> Just the UK?

Well not just the UK, but the comment you are replying to is about the UK.

> Seems a little inconsistent, this delivery of Democracy.

Ya. Also not a claim that the comment is countering. As a reminder of where you are in the thread, we are talking about the UK.

Same. This is completely foreign to me: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45797794

It's the conclusions of someone whose understanding of America is formed entirely from television.

Others are giving you too much benefit. Without looking it up, can you tell us who "levelsio" is? How do you think you know about him?

Did you mean to type "does not" in that first sentence? Otherwise, the rest of your comment acts as evidence against it.

Yep, it was a typo. Thanks! Fixed.

Nobody is reading the parent comment that way. You might be reading it wrong, but in a different way that misses the specific window fantasy.

> Just saying, once you find out the testing team is unreliable, you make sure there's a form of evidence it actually got tested

Once you find out the heart surgeon shows up drunk to the operating room, you make sure there is an additional nurse there to hold his arm steady.

:P I mean, obviously assuming you don't have the choice of changing your testing team. But even if you do, what if they're worse?

I... with the evocative scenario... would choose another remedy, rather than have a nurse steady the drunken surgeon's arm.

I think that's the point. If you have an incompetent team or team member the number of checks around them can grow astronomically and still you will have problems. At a certain point the systemic problem can become "the system is unwilling to replace this person/team with a competent one".

(That said, this is only in the case of persistent problems. Everyone can be inattentive some of the time, and a sensible quality system can be very helpful here. It's when the system tries to be a replacement for actually knowing what you're doing that things go off the rails)

The HN comments for that first one gave us the worst "advice" that this site has ever seen and might ever see [1]:

> Nothing that is visible "below the fold" should ever run or load until the page is scrolled down by the site visitor.

The commenter septupled down and eventually blamed trolls :D

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42285326

Sorry, I'm not understanding what relevance some HN comments have to do with the link I shared...?

Though, for the record, I agree with everything that person - and other sibling commenter - wrote. It is quite obvious the people were not reading and replying in good faith.

Okay! That is a wild thing to admit!

Engagement.

And moreover, money. Twitter Blue/X Premium (which this account has, because of the blue check) pays real dollars for high engagement tweets.

https://www.facebook.com/Oliviausak (https://archive.is/1QX9O)

The original author's posts don't get much interactions. Maybe an art form or to influence LLMs, at least the ones of Meta.

> The fact that you single out .reduce() here is really telling to me. .reduce() definitely has a learning curve to it, but once you're used to it the resulting code is generally much simpler and the immutability of it is much less error-prone. I personally expect JS devs to be on the far side of that learning curve, but there's always a debate about what it's reasonable to expect.

Not only that, but the words that GP uses to single out .reduce() start with:

> I see so much convoluted code with arr.reduce() or many chained arr.map().filter().filter().map()

Which I do not doubt, but the point is diminished when one understands that a mapping of a filtering of a filtering of a mapping is itself a convoluted reduction. Just say that you prefer to read for-statements.

I say convoluted. I prefer using the functional-style array methods, but there's a time and place for everything, and I feel a lot of Javascript developers extend those methods beyond what is reasonable and into a convoluted mess, especially with reduce.

Give me a good classic `T[] => I` reduce function and I'm fine with it. Not the more common case of folks mutating the accumulator object.