> The idea is to create a markdown file where an AI agent is asked to work as a QA engineer
Given your code-base is mature enough, please don't have a single Skill/Steering/Persona/Ruleset (or whatever) for your "QA Engineer." This is just the same "my behavioral file can one-shot the entire system build" kind of thinking that will give you expensive, marginal results as the system grows.
If you want to have success in this space, get really fine-grained. Every single test scope needs its own behavioral files.
Have your core behavioral file define some simple specifics around Test Pyramid, Test Purposes, checks for tautological tests, etc. Then get _really_ specific;
<test-type>-architect (plan)
<test-type>-engineer (execute)
<test-type>-resolver (problem solver, maintenance, how to manage a failure, etc.)
e.g., playwright-architect, etc.
Then create additional ones for Unit tests, API tests, contract tests, or any other required test layer for the SUT.
Overengineered? Maybe given the size of your codebase. But for anything significant, you are codifying what humans and their skillsets do.
So, throw out the traditional test pyramid, shift right, and rely more on persona testing than fine-grained atomic tests? I would hope teams don't need to re-learn that lesson for themselves, but...
Specifically, I do a typical 3FP and own VTSAX, but I don't read bogleheads or anything. True set-it-and-forget-it, but I do want to read more if things are shifting.
You should not trust me, but here's my understanding. I wish there was a really good writeup somewhere to explain this authoritatively but I'm not sure there is one. Would also love to see one. Frankly vanguard should do it.
VTSAX (and VTI) follow the CRSP index. This is float-adjusted but they likely will be fast tracked (these are two separate rules in how this index chooses to weight things and participate in new stocks). At ~5% float, these companies will be in the 50-100B range. So under all those assumptions, they'll be bought quickly but represent less than 1% of VTSAX (until they float more shares on the public market).
n=1 here, I noticed considerable shedding and thinning when taking creatine. I've taken it alone for 3 months and noticed thinning and shedding. I took it with Minoxidil and Finasteride for six months and noticed reduced shedding. At one point I stopped Mino and Fin, but kept the creatine and the shedding increased rapidly.
I am now on Minoxidil and Finasteride, with no creatine, and no longer have shedding.
TBH this sounds like it could be entirely unrelated to creatine. It just sounds like you have shedding and thinning without Minoxidil and Finasteride, and it stops when you start taking them again.
> At one point I stopped Mino and Fin, but kept the creatine and the shedding increased rapidly.
I think it's a common for shedding to accelerate after stopping Minoxidil.
I appreciate the comment, but the point of going to the trouble of posting the extra details is to show that I isolated. Understood if it wasn't clear.
I just want to raise my voice that, in my experience, yes, I had hair loss issues on creatine. Every time I respond to a comment on reddit, youtube, twitter, here, there is always a sea of "Nope, sorry" comments that I must be mistaken. My hair line disagrees. The extra rep isn't worth it.
100% correct on shedding after mino stoppage however.
While both were originally companies based in Israel, the technology behind the Kinect is different.
iTero scanners (owned by Align Technology) use parallel confocal imaging via red light lasers. Their newer models also use Multi-Direct Capture techniques.
Kinect used a Light Coding technique, an infrared projector and camera. It was developed by a company called PrimeSense, which was later purchased by Apple.
The channel appears to be five years of "It is happening!" and "It started!" thumbnails. I just can't take it seriously, so I decided to look into the company/leadership.
It appears they've been associated with a lot of hype/fear copy-paste companies that offer highly inflated monthly access to their trades and research. Note that they were named "Game of Trades" before rebranding.
> It appears they've been associated with a lot of hype/fear copy-paste companies that offer highly inflated monthly access to their trades and research. Note that they were named "Game of Trades" before rebranding.
I really wish that people would wake up to the danger posed by meme stock BS “leaking” into the general markets.
Just as voters are responsible for changes in society, uninformed investors can impact society too, especially when they’re amplifying their purchasing power via leverage.
For instance, I’ve been buying real estate forever, and I’ve enjoyed the Reventure app.
But I’ve REALLY noticed that his YT videos are exclusively doom and gloom.
This ceaseless negativity moves markets, just as the irrational exuberance for real estate in 2005 moved markets.
But the exuberance for real estate was driven by people who were buying real estate.
The endless doom and gloom of YT finance videos is for a much different reason:
It drives page views.
That’s not a good thing. Because it’s really easy to get swept up in the negativity. And that negativity has a downstream effect, where it’s often used to convince people to invest in things that the YouTuber is promoting.
Basically, I don’t know if we need an “SEC for YouTube,” but we might.
Yes, I know we already have an SEC for YouTube (it’s the SEC), but nearly none of the people doling out financial advice on YT are trained professionals. It’s the fundamental defect of internet advice; who to trust?
Misinformation and mass hysteria suck, I agree. But if the amplification of the sky-is-falling-flavor-of-the-week braindead youtuber take can materially imperil financial markets, the stability of that system was always doomed.
An “SEC for YouTube” can’t prevent shit if the lever of influence is already that long. It might be able to keep a lot of meme investor idiots from losing their shirts, but that has to be weighed against the historically evident risks of having what amounts to a ministry of truth/state propaganda regulator.
I remember sky-is-falling-flavor-of-the-week newsletters from the 1970s; they probably go back further than that, but I don't remember firsthand. The difference is that YouTube lets millions of people find this without either having to subscribe to the newsletter, or the newsletter having to figure out who they are and send them a free copy.
In other words, what's different is that the gain is higher. The system was not always doomed, because the gain wasn't this high. Now that it is this high, the system may now be doomed.
