Project X Cypher 40 5.0 Review

[Lenora Rademacher]

Ifi work in a software team which is typically driven by delivery, and if we want to study the introduction of peer review, test driven development and refactoring, how much time delay can be expected in a typical delivery cycle ? Would it be 30% slower, costlier ? Would it reduce over time ?

If you want to build a business case for peer review etc ask yourself how much it is costing your organization in time and effort and customer dissatisfaction to fix problems that are identified after delivery. I would wager that adding peer review into the mix would be cost and time neutral at worst if you look at your systems end-to-end.

There is no pre-determined number which can be attributed to delays but it is certain that introducing these elements into your current process will reduce team's velocity and delivery, at least in the short term. This number may vary from company to company and team to team based on skills, cohesion, culture, and environment.

One suggestion would be to introduce these items one by one instead of starting all of these items at once. Include one such improvement into the process and measure its impact on velocity and delivery cycle. Let it go on like this and fine tune it according to your needs and situation. Once the team has a good handle on it, introduce another process improvement and repeat the cycle.

These measures should be considered an investment. Delays due to such measures would give you profits in the future in terms of better quality, less headache in code maintainability, evenly distributed code knowledge in the team, etc. Some of these items such as Refactoring are essential. Regular refactoring should be part of your delivery estimations. Sometimes it is necessary to refactor code in order to implement a new feature. You cannot (rather should not) ignore it in favor of feature delivery, otherwise it is going on haunt you in the long run.

I've been part of the introduction of Test Driven Development (TDD) at a previous company and 30% was a good thumb suck for how long it initially took, however the reduction in defects discovered in Test and then release was significant and sold the entire dept on the process.

Over the next few projects it did reduce but not by any great amount (perhaps 5%), however the defects remained at a much lower level than other projects and freed up the developers to do more work rather than be bogged down in BAU defect resolution.

We were in a similar situation in one of my previous assignments. When one of the deployments caused a significant disruption of service, we did a retrospective and decided that peer review was the only way to catch those kinds of problems. The cost was only about 10 to 15%. However, we were able to see the payoff in the increased confidence level with which we were able to deploy and fewer post-release issues.

Test driven development and refactoring are a different kettle of fish. For one thing, you don't want to venture into refactoring unless you already have unit tests written for that part of the code. Otherwise, you will end up with:

Not really, except from climbing the learning curve. But, the production issues and the consequent fire fighting should go down. If you have QA testers, they can focus less on code coverage and more on user experience, performance testing and so on. Also, developers can take on code refactoring with more confidence.

Disclaimer: CypherLabs sent me the Trio amp for the review on loan, I had to pay for the import fees my government loves so much. CypherLabs supplied the Fedex return envelope for its journey back home to the US.

Lieven is living in Europe and he's the leader of the gang. He's running Headfonia as a side project next to his full time day job in Digital Marketing & Consultancy. He's a big fan of tube amps and custom inear monitors and has published hundreds of product reviews over the years.

However, Cypher presents a sinister twist on your standard music documentary that steers the film more into The Blair Witch Project territory. Moukarbel and his crew learn of a strange conspiracy that may target Tierra, at which point the second definition of cypher comes into play. In addition to its connection to the rap world, "cypher" can also mean a secret, encoded way of writing. Cypher itself becomes a kind of puzzle, posing riddles about fame, the entertainment industry, and who's really in control of the film's narrative.

Cypher works so well in part because of how it lulls you into a false sense of security with its documentary filmmaking. The film opens with classic doc-style talking heads from Tierra and members of her team such as her manager, producer, and hair and makeup artists. Also lending realism to the project is the film's shakier handheld camerawork, as well as small moments where Moukarbel and film producer Natalia Leigh Brown ask questions off-camera.

Wielding these formal elements, Cypher is able to present itself as a straightforward music documentary because its subject is a bonafide star in her own right. Tierra is not a rap persona invented for a mockumentary, she is a Grammy nominee with stamps of approval from the iconic likes of Beyonc and Rihanna. Cypher leans into Tierra's actual story, featuring footage from her freestyles on shows like "We Run the Streets" and music videos from her debut album Whack World. Clips from her TikToks and live shows help further cement Cypher as a (seemingly) legitimate music documentary, while helping viewers get to know Tierra's inventive musical stylings.

