There are two different things mentioned here, which I feel I need to clarify:

First, what you said about merging / creating a PR with broken tests. Absolutely you shouldn’t do that, because you should only merge once the feature is finished. If a test doesn’t work, then either it’s testing for the wrong aspect and should be rewritten, or the functionality doesn’t work 100% yet, so the feature isn’t ready to get merged. Even if you’re waiting for some other feature to get ready, because you need to integrate it or something, you’re still waiting, so the feature isn’t ready.

At the same time, the OP’s point about tests being supposed to fail at first isn’t too far off the mark either, because that’s precisely how TDD works. If you’re applying that philosophy (which I personally condone), then that’s exactly what you do: Write the test first, checking for expected behaviour (which is taken from the specification), which will obviously fail, and only then write the code implementing that behaviour.

But, even then, that failing test should be contained to e.g. the feature branch you’re working on, never going in a PR while it’s still failing.

Once that feature has been merged, then yes, the test should never fail again, because that indicates a new change having sabotaged some area of that feature. Even if the new feature is considered “essential” or “high priority” while the old feature is not, ignoring the failure is one of the easiest ways to build up technical debt, so you should damn well fix that now.

If you want the magic explained, here’s a start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lempel%E2%80%93Ziv%E2%80%93Welch

Well, what problems are you trying to solve by having the classes all access each other’s data members? Why is that necessary?

Cookies required for the website to work (like that one) are totally fine and, in fact, they don’t even have to ask you about them - if they’re not used for tracking. So no, asking each time is definitely avoidable.

Not only is that headline’s grammar exceptional(ly bad), for a moment I thought the developer of Control was named Alan Wake. Like, how did they manage to butcher that so badly?

Because I didn’t know absurdism, I read the second one differently at first:

[The] nothing matters.

And I immediately had to think of this gem:

“But it doesn’t do anything!” - “No, it does nothing.”

Depending on the stuffing, I might actually rather take the seat, just because it’s got armrests.

Huh, interesting… You know, I’ve never really wondered about Humble Bundle specifically, but you’re right, they seem to be selling your run-of-the-mill Steam keys, or at least you can activate them effortlessly in Steam. Maybe it’s a case of Steam themselves handing out keys (instead of the publishers) to increase user retention? I honestly don’t know, this is all just speculation.

I actually didn’t click on your link at first, because I assumed it would just show other stores where you could purchase the whole game instead of a key, so I’m sorry that you had to clarify that.

As far as I know, they do - for Steam keys. If you’re selling your game through other stores, not just a Steam key, there aren’t any demands placed upon you. The OC might’ve been talking about that.

That may be true for smaller cities, but in bigger cities it becomes impossible, because there just isn’t enough space to house all the people near areas of interest. Cars don’t factor in there at all. Give me a subway for the major areas, and perhaps a tram or bus system so you don’t need that many subway stations in the residential areas, and you can have car-free city centers.

I don’t really like including pedestrians in there. Like sure, you can fit a bunch of people in a small area, but another point you shouldn’t ignore is the throughput over time, and pedestrians are by their nature rather slow. Obviously if you’re looking at shopping in a street lined by shops left and right, then that street becomes tailor-made for pedestrian traffic (and nothing else except perhaps bicycles). But public transport is much better suited for travelling any further distances, and that should be the main focus when deciding to ditch cars.

Sorry, I mistakenly assumed you were talking about disk storage - sure, if you’re designing your own solution, definitely use tags! Although the ones Gmail uses aren’t really portable in my experience, so you’re forced to use their mail client. That, however, is pretty much unavoidable if you’re putting a new spin on established protocols like they’re doing - maybe those changes will get picked up by other clients, maybe they won’t, who knows?

That’s true, but since we’re stuck with the file/folder system for all intents and purposes, you should be able to replicate that behaviour by making those tags part of the filenames (like rent_lease_landlordX.pdf) and searching for (parts of) filenames instead. But yes, a dedicated system would of course be preferable.

Why not just use soft links instead?

That’s something I would disagree with though. “Sticking with plain HTML and CSS” is way more work, and often has significantly less functionality, than building a website with a framework.