So Britain taking the mind numbingly stupid decision to leave the EU isn't the last stupid thing to happen this year, the Americans have become an even bigger galactic laughing stock by electing an orange cartoon with attention deficit disorder as their president.
I strongly believe that Trump simply did what he had to to get elected, so all the crazy stuff he did wasn't really his views he just did what he needed to do to meet his goals. The trouble is he gave no thought to the consequences of his actions, people are dumb and mob rules, I fear what his disciples will do.
So here's my prediction for the future.
The EU is basically going to shatter under the strain of each individual country tearing themselves apart, Putin will take advantage of this and the fact that Trump has no belief in NATO, the EU will need to get an army quickly and Turkey will say "hey we have one of those". Turkey will then set about basically destroying Greece, then in the light of other EU nations expressing support in favour of Greece the army will install itself as European dictator. Meanwhile America have been kept busy with the huge influx of terrorist threats due to the victimisation of muslims in the states, the Mexicans in economic despair turn to Russia just as Cuba did so many years ago.
So with most of the worlds countries splitting from any collective unit and the populations being torn in two everyone starts to fight for whatever scraps they still have. So those little bubbles of rich people start to exact ultimate suppression of the hopes and dreams of the un-rich masses.
We should've tried to stay together because apart we're doomed to fail, the banks are fallen it's time to recognise the failed experiment that is capitalism and bloody well cooperate together!
Monday 14 November 2016
Saturday 30 July 2016
Boris only wanted to give David a bloody nose, the ideal result he wanted was a
49/51 split, just enough to make the PM stand up and take note. A risky
strategy but remain had to win as it was the only common sense decision,
anything else would be like turkies voting for christmas.
So imagine his shock and dismay when the public actually did vote to leave the
EU, not only shock but a sudden feeling of regret, closely followed by panic as
there was no plan for actually leaving the EU Britain was now indeed in freefall!
The only reason the referendum was even called was because the PM got worried
about the level of support that UKIP were getting as this deminished the control
the tory party had. So arrogant was the PM that he'd win the referendum that
he didn't stack the deck in the same way it had been during the proportional
representation vote, not required majority was set, meaning that 1% really could
decide the fate of the entire nation and all those united with it.
As for the opposition Labour didn't even turn up, the personal views of the
Labour leader are that we should never have joined the EU in the first place so
it should've been no shock that he gave such a lacklustre campaign as to be no
real campaign at all.
As stated earlier it wasn't just England that was being held at ballot point,
but a united collection of countries. Now we know from earlier in the year that
Scotland wanted to remain in the EU and the whole country voted for this with
its own referendum so it's almost certain that if Britain leaves the EU
Scotland with resign from the united kingdom, probably to be closely followed by
northern ireland. This in itself would lead to calls for a united Ireland and
the resumption of the troubles many fought and died to preserve.
49/51 split, just enough to make the PM stand up and take note. A risky
strategy but remain had to win as it was the only common sense decision,
anything else would be like turkies voting for christmas.
So imagine his shock and dismay when the public actually did vote to leave the
EU, not only shock but a sudden feeling of regret, closely followed by panic as
there was no plan for actually leaving the EU Britain was now indeed in freefall!
The only reason the referendum was even called was because the PM got worried
about the level of support that UKIP were getting as this deminished the control
the tory party had. So arrogant was the PM that he'd win the referendum that
he didn't stack the deck in the same way it had been during the proportional
representation vote, not required majority was set, meaning that 1% really could
decide the fate of the entire nation and all those united with it.
As for the opposition Labour didn't even turn up, the personal views of the
Labour leader are that we should never have joined the EU in the first place so
it should've been no shock that he gave such a lacklustre campaign as to be no
real campaign at all.
