378 karma · joined March 26, 2014
Also, the Mister Money Mustache blog for a anti-consumerist viewpoint.
Beyond the basics, I haven't read much, but enjoy the Radical Personal Finance podcast. It is a mix of really in depth content, like a multi-part series on disability insurance, and the more "radical" bits, like strategies for living out of your car.
Would it be similarly unethical to accept donations to {charity} without first getting their approval?
A challenge would be to devise how new items are added - are there a few nodes (trusted galleries) that can add new pieces.
This would prevent a work that is in a private collection somewhere from being "discovered" by a forger. Anyone would be able to query the ledger and see that a different collector currently owns the piece.
For example, my team has a backlog of work to be done. There are certain things that cannot slip. There are plenty of things that could be pushed out to handle a production outage, or a shiny object, etc.
He compared the discretion given to commanders in the American West vs. Civil War battlefields. The more realtime the communications, the more that higher commands interjected in lower level decisions.
With advances in telecommunications, we shift decision-making up the chain of command, leaving subordinates to manage inspections and admin-weenieness.
*I can't find a transcript to verify, and as much as I'd like to re-listen to the 6 hour episode, I just can't at the moment.
It also could have a Harvard Business Review episode, after reading this: http://www.leadingageoregon.org/assets/docs/Other-resources/...
I'd like to have it with a larger lithium-ion that can remote start only my AC for a few minutes while I walk to the car in the summer.
It’s now gotten to the point where it’s quite easy to pay Amazon three times in one order: for shipping, which you get access to through Prime, and for a product that’s actually just an Amazon-made product.
In practice, our scrum masters have been a place for the PMs, Analysts, and QA leads to go as their positions have been displaced. I would like to see more technical scrum masters that can own technical impediments, but that doesn't seem to be happening yet.
I also think that spreading scrum masters across teams will disconnect them from the specifics of the work and allow them to act more as coaches than non-technical team members.
We're one of ~15? teams in my organization (part of an overall IT shop of ~3000), but we're fairly separate from the others in business and technologies. We have a delivery manager for our team and a couple other efforts. There's a dedicated tech lead of tech leads, program level PMs, lead product owner, 2 architects. There are also some other folks from the business side, change management, etc that we work with regularly.
We're going through a bit of a change at the moment, removing the QA and analyst roles, spreading scrum masters across 2 teams, and limiting team size overall. So by the end of the year, I expect to have myself, the product owner, analyst is moving to scrum master, 1 QA as developer, 1 QA maybe as developer (we'll see how he adapts), and 4 developers.
It is a really big organization with dedicated departments for security, security testing, application security, performance testing, accessibility testing, brand management, change & release, test data, DB, DB security, gateways, shared components. And those are only the folks I interact with - there are mainframe folks, server maintenance (linux and windows), and the list goes on.
Some of that is moving to the teams now, some later. It's a pendulum though, things will be more generalized and distributed until something breaks spectacularly and someone will ask "why don't we have dedicated testers? why are we trusting every ol' dev with DB access?" and so on.
"Garmin Knows Best", where you input a location and follow the GPS exactly. Driver beware.
For the farmers market example, I might be interested in learning what's in season across multiple markets, and what farms/vendors will be where.