How Successful People Make The Most Of Their Toto Site

“Eat-and-run verification” is a term one may come up with for a technique that mathematics seems to me to have developed recently. In this technique,  토토사이트 (Toto site)an important mathematical statement is cooked up in the form of a puzzle. Then someone comes by and eats up all the information from the puzzle, leaving only a cryptic description behind.

Eat-and-run verification is both exciting and humbling

It is humbling because eat-and-run verification is a way of verifying that one has an idea that works. It does not, however, guarantee 토토사이트 that the idea is worth anything. There are a lot of things that work. For example, caffeine that we wouldn’t want to pay for. It used to be hard for a start-up to get someone to eat their product and run. One’d have to hire a market research firm to do the eating and running for one, at great expense. No one can ask their friends on social media.

And the feedback from friends on social media is exciting because it’s fast. Getting people to give one their time and attention is expensive; getting them to click a button is cheap.

Start-ups are supposed to be run by optimists, but too much optimism can be dangerous. The danger here stems from the fact that an optimist tends not only to overestimate how good something is but also to underestimate how much better it could be made. That’s not a recipe for good decisions about what needs to be done or who should do it. So true eat-and-runners aren’t optimists but realists about how good an idea is but optimists.


Eat and run verification is a powerful tool.

Eat and run verification is a powerful tool for finding bugs, but it’s also a subtle art, and it’s full of dangers. The main danger does not understand the difference between what one is supposed to check and what is not. This difference is difficult to explain because people think of things in terms of their own experiences. If one is a programmer, one probably thinks about programs. But what if one told one that almost all the bugs one ever found in my life were in requirements or specifications?

Requirements especially are hard to test automatically because they don’t tend to have any side effects detected by the computer. The answer depends on their goal. If their goal is to find bugs, and this is true, no matter what kind of software one is writing, one needs to check hypotheses about the program, not the program directly. And if one doesn’t understand which hypotheses are important, then no automatic technique will work for one. These hypotheses will vary from person to person and from project to project, so there is no way one can give hard-and-fast rules about how to proceed. But here are some questions that seem likely to be useful.