As stated earlier it wasn't just England that was being held at ballot point,
but a united collection of countries. Now we know from earlier in the year that
Scotland wanted to remain in the EU and the whole country voted for this with
its own referendum so it's almost certain that if Britain leaves the EU
Scotland with resign from the united kingdom, probably to be closely followed by
northern ireland. This in itself would lead to calls for a united Ireland and
the resumption of the troubles many fought and died to preserve.
Friday 11 March 2016
Testing
It's a bit weird for me to write a blog about testing but with TestBash happening at the moment I thought I'd take the time to at least document a recurring conversation I keep having with a colleague of mine who is funnily enough a tester.
The conversation usually revolves around me trying to assert the idea that there is no developer or tester, there is simply someone involved with software. What I mean by this and typically fail to impress on is that a developer does (or at least should) also test code just as a tester can write code if they want to.
The important thing in this conversation is the statement "if they want to". There should be no impediment to a tester getting involved with writing code if they want to, just as there should be no reason a developer can't come up with all manner of ways to test a system if they want to. There should be no voice of dissension should either camp decide to get involved, if there were this would be like some sort of apartheid and detrimental to the individual as well as the team.
There are advantages and disadvantages to allowing this but let's be honest we're all people not our designated labels so choice should be the driving force and we should aim to integrate these two areas of discipline that exist within the same sphere of influence, they are not polar opposite, far from it so let's realise that and work together!
When testers code it can on the one hand lead them to focus on the possible issues that will be encountered from a programming point of view such as numbers being out of range e.t.c., this focus can lead to identifying areas worth testing rapidly...however...this focus can lead away from possible odd scenarios.
This all leads on to the fact that finding bugs and prioritising bugs are two very different things, if a bug is found but the likely hood of it happening is a million to one shot and the cost to the customer is minimal as compared to the cost of repair then does it need to be repaired. This philosophy reminds me of a scene from Fight Club where the Ed Norton character is telling a passenger on a plane that if the cost of an out of court settlement multiplied by the frequency that the failure could happen is less than the cost of a recall they simply don't do one, this is probably closer to fact than fiction than we want to admit, after all businesses are in the business of making money and this sort of gamble is how they keep the bottom line healthy.
Anyway testing and development need to share as divided we fall!
This particular conversation keeps happening almost as regularly as the non-argument about test automation...don't get me started on that though!
The conversation usually revolves around me trying to assert the idea that there is no developer or tester, there is simply someone involved with software. What I mean by this and typically fail to impress on is that a developer does (or at least should) also test code just as a tester can write code if they want to.
The important thing in this conversation is the statement "if they want to". There should be no impediment to a tester getting involved with writing code if they want to, just as there should be no reason a developer can't come up with all manner of ways to test a system if they want to. There should be no voice of dissension should either camp decide to get involved, if there were this would be like some sort of apartheid and detrimental to the individual as well as the team.
There are advantages and disadvantages to allowing this but let's be honest we're all people not our designated labels so choice should be the driving force and we should aim to integrate these two areas of discipline that exist within the same sphere of influence, they are not polar opposite, far from it so let's realise that and work together!
When testers code it can on the one hand lead them to focus on the possible issues that will be encountered from a programming point of view such as numbers being out of range e.t.c., this focus can lead to identifying areas worth testing rapidly...however...this focus can lead away from possible odd scenarios.
This all leads on to the fact that finding bugs and prioritising bugs are two very different things, if a bug is found but the likely hood of it happening is a million to one shot and the cost to the customer is minimal as compared to the cost of repair then does it need to be repaired. This philosophy reminds me of a scene from Fight Club where the Ed Norton character is telling a passenger on a plane that if the cost of an out of court settlement multiplied by the frequency that the failure could happen is less than the cost of a recall they simply don't do one, this is probably closer to fact than fiction than we want to admit, after all businesses are in the business of making money and this sort of gamble is how they keep the bottom line healthy.
Anyway testing and development need to share as divided we fall!
This particular conversation keeps happening almost as regularly as the non-argument about test automation...don't get me started on that though!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
