My experience is exactly the opposite. I don’t work for a FAANG but I’ve been around the block a bit. Its always the junior devs that try and add new warnings etc to the code base. I always require warnings to be cleaned up even if that means disabling specific instances (but not the whole rule) because the rule is flagging a false negative.
That’s why I said false negative. The medical test is testing for the presence of a disease. So if they find the disease is considered a positive test (it found what it was looking for). For static analysis on code, its the opposite. Its testing if your code is free of issues that it can detect. If it finds no issues, then the test was positive. If does find issues, the test failed and each issue is a negative that contributed to the test failing.
You could say “A static analysis tool is testing for the for the presence of defects” or “a medical test is testing if your body is free of diseases that it can detect” to change how you’re looking at either of the tests in the previous comment.
By your logic it would be a positive for your code to have errors/warnings. And on the latter, that would appropriate if there was a test that determined if you are free from all known diseases (or at least those that it can detect).
Is it a positive to have pathogens that cause dengue/malaria in your blood? Yet we still say that someone tested positive for dengue if they have the virus.
Static analysis tools don’t test for all known issues either, no?
I’m not debating. It is not a matter of opinion. I’m doing you the courtesy of informing you how the entire rest of the world uses the term.
If action A looks for thing X, and it finds thing X, then the test is positive. If action A fails to find thing X, then the test is negative.
If action A claims to find thing X, but later confirmation determines that thing X is not really there, then this situation is called “false positive”.
If action A claims fails to find thing X, but later confirmation determines that thing X is actually there, then this situation is called “false negative”.
That thing X may subjectively be considered an unwanted outcome has **nothing ** to do with the terms used.
It boils down to desensitization/normalization. Warnings (and errors, of course, but tests as well) exist for a reason. If you don’t care about these gauge constructs are telling you, then they have no real diagnostic value. Getting into a place where you’re not looking at how your systems are actually running is generally a bad idea, especially in the long run.
The conversation on here is fantastic for the most part, and my question was mostly rooted in amusement, but you surely have to admit that veering from sovcits doing their thing to conspiracy theories about celebrity toes is a pretty remarkable turn.
I constantly call out juniors who do things like ignore warnings, completely unaware that the warning is going to cause serious tech debt in a few months.
But Ive also unfortunately shrugged after seeing hundreds of warnings because to update this requires me to go through 3 layers of departments and we’re still waiting on these six other blockers.
Yeah I’m one of the “I only want to write this fucker once so I will make it as solid as I can” types… and my manager/team-lead/principal dev (all the same person - that’s a whole other story) is the “yolo send it” type.
We do not get on well. I’m probably going to switch teams or jobs soon.
My fucking back tensed just looking at this shit. Never helping plant signs again. Though it was cool the signs were made to use one of those instead of just stabbing it in the ground like those weak ass wire frame ones.
Yeah, doesn’t involve burying or getting into the actual ground itself from anything I’ve seen about it.
Using that phrase, to “plant” a sign would be to lay it on top of the ground. So it wouldn’t be wrong for a large weighted sign I guess, but the pictures about pouring something into the ground.
You said plant your feet, that has a specific definition, which is different than the one you’re using now for planting.
Language is tough. But yeah, no planting a sign is not a correct term for what you would do. Like at all, no matter how you try to stretch definitions.
Yep plant has multiple definitions, and neither is for placing signs in the ground, and it also is different in the specific phrase “plant your feet”. Neither refer to rooting.
The nuances are tough, but they are there.
Maybe provide the specific definition that you’re confusing the right one with and we could clear this up.
I’m not confused, I know what they meant, hence my original joke at a statement that while makes sense, doesn’t work using any real definitions.
Yeah using random words in place of the proper ones can make a logical statement, but that doesn’t disclude it from not being a proper phrase language wise.
Again, hence my joke using the term in another incorrect usage…. The fact that you need this explained is quite frankly hilarious if you’re coming here to call me out or something lmfao.
Loosen your grip right before it hits, not enough that you lose control but enough that you’re not going to take much of the impact. It might take an extra hit or two, but it also might mean that you can push it down a little bit harder as well knowing that you don’t have to absorb the impact
lemmy.world
Active