move first semester to first semester

I/MTM/task5-recenzija/Makefile

@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+toolshed ?= docker run --rm -v $(PWD):/x -w /x motiejus/toolshed
+
+task5-recenzija.pdf: task5-recenzija.tex bib.bib
+	$(toolshed) latexmk -pdf $<

I/MTM/task5-recenzija/bib.bib

@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+@inproceedings {186171,
+	author = {Ding Yuan and Yu Luo and Xin Zhuang and Guilherme Renna Rodrigues and Xu Zhao and Yongle Zhang and Pranay U. Jain and Michael Stumm},
+	title = {Simple Testing Can Prevent Most Critical Failures: An Analysis of Production Failures in Distributed Data-Intensive Systems},
+	booktitle = {11th {USENIX} Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation ({OSDI} 14)},
+	year = {2014},
+	isbn = { 978-1-931971-16-4},
+	address = {Broomfield, CO},
+	pages = {249--265},
+	url = {https://www.usenix.org/conference/osdi14/technical-sessions/presentation/yuan},
+	publisher = {{USENIX} Association},
+	month = oct,
+}

I/MTM/task5-recenzija/task5-recenzija.tex

@@ -0,0 +1,135 @@
+\documentclass{article}
+
+\usepackage[L7x,T1]{fontenc}
+\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
+\usepackage{csquotes}
+\usepackage[english]{babel}
+\usepackage[style=authoryear]{biblatex}
+\addbibresource{bib.bib}
+\usepackage{hyperref}
+\usepackage{caption}
+\usepackage{subcaption}
+
+\title{
+    Research Methodology -- Fifth exercise\\ \vspace{4mm}
+    Critical evaluation of scientific work
+}
+
+\author{Motiejus Jakštys}
+
+\date{\today}
+
+\begin{document}
+\maketitle
+
+\section{Introduction}
+
+\cite{186171} analyzed 198 randomly selected failures in popular distributed
+systems, and classified the reasons for each failure. This is one of the most
+interesting findings:
+
+\begin{figure}[h]
+    \centering
+    \begin{subfigure}[b]{0.7\textwidth}
+        \blockquote[\cite{186171}] {
+            Almost all (92\%) of the catastrophic system failures are the result of
+            incorrect handling of non-fatal errors explicitly signaled in software.
+        }
+        \caption{Simple and powerful observation about bugs in distributed systems.}
+        \label{fig:quote-errors}
+    \end{subfigure}
+\end{figure}
+
+We will review the paper and answer the following questions:
+\begin{enumerate}
+    \item What kind of study is this? Theoretical, strategic, applied, or
+        experimental?
+    \item What is the main purpose of the research task (descriptive,
+        explanatory, correlative, prognostic, prescriptive, or exploratory?
+    \item What strategies have been applied? Qualitative, quantitative or
+        mixed?
+    \item Do the findings adequately reflect the results?
+    \item Has the scientific method been applied properly?
+    \item Are the findings based on the research findings described in the
+        text?
+    \item Can the study be repeated, is there sufficient information?
+    \item Did the study create new knowledge? Is there practical value?
+\end{enumerate}
+
+
+\section{Structure overview}
+
+\subsection{Kind of study}
+The paper is strategic, applied:
+
+\begin{description}
+
+    \item[Strategic:] authors have developed an artifact \texttt{Aspirator}
+        which helps software maintainers find certain classes of bugs. What is
+        more, they provided new knowledge, like in the quote above.
+
+    \item[Applied:] the artifact of the work, \texttt{Aspirator}, can be
+        applied by other software developers looking for similar classes of
+        bugs.
+
+\end{description}
+
+\subsection{Purpose of the research task}
+
+The research task is descriptive and correlative: given a well-understood
+situation of distributed systems fail catastrophically, researchers are finding
+common reasons for failures, and developing tools to mitigate them.
+
+Conclusions and suggestions are prescriptive: the researchers are warning
+engineers against common failures, and suggesting tools to mitigate them.
+
+\subsection{Applied Strategies}
+
+The task is mixed:
+\begin{description}
+    \item[Quantitative:] researchers are analyzing and classifying a large
+        number of bugs.
+    \item[Qualitative:] each bug requires careful analysis in order to classify
+        it and make interesting conclusions.
+\end{description}
+
+\subsection{Do findings reflect the purpose and results?}
+\label{sec:findings-purpose-result}
+
+Research findings are derived directly from the purpose and research results.
+Namely, the researchers set out to find the most common reasons for
+catastrophic failures in distributed systems. They found them, classified them,
+and gave suggestions for future generations of distributed systems developers.
+
+\subsection{Scientific Method and reproducibility}
+
+Scientific methodc is empirical: given 198 randomly selected bugs,
+researchers went to classify them using predefined classification rules and
+techniques.
+
+Classification methods and research methodology were clearly described in the
+introduction, in a way anyone with sufficient engineering background could set
+out to re-classify the bugs.
+
+Given that, the actual referenced bugs and behaviours were not listed in the
+article, therefore \textbf{it is impossible to replicate this exact study}.
+
+\subsection{Practical value}
+
+For a software engineer building distributed systems, the conclusion alone
+(\ref{fig:quote-errors}) is already eye-opening for making our own robust
+distributed systems.
+
+\texttt{Aspirator} looks like a promising tool for code bases that were
+developed without non-fatal error handling in mind. For engineers that are
+working on new code and are disciplined, can take their time to write tests for
+failure conditions (i.e. not in pressure to ship code), knowledge-able and read
+the discussed paper, this tool will not be useful.
+
+Even though it is important to educate existing and future generations (what the
+article does very well), since life is not that great, \texttt{Aspirator} will
+likely find its use in existing and new software.
+
+\printbibliography
+
+\end{document}