Stranger43

Agile is everything to everyone because it's derived from an manifesto made up of non-actionable feel-good slogans but is very often used as a shorthand for a set of project management practices, that have an less then perfect real world track record.

Because you haven't articulated them were well.

My experiences with OKR's is that they are an cargo cult practices covering the lack of good coherent strategy, the exception to this is things that looks like OKR's but evolved differently within the organization rather then being adopted top down by a set of management consultants.

The problem with OKR and every other fad managment system weather it be agile. SaFE, or LEAN is that they are all essentially cargocults once the leave the orgnisation that spawned them.

The problem is that organisations that feels the need to import management dogma's are trying to avoid doing the hard and potentially ego-destroying for upper management task of examining why they arent getting the performance from their mid management they want, by simply copying in the surface aspect of someone more succesfull,

Add to this that there is a surpricingly small number of people both in management and programming that have ever managed a project from cradle to grave at all let alone done so successfully and you get a culture of management consultants that have never been with a project long enough to watch the pretty facade crumble diue to a lack of solid foundations.

an good example from an us gov standard contract is here https://www.acquisition.gov/far/52.249-2

It's basically "a no harm, no faul" termination of an existing contract, and is fairly common in competitive markets where there is no long term strategic partnership to develop an unique product.

If it's the buyer terminating it's either because the product is either no longer needed or an cheaper supplier was found, and if it's the seller it's caused by all sorts of resource optimization reasons(aka someone being willing to pay more for the same limited resources, or an increase in cost making unprofitable).

It's not the smartphone as much as the negative synergy between many to many shortform social media and the always there smartphone that is creating all of the damage.

If you uninstall every social media app from the smartphone and configure every one to one communication app to silent mode most if not all of the negative impact that your smartphone have on your life will probably go away or become trivial issues. But then again that's kind of like turning your smartphone into an dumpphone, and decrease the need for a big new expensive one every 18-24 months.

The problem with smartphone centric asocial media is that they discourage one to one and longform messages so what you get is the equivalent of a crowd of people shouting slogans at each other and while that can be tremendeusly entertaining it's mentally draining and rarely lead to closer relationships or constructive dialogue.

Add to this is the fact that.there is indications that being bored is actually beneficial to long term mental health.

The feature being developed was a way to make adopting Edge easier and with that mindset of that being what the users want developing robust ways for edge not to run it's import feature at every boot simply never gets to be an priority.

The mentality at MS is for everything to be about promoting their SaaS divisions to the point where there is no longer an independent business unit selling windows, and bundling them with an nearly impossible opt out is an proven strategy for selling value add services that people might either not need or prefer to get from 3rd parties if asked to explicitly opt in to the vendors version of that service.

I think your making the assumption that business user means someone sitting st a desk with a PC writing letters in word or doing calculations in excel and not someone with a shovel doing gardening or driving a van around.

For the average small business the only thing they cant do on their smartphone is file their taxes or interact with whatever bookkeeping/banking system their accountant ashed them to use. And the only applications they have is whatever came preinstalled on the acer laptop they bought from the local big box store.

For MS and their partners the goal is to actually sign them up with an business account through an MSP, which might not be the rational thing for any small service sector business to do as there is nothing in the o365 that will aid them in performing the services they sell to their customers.

There is a large segment of crossover where small non-IT centric companies will run it on whatever was on sale at their local reseller and a couple of Cloud services for CRM and accounting and no IT staff/policy.

For those to sign up with a Microsoft partner and buy into the full packet could be an significant market, Though it could end up a net loss for MS if this segment start to go Chromebook in a major way the way a lot of school districts did.

It looks like MS response to completely missing the boat of the early web 1.0 and 2.0 development is to go all in trying to be less trustworthy then Meta, Google, tiktok, apple and amazon combined by ignoring all pretense to respecting any privacy standards.

Individually the changes might look like things other SaaS vendors might do but combined it's clear that MS is the least restrained of the big players in the cloud/SaaS market.

The problem with the computerization brings benefit lines is that it was demonstratively true back in the mainframe days but became less and less so once the big beast with dedicated attendants and handlers got replaced by "not quite foolproof enough" wintel desktops managed by nobody.

This is also why so few PC centric modernization process are truly successfull.

In a lot of ways not legally.

In and out can fire their vendor and walk away, this is nearly impossible for an public institution to do once the procurement contract is awarded, so those systems end up "too big to fail" no matter how bad or unfixable the situation is.

Nope thats what sharepoint365 and teams(which does include an file store in it;s channel feature) comes into play but the back end and api's are essentially the same as for one drive.

MS have done a good job of tying everything into a big entangled system where it's hard to disentangle any of the "on prem" products like windows and office offline from the cloud backend used by office365, and a lot of this is introduced gradually with standard(often security critical) updates it gets used without a lot of policy.

You can backup the office365 data elsewhere(were using aws s3 buckets for office365 backups where i work) but that's not cheap nor particularly easy to do and the need to do so is often overlooked when the contract for o365 is signed.

My perception is that General aviation is mostly stuck in 1950ies when it comes to technology and we might be seeing an issue where the real issue is the limit of verbal communication to be unambiguous enough for modern standards.

It would be fairly easy to replace the whole hear/repeat with an system of unambiguous text messages using hardware not much more expansive the cost of an tank full of avgas for the average plane but it seems like people still try to solve this by regulating the already crowded radio frequencies with more verbose instructions.

Change IT provider!

The reason why things gets worse is not that the cloud companies are evil monopolies(they are for profit companies who cannot put the common good ahead of their shareholders financial interests) but that people refuse to look at smaller less hyped alternatives to what gets marketed by the biggest companies in the cloud sector.