He was on at one in the morning, and a big chunk of his audience was calling in to the show drunk or high. 99% of the audience knew it was fake.
And twenty years later, the conspiracy stories live on, via YouTube, but without the CONTEXT that the Art Bell show was broadcasting to a VERY niche audience.
The channel appears to be five years of "It is happening!" and "It started!" thumbnails. I just can't take it seriously, so I decided to look into the company/leadership.
Reminds me of ZeroHedge. They've been shouting that the depresssion-level market crash is near now since 2009. Every single day. For 17 years.
i don't think that's a fair representation of the average of the ZH articles.
many bird's eye view articles are depicting how the game is rigged and corrupt to the core and that it is heading towards a wall (and you should buy x, typically gold)... yes.
but then they also have more day-to-day articles discussing market moves and predictions in all directions.
ZH is a wider range of stuff than that. and in all that noise, most of the important alternative, often initially censored news appeared there first.
so, yeah, don't take it all in literally... but then it's a site edited by Tyler Durden FFS... :)
I can only personally speak for myself and I'm not giving financial advice here. I use the Bolgehead strategy of the 3 fund portfolio is still the tried and true I follow, and I have yet to not benefit from doing so, even in economic downturns[0]
Many answers address the question of "how to build community." I like those responses! I also want to contribute to the discussion with an emotional intelligence response. The theory is that "loneliness" can be a symptom of underlying internal factors.
While it is true that loneliness can arise from a lack of community, people, and related factors, for some people, the problem stems from not knowing how to be alone. At its core, the question becomes, "Am I externalizing my world, or internalizing my world?" When you externalize your world, you require something external. We are social creatures, and I do believe we need other people. I'm only suggesting that sometimes people need to look internally first.
Personal anecdote: No amount of community would have helped me feel like I wasn't alone, because I needed the world around me to provide some sense of my self-worth. It felt counterintuitive, but for me, I had to learn to be alone. Only then could I feel like I wasn't alone. It all came down to attachment theory and self-worth.
Thanks for asking! Until I learned to be alone without feeling abandoned by myself, no amount of connection could make me feel less lonely. Here is a rough outline of topics and how I feel they relate.
In attachment terms, loneliness can be a signal that we haven't yet internalized a stable sense of safety and worth. I wasn't missing others, I was missing an internal relationship with myself.
I was anxious even with others, because safety, worth, and regulation were outsourced to my relationships. I needed others to constantly help me feel those things. That was me externalizing my self worth.
I was avoidant with myself, because the connection with myself felt unsafe or unfamiliar. I leaned on things, status, money, in order to avoid looking deep within my heart. In the end, I had to do a lot of internal work. I had to learn that I matter even when no one is affirming me. Leaning on those <things> was self-abandonment in disguise. I would think, "If only I just had a little more knowledge I could solve this." We generally don't solve heart problems with our head.
Loneliness eased when I stopped trying to get my sense of self from the external world. I had to become someone that I could be with. Someone I didn't need to escape from.
How I accomplished it was not a short journey, but in summary it looked like:
1) Knowing my past, tolerating the discomfort, and sitting in it without judgement. I did this with a therapist.
2) Having a safe individual who always nurtured me, and taught me how to be OK with my big feelings. This was with an emotional intelligence coach. I felt the loneliness ease greatly once I could affirm myself.
3) Now that I had the knowledge to know my heart and my worth, I could then create connections outside of myself. I see this like, having the book knowledge, but now being able to learn how true it was experientially. This led to meeting my best friend and partner in this life. Having someone close to co-regulate, when I need support, and providing that in return, has been the final piece of the puzzle.
I firmly believe that most people need someone to co-regulate with. We can't white-knuckle our way to knowing ourselves better, but boy did I try!
Thanks again, and best of luck on your journey if you are on it :).
It is the most commented on and has the highest points today. See: https://hckrnews.com/ . Another user pointed me to it in the past when I was also frustrated that an obviously engaged story was somehow being buried for reasons I didn't understand.
I read the comment with a bit more grace. I just assumed they were skipping to the end of a journey without any of the subject's empathetic nuance. Meaning, most philosophical, spiritual, psychological, and mindset approaches all "end" with the idea that we have a choice in how we feel about things. That choice is choosing to feel things differently.
Those ends would say that suffering is a product of our own making. It is a choice. Bad things can happen to you, but your perspective on the situation creates the suffering (resistance, guilt, personalization, inability to see it as a change agent, etc.).
The description sounds like a part 2 or updated approach/angle to Mindset (Carol Dweck), a book that made a changing impact when I first read it, but reading the updated edition years later left me wanting more. I had also read a couple of Adam Grant's earlier books and enjoyed them, will definitely check out Hidden Potential.
Given your code-base is mature enough, please don't have a single Skill/Steering/Persona/Ruleset (or whatever) for your "QA Engineer." This is just the same "my behavioral file can one-shot the entire system build" kind of thinking that will give you expensive, marginal results as the system grows.
If you want to have success in this space, get really fine-grained. Every single test scope needs its own behavioral files.
Have your core behavioral file define some simple specifics around Test Pyramid, Test Purposes, checks for tautological tests, etc. Then get _really_ specific;
<test-type>-architect (plan)
<test-type>-engineer (execute)
<test-type>-resolver (problem solver, maintenance, how to manage a failure, etc.)
e.g., playwright-architect, etc.
Then create additional ones for Unit tests, API tests, contract tests, or any other required test layer for the SUT.
Overengineered? Maybe given the size of your codebase. But for anything significant, you are codifying what humans and their skillsets do.
reply