babybjornborg

Why are you downvoting me, I'm right

This is democracy in action: give the people what they want (and need)!

I read this book last year and this application is spot on. There is a point in the narrative when the company automates a step in their manufacturing using an expensive machine and it has the effect developed here: the next step in the process is backed up further.

The points specific to software where it might not even be producing in-spec is also very good.

Comments that cite the solo dev/prototype case are of course not what this is getting at, but it's one good use of quick generation.

I would extend this article by saying what The Goal says, namely that the goal of every firm is to make money, and everything is intermediate to that. So whether or not software architecture is grade-A or grade-C, it's only ever in this subservient role to the firm's goal.

Leaning into vs. trying to kill the boredom/loneliness/emptiness is a strategy. Because this is how it is now. You will only ever get so much love from your cat.

I don't know you and all I know is what you've written here, but it seems like this new situation has unmasked your life and aspects of your personality and the truth is uncomfortable. This is who you were before as well, it's just more obvious now that you don't have the relationship you had.

How it is and who you are: these are the premises of the situation. Now given this, where do you go from here? You decide. The premises are just the start, the conclusion is something else and you're driving the car 100% now.

It sounds like you have the right idea, and this worked in my case. Find what sucks and work to make it not suck and don't expect results overnight. Persist, adapt, overcome.

I sincerely hope the best and that things improve for you.

I don't agree that personal styles of weirdness are a desirable social style. I agree that bland dinner-party persona is oversubscribed. I agree that quitting hobbies from social pressure is needless self-erasure. My take is that we need a both-and answer.

To consider an extreme obvious counter-example, think of a cross-cultural situation where social conventions vary widely and adjustment is needed, and then consider that we all hail from our own microcultures with their own customs and expectations.

The real balance to achieve is being who we are in a way that doesn't alienate others. Fully accepting both self and other.

Apparel firms exist not to clothe people as common sense would suggest but to make a profit, and this practice of erring on the side of overproduction is more profitable than under production. The perfect solution would be to produce exactly the number of goods they will sell, but forecasts aren't perfect so they overproduce. Firms are already incentivised by profit to not waste, so this adds another incentive and removes the pollution externality they have been enjoying. So now either they err closer to under-production and risk missing out on sales or secondary market supply of their goods increases leading to possible brand dilution. So in the end the value of these companies ends up lower than before, less pollution, and apparel is cheaper. I'd like to know more about the equity and carbon effects of the process they will need to now follow. So they trade destruction with shipping a crate to Africa. What is the difference? Firms will be less profitable, manufacturing is reduced, who is impacted by that?