u/Accomplished_Bank975

Last Saturday I covered a full day corporate event. Keynote speakers, panel discussions, breakout sessions, networking moments and I had two cameras running almost the entire day. Came home with just over 4 hours of footage, with good footage too. Proper lighting, clean audio, genuine moments that actually happened.

The much that made it to final content was only about 2 minutes. One highlight reel, posted on LinkedIn. The rest is sitting in a hard drive somewhere and the thing that makes me uncomfortable that there were so many good moments in that footage. A speaker said something genuinely brilliant in the middle of a 45 minute talk, a candid exchange between two panelists that was more insightful than anything scripted.

But going back through 4 hours of footage to find those moments? After already spending a full day shooting and another full day editing the highlight reel? I just didn't have it in me and I think about this a lot actually. The gap between what gets captured and what gets published is massive for most video professionals. We work so hard to get the footage and then barely use any of it.

does every videographer have a hard drive of unused footage that could have been great content? What's your workflow for actually getting more out of what you shoot?

I inherited a codebase with 1,100 tests and every build is green. Deployment pipeline runs in 4 minutes flat.

Last month I started actually reading the tests. Not running them. Reading them. I wanted to understand what they covered. About 340 of them assert that a function "does not throw." That's it. The function returns garbage, returns null, returns a completely wrong value. But it doesn't throw, so the test passes and another 200 are snapshot tests that nobody has reviewed since 2024. The snapshots were auto-updated after a major refactor and committed as a batch. They're testing that the current output matches the current output. If the output changed tomorrow, someone would update the snapshot and move on.

I flagged this to my lead. He already knew. He said the pipeline speed is a feature. Product org gets nervous when builds take more than 10 minutes. The last engineer who added thorough integration tests pushed the build to 22 minutes and got asked to "optimize" it. He deleted his tests instead.

So now I sit in standups listening to people say "all tests pass" like it means something. I've started adding real assertions to the tests I touch, but I'm doing it slowly so the build time creeps up gradually. Like boiling a frog, except the frog is a deployment pipeline and I'm the one turning up the heat. I don't think we've caught a real regression from this test suite in over a year. The dashboard says 99.8% pass rate. I think the real number, if these tests tested anything meaningful, would be closer to 70%. The scariest thing is that nobody disagrees with me when I say this privately. They just don't want to be the person who makes the build slow.

I joined in January and by February I had mapped out the codebase and found that roughly 30% of it was unreachable. Feature flags that were never turned on. Entire API endpoints that nothing calls. A complete notification system that was deprecated two years ago and replaced, but the original code was never removed. It still has its own database table with 4 million rows that gets backed up nightly. I started cleaning it up. Small PRs. Each one removed a specific dead path, with evidence that nothing referenced it. I checked analytics, traced the dependency graph, confirmed there were zero callers. Every PR was reviewed and approved.

In three months I removed 40,000 lines across 87 PRs. The codebase was measurably easier to navigate. Onboarding a new engineer took less time because there were fewer wrong turns. IDE search returned relevant results instead of burying them under deprecated code.

Then my VP called a meeting. He wanted me to stop. His word was "destabilizing." He said two things. First, every deletion is a risk even if the code is dead, because "you never know what's connected under the surface." Second, the PRs were triggering too many review cycles and pulling attention from feature work. I pushed back with the data. He said "I appreciate the initiative but I need you focused on the roadmap."

The codebase now has 40,000 fewer lines of dead code and roughly 60,000 more lines of dead code that I identified but am not allowed to remove. I documented all of it. When the next engineer joins and asks "what does this code do," the answer for a third of the codebase is "nothing, but don't touch it."

I'm going to tell you about a bug that took 3 months to diagnose and the fix was changing a single character. We had a billing system that occasionally double-charged users. Not a lot of users. And not consistently. Support would get a handful of tickets, we'd refund them, log it, and move on. It happened maybe once a month.

