Otherwise your test implicitly make assumptions like “User A is always off-line” (or bucket A is always empty), add a reader of the test would have to go find where that assumption is hardcoded in the simulator and verify it separately from the test itself.

To someone reading that test it is not intuitive that user A is always off-line or bucket A is empty.

If you mock out in line, you can have tests that mock user a / bucket a — to simulate any state for any user or bucket. Perhaps multiple states in one test.

Also think about scenarios like the bucket is initially populated, but then on a subsequent request, it’s empty.

With the simulator approach, you’d have an endless number of permutations of scenarios to add — each of these scenarios would be highly coupled to the test it belongs to, so why not just put it in line in the test itself?

Any reader of the test that uses inline mocking would clearly see which scenario is being tested instead of having to dive into a separate simulator to see what special treatment is hardcoded for User a / bucket a (or maintaining potentially hundreds or thousands of simulated buckets with ad hoc names like “empty-on-second-request” or “bucket–that-responds-slow-and-times-out-but-succeeds-on-retry”.

One nice thing is the LLM can “reason” about my weak areas and tailor the drills it generates next to keep me on a productive path.

I personally don’t get much value from pulling in 1,400 arbitrary problems but this is cool for people who want to hit the ground running.

A corrupt regulator could prohibit this for ride share industry only, to target under a pretext.

Manipulating market incentives could also reduce competition assuming an end goal is acquisition.

Of course with no regulation, corrupt players can consolidate power.

I would say unchecked power is more dangerous, so the question to me is if we presume regulation is good then how do we structure it so the regulators are regulated?

So isn’t that gambling, not engineering?

I repeatedly complained it was activating “emergency lane departure” while driving manually, even after disabling the setting. This had the effect of the vehicles swerving towards cross walks or walls.

Clearly a software issue but they played dumb and forced me to book service visits and refused to provide loaners.

Each time they returned the vehicle(s) with a short resolution of “expected characteristic”.

I read my purchase agreement, emailed them, and simply stated they are obliged to buy back my fleet given its a hazard to public safety. They obliged without discussion.

There were also other persistent issues with the vehicle beyond the software but i suspect the software put them into a double bind where if they “fix” it they create more liability via accidental disengagements.

And an owner who believes that means the locals want to “destroy” her business.

Im not choosing a side, but it doesn’t seem like they have a strong future with or without a logo. That’s just Santa Cruz culture, very aggro surfers.

Many of the surrounding restaurants are very immersed in local surf culture and put a great deal of resources and effort into their decor.