After meeting Tierra fan Tina Johnson Banner (who cryptically tells the rapper, "Don't let them use you,"), Moukarbel and Brown begin receiving ominous e-mails and links to video essays about a secret society known as the Oculists. Rumor has it that these Oculists regularly select rising stars for ascension, and Johnson Banner is convinced that Tierra is their next target for some form of ritual.

The premise is reminiscent of conspiracy theories surrounding the Illuminati claiming members of the music industry sell their soul for fame. Discussions between Tierra's team and the documentarians touch on this topic, asking whether it's possible to attain a massive level of stardom without giving up part of yourself. It's an especially interesting (and meta) question given that a documentary is supposed to capture the authenticity of its subject, yet Cypher blends truth with fiction to become a "pseudo-documentary."

Cypher continues to build suspense with Johnson Banner's mysterious disappearance and as strange gifts start showing up for Tierra and her team members. But the most chilling aspect of Cypher's conspiracy theory rabbit hole is the appearance of an Instagram account full of videos of Tierra in moments when she thinks she's alone and unobserved. From backstage clips of the rapper getting ready to CCTV footage of Tierra hanging out in her hotel room, it's clear that someone other than the documentary team is keeping close tabs on her every move. The found footage fits right in with Cypher's documentary style, making for a cohesive twist as well as an effective commentary on how constant surveillance often accompanies fame.

With stalker alarm bells ringing, Cypher begins to interrogate itself. Are Moukarbel and Brown telling Tierra's story their own way? Or has their documentary's focus been manipulated by shadowy outside forces? Who's really steering Cypher? It's a question Moukarbel and Brown pose themselves as the film moves farther into darkness. Yet as Brown points out, "That's the beautiful thing about documenting something: You have to let the story unfold."

Letting Tierra's plight unfold is exactly what Moukarbel and Brown do. The resulting tension between the real and unreal makes for an absolutely unnerving and fascinating viewing experience. That fascination dims a bit as Cypher heads into a predictable climax that unfortunately doesn't match the film's prior levels of suspense and uncanniness. However, the film's very last scene (and shot) resurrects all those questions of narrative power and authentic stardom. It's enough to prompt an immediate rewatch of this fiendish puzzle of a film, which proves a rewarding marriage of music documentary and found footage thriller.

The site is secure.

The ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Background: Six months after the approval of the first DES, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported 50 hypersensitivity reactions after stent placement but later concluded these were due to concomitantly prescribed medications such as clopidogrel. Nevertheless, the FDA continued to receive reports of hypersensitivity.

Methods: Reports available from April 2003 through December 2004 for hypersensitivity-like reactions associated with the sirolimus-eluting stent (CYPHER, Cordis Corp., Miami Lakes, Florida) and paclitaxel-eluting stent (TAXUS, Boston Scientific Corp., Natick, Massachusetts) were reviewed. Sources of reports included the FDA's adverse-device-event database, the published literature, and investigators from the Research on Adverse Drug/Device events And Reports (RADAR) project. Causality was assessed using standardized World Health Organization criteria.

Results: Of 5,783 reports identified for the DES in the FDA database, 262 unique events included hypersensitivity symptoms. Of these reports, 2 were certainly and 39 unlikely caused by clopidogrel and 1 was certainly, 9 probably, and 13 unlikely caused by the DES. From all sources, we identified 17 distinct cases that were probably or certainly caused by the stent, of which 9 had symptoms that lasted longer than four weeks. Four autopsies confirmed intrastent eosinophilic inflammation, thrombosis, and lack of intimal healing.

Conclusions: The FDA reports and autopsy findings suggest that DES may be a cause of systemic and intrastent hypersensitivity reactions that, in some cases, have been associated with late thrombosis and death.

3a8082e126