|
Isn't that the game where they smash crickets with a bat?
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect that would be more entertaining
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
But what other game allows you to bowl a maiden over, catch them in slips, and tickle one down to long leg?
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Well, nothing that would be televised (on basic cable anyway, HBO probably)
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
There's probably a subreddit for it somewhere...
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Bryson on cricket ("Down Under"):
It is not true that the English invented cricket as a way of making all other human endeavours look interesting and lively; that was merely an unintended side effect.
And:
Listening to cricket on the radio is like listening to two men sitting in a rowing boat on a large, placid lake on a day when the fish aren't biting.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
The only game that makes baseball look interesting?
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, at least in baseball games there is some scoring, unlike football (soccer).
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
I know we are a small country but we also/still feature on the list no?
Where is cricket played the most in the world?[^]
Quote: South Africa: As of this year, cricket is the second most popular sport among adults in South Africa after soccer, having moved up from third position ahead of rugby. The sport has undergone a tremendous growth and over two million South Africans now express interest in cricket. Famous South African cricketers include AB de Villiers, Dale Steyn, Shaun Pollock and Jacques Kallis.
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: I'd add a joke here, but I don't understand cricket well enough Oh Crickets! Another language to learn and to argue with management as to why it shouldn't be used!
Which just goes to prove that you don't need to understand something to tell management "NO!"
|
|
|
|
|
All non-Google chat GPTs affected by side channel that leaks responses sent to users. Loose bits sink ships
I decided not to go with the rhyme on that one
|
|
|
|
|
why does it not surprise me?
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Average teams aim at 100% Code Coverage just to reach the number. Great teams don’t. Why? Uncovering the answer
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: Great teams don’t. Why?
Because it's kinda silly to test getters and setters and such?
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
I’m begging you for the benefit of everyone, don’t be STUPID.
|
|
|
|
|
Code coverage is like trying to get to the speed of light. The more code coverage you have, the more massive your code. At some point, the energy required to go the next 0.00001% of coverage becomes impossible because the mass of code is so close to infinite.
Not to mention the whole time dilation effect, where your tests are obsoleting faster and faster as other coders make changes. Something like that.
|
|
|
|
|
OK, I get your point.
But then, testing shouldn't go by the code lines, but what those code lines do. There should be no reason to change/update a test because the code is changed - only when what the code is supposed to do changes.
Tests should be developed and implemented by people who know nothing of the code. They should make tests for all the functionality, regardless of the lines of code to implement it. If some code is not run during a complete test, it either indicates that the code is dead and can be removed, or that there is some functionality that the test developers never were told about. Maybe the developer didn't tell anybody about this functionality - which is really bad. Secret, undocumented, untested functionality is bad for any software.
So don't strive for 100% code coverage. Strive for 100% functionality coverage. If that doesn't lead to 100% code coverage, you should take a close look at the code and ask: What the elephant is that code there for?
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
According to Google, the move should block 25 percent more phishing attempts. *Actual protection may vary. Results not guaranteed. Consult your IT staff to see if Chrome is right for you.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Google says Chrome can now protect you better while preserving your privacy in their servers FTFH
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
If you're serious about privacy, Chrome is never for you.
|
|
|
|
|
Tesla's Optimus is taking baby steps while OpenAI's Figure 01 is doing burnouts on the track. I, for one, welcome our new apple-passing, dish-stacking, uh, robotic overlords
|
|
|
|
|
Spooner... where is he when we need him?
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Adopting AI is a major focus for many modern enterprises, but that trend may look different in 2026. People will get tired of hearing about it?
Present company included, at least
|
|
|
|
|
Once again Gartner raises concerns that are already being discussed (and slaps themselves on the back for being profound. Next up, to be or not to be...)
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Woodbury wrote: to be or not to be... You are not telling about combining AIU with Quantum computing... are you? are you?
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Mmmm yeah agree, Terminator jumps to mind IF we see 2026 at all - me being the doomsday Sayer.
|
|
|
|