True. But my bewilderment is that even if I don't show any indications that I disagree, they still feel the need to project that eery, creepy vibe. Without any visible provocation. They just don't seem to know how to socialize.

What is it about religious people that puts them so much on edge? Did someone hurt them badly when they were growing up (aside from the clergy in the church they were attending)?

The Uber driver had to actually get out of the car and teach me how to open the passenger door. I can't recall if I actually got a t-shirt after I graduated the course of how to open Tesla doors.

I had no idea how to open the passenger door, because the door handle was not like on all other cars (the handle was not protruding, but was sunk at the same level as the door surface; I had nothing to grab with my hand).

The car just refused to move! And I did all the moves that all other drivers are doing."

The order of activities matters, you see.

They go, "OK, I turned the windshield wipers on, then I pressed the brakes, then I started turning the steering wheel to the left and to the right, then I pressed the gas pedal, then activated the left turn signal, then I put the gear into drive, then I turned the ignition key.

Nowhere in that process is any need for opening a PR.

To remove any reasons for doubting the validity of the change, we must run mutation testing. If mutation testing creates any surviving mutants, that means our solution is faulty. We must kill all surviving mutants before we could confidently go live.

However, that's not enough. Just because all tests pass, that's not a good enough assurance that the change is production worthy.

Something just does not add up with such completely messed up line of thinking. Feels like a glorified abracadabra approach to software engineering.

Can somebody help me out here?

'does this solve the wrong problem?' or 'does this misunderstand the business requirement?', but somehow they are magically capable of answering those same questions when doing after-the-fact code reviews?

The surprising thing to me is this: why do some people think that, while the team is designing and writing tests they are not capable of asking questions such as

The typical answer to that question goes something like this, "Well, tests can’t catch 'this solves the wrong problem' or 'this misunderstands the business requirement'.

So, looks like we're good to go live. But, and here is the clincher, someone may exclaim, "Not so fast! We need to review the code." Someone else may ask, "Why do we need to review the code? It already makes all test pass and all surviving mutants are killed."

They continue in that fashion until the time comes to deploy the change. If they're prudent and into hardcore engineering, they will run mutation testing and make additional changes that will kill all surviving mutants.