything. Build good relationships with the people you report to and your peers and (hopefully) you can lean on them and ask questions as you learn and adapt to this new role
This requires the phone to be unlocked to do most of this, doesn't it? What is the attack vector here, someone leaving their phone unlocked on a table and not paying attention to the screen?
I know lots of people that have their phones set to not lock automatically. Some of these include not locking them when they throw the phone in their purse, or put it in their back pocket. "I can't be bothered to type in my password every time I pick it up" or "My kids bother me too often to unlock the phone." It's absolutely mind boggling
Nice to meet you. I have a pass phrase comprising 4 short words (totaling 18 characters) that are easy to remember and easy to type in. Someone is going to need the $5 wrench to figure out how to unlock my phone.
If you open the Android security settings you'll be asked if you want to set a password or pin. A password is longer and can contain arbitrary characters. I've never heard a person refer to a short series of numbers used to protect something as a password and not a pin.
Eh, you should clarify that this is not an AOSP lockscreen. It looks like Huawei's EMUI, which is quite heavily modified and might simply be a translation error.
Meizu phone, Flyme UI. Equally as Chinese as the Huawei you mentioned, so your point stands. Whether or not a tranlation error though, the GP had never heard of anyone using 'password' in the context of a numeric pincode, but it does happen. Who knows, I could be biased through my repeated exposures to the Meizu lock-screen, but as a native English speaker I don't have a hard time imagining a numeric-only pin being referred to as a password.
Thank you. It's not like the use of the word 'password' made the point I was making difficult to understand. I had actually tried to use the word passcode, but it was auto-filled/corrected to password and I didn't catch it.
Not necessarily. Both Android and iOS allow voice assistants to interact with phones for certain activities even without unlocking the phones. Typical scenario: someone puts a phone on the table and does something else (typing on a computer), not paying attention to the screen.
I've owned nothing but "Google phones" since the Nexus 4 and don't know what you're talking about. Do you mean smart unlock?
Pushing hard is pretty subjective, I don't see a "hard" push to turn off security features. As a matter of fact I've seen warnings about disabling the lock screen.
My Pixel 3 prompted me to turn off the auto-locking feature when I was at home because it saw that I unlocked my phone a lot in that geofenced location. It also did that at my old job as well since the situation was pretty similar. I would get this prompt about once a month.
So I would agree, it's not a hard push, Google is def nudging people towards less secure logins. My S10+ asked me this same question about a week into owning the phone, but it never bothered me about it again once I declined. And at no point in either system was the I made aware of the risks I was accepting if I enabled it.
So, not a Google specific issue, but it's a less than ideal approach considering how sensitive peoples phones are today.
I have had multiple Pixels, and have been prompted multiple times to turn on "smart unlock" when connected to my home WiFi network or to my smartwatch or within a geo area.
It's unclear what "smart unlock" actually is, but as far as I can see it means my phone can be unlocked just with a swipe.
