3 ms·

I don't think you understand how magnets work. Hint: if you think the way to test whether a needle is magnetized using another possibly magnetized needle is by

I don't think you understand how magnets work. Hint: if you think the way to test whether a needle is magnetized using another possibly magnetized needle is by building both needles into two separate compasses, you're nowhere close.

lelanthran 2y ago
> Hint: if you think the way to test whether a needle is magnetized using another magnetized needle is by building both needles into two separate compasses, you're nowhere close. I thought it was clear from my post that I do not think this. I also think you are missing the point.
- saithound 2y ago
  You wrote: > if you created 10 magnetised needles using the wrong process and getting the wrong result, then all 10 would agree with each other and your test passes This suggests that you do think soemthing like this. Again, the way you test wheher you successfully magnetized a needle using another potentially magnetized needle is not by checking whether they "agree with each other" in the end application.
  - latexr 2y ago
    > This suggests that you do think soemthing like this. Or it suggests they’re continuing the analogy (which isn’t perfect) to make a different point. > Again, the way you test (…) is not (…) Twice you’ve spent the majority of words in your post telling someone they’re wrong without explaining the correct methodology. That does not advance the conversation, it’s the equivalent of saying “nuh-uh” and leaving. If you disagree, it’s good form to explain why. It doesn’t take long to say the failed magnetisation would leave all needles pointing in disparate directions, not the same consistent wrong direction. Unless there’s something else in your test that is so strong and wrong that it causes that problem, in which case the analogy starts working again.
  - lelanthran 2y ago
    > You wrote: >> if you created 10 magnetised needles using the wrong process and getting the wrong result, then all 10 would agree with each other and your test passes You snipped out the qualifier to the paragraph. The qualifier is important. Here's the full quote with the qualifier: > Using this analogy, if you created 10 magnetised needles using the wrong process and getting the wrong result, then all 10 would agree with each other and your test passes, but your needle is still broken. IOW, using this analogy for software development, all the products created with the wrong algorithm and/or process would all agree with each other. It's why I say you are missing the point. You're not creating a binary product that either exists or doesn't exist, like magnetism, so repeating the process as some sort of "test" is a broken way to test. It's also the most popular way to write tests: the tests are effectively moot because a pass does not indicate that the result is correct.

lelanthran 2y ago

> Hint: if you think the way to test whether a needle is magnetized using another magnetized needle is by building both needles into two separate compasses, you're nowhere close. I thought it was clear from my post that I do not think this. I also think you are missing the point.

saithound 2y ago
You wrote: > if you created 10 magnetised needles using the wrong process and getting the wrong result, then all 10 would agree with each other and your test passes This suggests that you do think soemthing like this. Again, the way you test wheher you successfully magnetized a needle using another potentially magnetized needle is not by checking whether they "agree with each other" in the end application.
- latexr 2y ago
  > This suggests that you do think soemthing like this. Or it suggests they’re continuing the analogy (which isn’t perfect) to make a different point. > Again, the way you test (…) is not (…) Twice you’ve spent the majority of words in your post telling someone they’re wrong without explaining the correct methodology. That does not advance the conversation, it’s the equivalent of saying “nuh-uh” and leaving. If you disagree, it’s good form to explain why. It doesn’t take long to say the failed magnetisation would leave all needles pointing in disparate directions, not the same consistent wrong direction. Unless there’s something else in your test that is so strong and wrong that it causes that problem, in which case the analogy starts working again.
- lelanthran 2y ago
  > You wrote: >> if you created 10 magnetised needles using the wrong process and getting the wrong result, then all 10 would agree with each other and your test passes You snipped out the qualifier to the paragraph. The qualifier is important. Here's the full quote with the qualifier: > Using this analogy, if you created 10 magnetised needles using the wrong process and getting the wrong result, then all 10 would agree with each other and your test passes, but your needle is still broken. IOW, using this analogy for software development, all the products created with the wrong algorithm and/or process would all agree with each other. It's why I say you are missing the point. You're not creating a binary product that either exists or doesn't exist, like magnetism, so repeating the process as some sort of "test" is a broken way to test. It's also the most popular way to write tests: the tests are effectively moot because a pass does not indicate that the result is correct.