Funny threads

[RavensFan]

---

@SnowMule wrote:

---

@MarkCG wrote:

I smell a business opportunity

thread

---

First thing that came to my mind was the toilet-testing videos on youtube...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkOaQNiKgoo

---

Interesting video.  But considering this is supposed to be a corporate video, they could have held it to higher production standards.  The audio sucks, and there is no reason for them to have a stupid song playing continuously throughout the video.

I've seen better videos from guys repairing their cars in the garage.  Though some of those videos are bad as well like when they decide to have a radio playing in the background while they are recording the video that they know they want to post in the internet.

[JÞB]

---

@RavensFan wrote:

---

@SnowMule wrote:

---

@MarkCG wrote:

I smell a business opportunity

thread

---

First thing that came to my mind was the toilet-testing videos on youtube...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkOaQNiKgoo

---

Interesting video.  But considering this is supposed to be a corporate video, they could have held it to higher production standards.  The audio sucks, and there is no reason for them to have a stupid song playing continuously throughout the video.

I've seen better videos from guys repairing their cars in the garage.  Though some of those videos are bad as well like when they decide to have a radio playing in the background while they are recording the video that they know they want to post in the internet.

---

I guess I'm not quite up to today's standards for interest in toilet web cams.  I must admit I did not follow the utube links.  Somehow, I do not feel like I am depriving myself.

[Jacobson-ni]

You're really missing out Jeff.

It's like will it blend, but with toilets.

[crossrulz]

It could be my lack of sleep.  It could be my 7 month old trying to climb into everything and pull every single wire in the house (he takes after his old man there).  But there just seems to be a spike in stupid people lately.

Unbuild an Array - Heaven forbid we assume somebody who does not know how to use the Index Array is a noob!

CREATING RANDOM ELEMENTS - How many more times do I have to tell this person the same thing of what they are doing wrong?

[bsvare]

---

@crossrulz wrote:

It could be my lack of sleep.  It could be my 7 month old trying to climb into everything and pull every single wire in the house (he takes after his old man there).  But there just seems to be a spike in stupid people lately.

CREATING RANDOM ELEMENTS - How many more times do I have to tell this person the same thing of what they are doing wrong?

---

I absolutely loved how he did his screenshot!

Those responses reminded me of the Lego Movie, you tell Pa not to move and as soon as you tell Ma what to do, Pa does it also.

[Ray.R]

---

@JÞB wrote:

---

@jcarmody wrote:

---

@pallen wrote:

[...] You know, if all you wanted was a green a light; you could have done that yourself. 

---

It would certainly be easier for us to write.  The Software Quality engineer would probably catch it, though.

---

Sometimes they actually do:

<Sea Story Again>

Bare in mind the "code under test" in this case was proven good the Original validation plan was found to be questionable and replaced. 

Validation test plan for a design verification test of a "Gizmo"  "Gizmos" have an operating requirement to output a DC pulse if no input pulse was observed within a specific time.  The verification test was to determine if the input reciever's sensitivity was per intended design.  ( Of course it must have met its designed limits!  All electronic systems perform as designed- some may have design flaws.  I can't tell you how many times I've had to tell an engineer "It works just exactly the way you designed it to work")

Easy, Start but inputing simulated signals into the device, decrease signal amplitude to the minimum sensitivity threshhold and observe that at mininimum sensitivity Pulse output was still inhibited (must have met the sensing threshhold right?)

While I was a signator on the validation test report I did my due dilligance and actually inspected the test set-up.  UUT out of loop !)  the tech had simply forgotten to hook it up but of course- the validation passed since- no output was seen.

Procedures are in place to prevent that type of thing from ever recurring at that company.

</Sea Story>

---

I was given a recent task to measure RSSI and verify the standard deviation, which was the criteria.  The std dev had to be below 0.05.  When running the software and disconnecting the signal it would still pass.  I simply explained that no signal results in a standard deviation of 0 which was below 0.05.  My follow up question or statement was, how about looking at more scriteria to decide if it passes, such as "are we getting any signal"?  The final solution has 5 criteria.  😄

[Ray.R]

---

@crossrulz wrote:

But there just seems to be a spike in stupid people lately.

Unbuild an Array - Heaven forbid we assume somebody who does not know how to use the Index Array is a noob!

CREATING RANDOM ELEMENTS - How many more times do I have to tell this person the same thing of what they are doing wrong?

---

Must be due to all those chemtrails affecting their synapses.  They should not spend all that time outside in the fresh (cough) air.  Either that or they are born that way...   LOL! cough 😄

Jokin aside, yes..  It does appear that there are more stupid people out there.  Is it because they now have access to technology which makes them more visible (ie: Internet)?  I have been doing a personal survey lately.  People who drive during daytime and insist on leaving their high-beams on.  I have observed 2 groups of people who consistently do that.  I can't post my observations because....  it would not be "politically correct".  So let's just say that my observations revealed the highest percentage to be gender-related, whereas the second highest group is from a common region.

[crossrulz]

---

@Ray.R wrote:

I was given a recent task to measure RSSI and verify the standard deviation, which was the criteria.  The std dev had to be below 0.05.  When running the software and disconnecting the signal it would still pass.  I simply explained that no signal results in a standard deviation of 0 which was below 0.05.  My follow up question or statement was, how about looking at more scriteria to decide if it passes, such as "are we getting any signal"?  The final solution has 5 criteria.  😄

---

Reminds me of when I inherited an RF test system.  One of the tests was an AM Rejection test.  The idea was to send a valid command to the radio using AM instead of FM.  The unit was to not respond.  As part of my release effort, I did something that had never been done before: a code walkthough!  I found that the RF Generator was not set up to use AM modulation (I think it was actually set to use Phase Modulation for some stupid reason).  But the tests always passed!  Quality found out and we had a mass scramble to check ALL of the radios (at least 5 different models) and customers also got involved.  Part of that fun was to just run all of the tests with no radio attached to the test system just to see which tests could actually pass.  You would be amazed how many issues we found just from that one experiment.

[Ray.R]

That's why validation should always involve 2 scenarios:  fault insertions and no UUT

[tst]

---

@Ray.R wrote:

I have been doing a personal survey lately.  People who drive during daytime and insist on leaving their high-beams on.  I have observed 2 groups of people who consistently do that.  I can't post my observations because....  it would not be "politically correct".  So let's just say that my observations revealed the highest percentage to be gender-related, whereas the second highest group is from a common region.

---

I do this often. The reasons are as follows:

1. There's a law here which requires you to drive with your lights on for about half the year, regardless of conditions. I don't drive too often and I'm terrible with knowing what the date is, so I just tried to get into the habit of always making sure the lights are on when I start driving, so I don't have to worry about it.
2. I don't make a point of it, but if I remember, I will generally use the high beams, because I feel it makes you more visible to those driving in the opposite lane without making it hard for them to see. Obviously, in broad daylight this effect can be negligible, but sometimes it's not and I'd rather be safe. Obviously, if I judge that this would distrub other drivers, I use the low beams.