3 ms·

> Does this even need a study? Isn’t it simply obvious? There are "obvious" and "trivially true" things in science that turned out to be false. While it might

> Does this even need a study? Isn’t it simply obvious? There are "obvious" and "trivially true" things in science that turned out to be false. While it might be easy for certain engineers to accept, there is real value in having validated our assumptions on how we operate.

rusk 5y ago
As a practicing engineer this should be readily observable in our day to day lives. Defects escape, and the further they go the more hassle it is. Only people who haven’t experienced this would need it “validated” and I think this type of thought is the same as denying climate change. Oh you have a lived experience well I have this study. That is not to say that the economics necessarily follow the costs … and that is very likely the route of the problem.
- miltondts 5y ago
  > Defects escape, and the further they go the more hassle it is. As a practicing engineer, what is readily observable is that this is highly dependent on context. You see how hard it is to reach any consensus without rigorous measurement? How many more hours are needed to correct a defect down the line? How much does the context affect this? Is it possible to change the context such that the cost is the same? I can't understand people that are against having scientific knowledge, when time and time again we see that real advances are mostly made by acquiring that. Many times overthrowing what was "obvious". > I think this type of thought is the same as denying climate change. Climate change is one of the best examples of how having scientific knowledge is absolutely crucial, instead of guiding ourselves by what we experience.
- mewpmewp2 5y ago
  Denying climate change is ignoring science and studies as opposed to requiring studies to be sure.
mewpmewp2 5y ago
Yeah, and there's no single golden rule. Everything would depend on: a) the bug b) the product There can also be cases where it's more expensive to find and fix the bug as opposed to some customer finding a bug and reporting it. There's reasonable amount of testing you should do. You can never be sure that there aren't any bugs and at certain moment, proceeding tests wouldn't any longer be cost beneficial. A bug could be some button's focus border being of wrong color. No one notices this despite having spent 20 hours testing, running through the site in dev, and then one day designer happens to notice it and makes the report. Developer will have to change one line in CSS, they don't even have to deploy it immediately, but can deploy it together with everything else. Depending on the pipeline of course. In retrospect are you going to go ahead and conclude, that we should have done another 20 hours of testing to definitely spot that "bug" because it's 100x more expensive to fix it in production?

rusk 5y ago

As a practicing engineer this should be readily observable in our day to day lives. Defects escape, and the further they go the more hassle it is. Only people who haven’t experienced this would need it “validated” and I think this type of thought is the same as denying climate change. Oh you have a lived experience well I have this study. That is not to say that the economics necessarily follow the costs … and that is very likely the route of the problem.

miltondts 5y ago
> Defects escape, and the further they go the more hassle it is. As a practicing engineer, what is readily observable is that this is highly dependent on context. You see how hard it is to reach any consensus without rigorous measurement? How many more hours are needed to correct a defect down the line? How much does the context affect this? Is it possible to change the context such that the cost is the same? I can't understand people that are against having scientific knowledge, when time and time again we see that real advances are mostly made by acquiring that. Many times overthrowing what was "obvious". > I think this type of thought is the same as denying climate change. Climate change is one of the best examples of how having scientific knowledge is absolutely crucial, instead of guiding ourselves by what we experience.
mewpmewp2 5y ago
Denying climate change is ignoring science and studies as opposed to requiring studies to be sure.

mewpmewp2 5y ago

Yeah, and there's no single golden rule. Everything would depend on: a) the bug b) the product There can also be cases where it's more expensive to find and fix the bug as opposed to some customer finding a bug and reporting it. There's reasonable amount of testing you should do. You can never be sure that there aren't any bugs and at certain moment, proceeding tests wouldn't any longer be cost beneficial. A bug could be some button's focus border being of wrong color. No one notices this despite having spent 20 hours testing, running through the site in dev, and then one day designer happens to notice it and makes the report. Developer will have to change one line in CSS, they don't even have to deploy it immediately, but can deploy it together with everything else. Depending on the pipeline of course. In retrospect are you going to go ahead and conclude, that we should have done another 20 hours of testing to definitely spot that "bug" because it's 100x more expensive to fix it in production?