I was assigned to find the root cause. I spent two weeks staring at logs. The pattern made no sense. Different users, different payment methods, different amounts. The only commonality was the timing. Every incident happened between 1 AM and 3 AM UTC. But not every night. Random nights.

I built a dashboard tracking every charge event. After a month of data I noticed something. The double-charges only happened on nights when our batch reconciliation job ran during a daylight saving time transition in a timezone that wasn't even ours. We stored timestamps in UTC but one microservice, a legacy service nobody owned, used America/New_York for its internal scheduling. During the spring-forward transition, the service would skip an hour and re-run the reconciliation. During the fall-back transition, it ran the same hour twice.

The double-charges were happening during the fall-back. The reconciliation ran, charged users who owed a balance, then "woke up" again in the repeated hour and ran the same batch because the guard clause checked the wall-clock time, not a monotonic counter.

The fix was changing < to <= in a timestamp comparison so the second run would see the charges from the first run. One character. Three months of investigation. Twelve customer refunds. A post-mortem that was 4,000 words long for a one-character diff. The next person who tells me timezone bugs are "edge cases" is getting this story read to them at full volume.

14. FOURTEEN in 3 months and that's all through cold outreach and referrals.

That's where we (drizz) are right now and we're launching on Product Hunt today, but honestly we've been heads down selling and building for over a year and this is the first time we're doing anything public.

So basically Drizz is an AI agent for mobile/web app testing.

You write what you want tested in plain english, the AI looks at the screen and moves through the app like a human tester would. No selectors tied to button names or random IDs that break because somebody changed “Continue” to “Next”. Every QA team immediately understands the problem because they already have it.
Half the time teams aren’t fixing actual bugs, they’re fixing tests that broke because the UI changed slightly 2 days before release.

That’s the reason we built this.

Some of these pilots are with companies running apps with 5M+ downloads which still feels kinda surreal because we’re sitting here building from Bengaluru while the customers are in SF, Singapore, London.

Anyway, launching today and link’s in the comments if you want to check it out.

I run a B2B outbound agency, it's going good, we're scaling and I'm looking for guys who are brutally the pros of LinkedIn.

The work:

* Use linkedin management tools provided by us or do it manually, to outbound and manage profile

* Use your knowledge to scale the profile (Engagement, likes, etc)

* Generate qualified leads for the business (I don't have a target in mind but I'm expecting like 10-15 good leads per month)

Notes:

* You don't need to know everything

* I'll provide content, message copies, tips, etc (You can do it yourself too if you want, we'll help either way)

* Recommended to use your own profile, it grows as well as it gets us leads all while not sounding like a bot, win-win

Pay:

* 75 USD per lead (Payable monthly, wise paypal payoneer, etc)

* If it goes well for a month or two, we will hire you as a salaried employee + commission basis

* Everything will be transparent, you'll get access to our data, managers, content guys and everything.

Comment or Dm me, serious guys only with good LinkedIn knowledge and a basic maintained profile

I run a B2B outbound agency, it's going good, we're scaling and I'm looking for guys who are brutally the pros of LinkedIn.

The work:

* Use automation software provided by us to do outbound and LinkedIn profile management

* Use your knowledge to scale the profile (Engagement, likes, etc)

* Generate qualified leads for the business (I don't have a target in mind but I'm expecting like 10-15 good leads per month, no roof no floor)

Notes:

* You don't need to know everything but I'm expecting you to know many things about LinkedIn

* I'll provide content, message copies, tips/tricks, automation software, etc (You can do it yourself too if you want, we'll help either way)

* Recommended to use your own profile, it grows as well as it gets us leads all while not sounding like a bot, win-win

Pay:

* 75 USD per lead (Payable monthly, wise paypal payoneer, etc)

* If it goes well for a month or two, we might hire you as a salaried employee + commission basis

* Everything will be transparent, you'll get access to our data, slack, managers, content guys and everything.

Comment or Dm me, serious folks only with good LinkedIn knowledge and a maintained profile