@dws apparently yes. San Francisco’s public spaces are full of smokers.

Today became hectic. I have much work to do over the coming months.

I bought some devil’s lettuce for myself. I do like edibles for an evening’s movie-watching.
instagram.com/p/BwfXwnQpVLi/

The train is in fact full of people going to SF to cannabinize. I should have caught an earlier one.

Next year this time everything should be in such good order that we'll all sit at home listening to the well-oiled machine tick. Not yet, though.

Traipsing off to SF so I can watch graphs and (I hope) do absolutely nothing otherwise, while people who didn't plan ahead buy a lot of cannabis quite legally. It's the future!

RT @Stephen_Mizell@twitter.com
@ceejbot@twitter.com I wrote my thoughts on this topic recently. Summary: I think the only valuable metric is to show which code wasn’t executed during tests. smizell.me/writing/test-covera

I like this thread. (Y’all are saying interesting things to me about code coverage. In JS-land of course it’s self-defense to have good coverage numbers.)

---
RT @kodi@twitter.com
@ceejbot I started out thinking it ridiculous to mandate code coverage, but OK for a team to agree on a minimum, and also to enforce a "no commit that significantly reduces coverage" policy. But then I found myself, a person who knew that code coverage is meaningle…
twitter.com/kodi/status/111935

RT @algstn@twitter.com
@ceejbot@twitter.com I think tests should be on the level that if you do some major refactoring, they are a help.

If a refactor takes twice as long because you're fixing broken tests, then they are too low level.

That kinda means that code coverage isn't necessarily a great measurement.

RT @mbessey@twitter.com
@ceejbot@twitter.com I have worked on projects that attempted to mandate coverage numbers, and the results were sometimes not great. I think designing for testability is a good, if somewhat nebulous goal. But “thou must have 99% code coverage” often does as much harm as good.

Just had a coconut waffle after a very nice bahn mi.

Oh, huh. TIL

"To camouflage, cuttlefish do not match their local environment pixel by pixel. Instead, they seem to extract, through vision, a statistical approximation of their environment, and use these heuristics to select an adaptive camouflage out of a presumed large but finite repertoire of likely patterns, selected by evolution."

phys.org/news/2018-10-elucidat

Show more
Life raft.

Ceejbot's mastodon instance. This is an overprovisioned, personally-run instance running on AWS. I welcome friends to create accounts here. I intend to run it as long as people are using it.