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.

True, but at that point, every website I’ll ever visit and have visited in the past might be a threat, so that doesn’t really matter too much to me.

I’ve got several hits, but none of them have permission to request my location. If I understand the README correctly, that should mean I’m safe, right?

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

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.”

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.

Late reply, but for me personally, I started doing it because my Keepass database is already accessed using two factors (password and key file). Therefore, I’d gain very little by keeping the second factor of those sites external - essentially, those second factors are compounded into the second factor for the database.

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?