Enterprise backup solutions are high maintenance product even when they actually do what they claim which is not a guarantee. And the way onedrive sneaks it's way into the organisation without an structured plan means that they often don't get covered by backup policies the way you might do if IT was commissioning a fileshare or locally hosted product using traditional non-agile processes.

Probably not, not if they bought into the o365 product hook line and sinker, which you kind of have to if your a windows shop as MS is using every dark pattern known to them to make it harder for office files to exist outside of one-drive/sharepoint365/teams.

It's teoretically possible if your vigilant of able to force users to use your published workflow to run windows with purely onprem resources but it's not the path of least resistance.

The real question is why nobody ever looks at the smaller regional cloud providers when the big ones pull some stunt they don't like.

There is hundreds of companies offering nextcloud hosting, and yet the presumption is that only the big 3 is viable.

yes and this is likely twitter overcompensating after that fallout.

Basically what this show is that firing your entire moderation team leads to inconsistent moderation as modern automation simply isn't up to the task of dealing with high-emotion topics.

The big hurdle is that for some reason people think that video content cannot be decentralized and that building off-platform brands tend to be a lot harder then playing the algorithm for most professional creators.

Web3 as a brand is probably dead having been tarnished by association with the cryptoscam community, but there is some hint that the zeitgeists is for both creators and consumers wanting a more direct relationship that can only really come via more decentralization of control.

But those are platforms, for some reason this was not seen as a major problem back when we had websites and rss feeds rather then people sharing spaces on a single platform.

There was always an underground of filth(even in the pre-internet days) but unless you sought it out you werent actually exposed to it back in the pre-platform days.

It could be that the platformization is a consequence of people wanting censorship and handing over the curation power to large commercial entities lets people have that to an large enough degree. But it also leeds to a kind of blandification of content as everything have to fit into the model dictated by the platform taking away some venues of creativity(ie no crazy color schemes etc).

Exept of cause that it creates a bunch of giant for profit gatekeepers manipulating the content stream for maximum profit(for the gatekeeper).

It feels like the web grew up into an bitter old fart who takes everything way to seriously.

What's missing is the culture of "anonymity" where everyone was pretty much just a screen name and people did not give that much care to their long term reputations and the fall from that more or less started with facebooks real name policy, or rather when facebook stopped being an glorified phonebook and started being an content platform.

That culture of "pseudoanonymous amateurs" gave rise to an atmosphere of fun that seems to be entirely missing today as everyone is too focused on the hustle of monetization and avoiding controversy to just do silly things.

Add to that that for some reason every large enterprise organization seems to have forgotten how to actually manage and use their own websites preferring instead to blast out using the new "everything for everyone" platforms.

Depends a lot on the jurisdiction several European courts have thrown put EULA's and TOS' agreements as being entirely invalid in a business to customer relationship, but im sure some American court somewhere will declare those as valid contracts.

If my experience is anything to go by those clusters will fade and die over the next 20 years just like the equally critical and irreplaceable unix(tm) vms and mainframe system is in the process of doing.

But it will be a long process and a lot of money will be made by vmware and partners even as the market wound down and move to whatever it is that going to replace it(im willing to bet it wont be kubenetes as we know it today).

We have had sales people trying to push this to us for the last few years and so far it's been ridiculously priced and nobody seems to come up with plausible real life success stories.

My impression is that vmware have had almost no traction for any product beyond stock vsphere and even there the API's see very little use as most customers prefer to point and click in the web interface and are basically happy with what vmware delivered a decade ago in terms of features, but people in this market are also loyal to vmware as it's the known way to get virtualization to smaller server rooms.

But if doing evil(killing) is always the work of evil/amoral people can you actually have "good" soldiers? given that the work of a soldier at war involves killing, especially as modern mechanized armies use weapons that makes it nearly impossible to avoid collateral damage.

Im of cause using moral in the relative term here as following an "code of ethics" and acting in "the interest of the common good" as described in that code rather then simply acting from hedonistic/sadistic impulses.

The problem with absolute morality is that it's of absolutely no use to an rational actor dealing with an real world that don't conform to the idealized/simplified model that such moral codes tend to depend on for logical constituency.

They are engaging lawyers and engaging with some of Sweden's most popular and powerful NGO's that's not doing nothing that's actively throwing money into a fight that's both hard to win and where the worst outcome might actually be for Tesla to "win".

Again the "laizes faire" no labor protections of America just don't exist in Europe the question is weather you negotiate with an equal partner made up from your own employee's or have the state bureaucracy micromanage local details.

Elon dont control Tesla the way he does X and have been consistently overruled by his the tesla board of directors so this will merely be another case of Elon loosing face.

The way unions work in scandinavia is that they are decentralized but supportive of each other.

IE as long as the workers don't form an local chapter everything is fine the problem if that when such a chapter forms and the company ignores it every other union chapter is allowed to refuse to deliver work in support of an company that choose to refuse/fight unionization.

So for there to be an conflict there have to be an meaningful chapter formed within tesla's employee base that tesla refuses to acknowledge.

Now again remember that this system is core to the "flexsecurity" systems employed by all of the nordic countries which is generally based on fair negotiations between equal parties(union and company) if Tesla manage to break that model they force the bureaucracy and state to take over and set highly rules without any concerns for local details they way it typically happens in France which is going to hit their profitability far harder then allowing unionization.

At least not directly, if they sell via a dealership/importer who employs unionized labor they have no problem it's only direct from Tesla sales that's impacted but then again a big part of Tesla's model is of cause that they don't use franchised dealerships as middlemen.