And compared to the profits certain to be reaped if you were successful in developing it.
4,567 karma · joined December 1, 2011
That should be for people who actually dedicate their lives to doing good. Gates is facilitating other people doing good. He’s like Alfred Nobel himself, not like the recipients.
It seems a lot more likely this site made this insane story up to drive traffic.
And it’s from 2016.
What’s the next best router out there in terms of coverage, reliability and ease of use?
Yes some small companies and personal web pages could be replaced by static HTML with minimal inconvenience.
But most companies benefit greatly from a CMS.
How about instead of telling users not to use a CMS, the CMS developers start listening to the security concerns that have been brought up to them again and again for the last 20 years.
The F150 is a huge and heavy vehicle. While the current model is more efficient than other recent models it is not an efficient car. Not remotely.
My wife and I give most of the netflix movies and shows a shot but the batting average is unfortunately really low. At least for us. We thought "Bright" and "Titan" were absolutely terrible.
And it's not like we're snobs, we're looking forward to "Infinity War" even though it's silly and dumb. The writing the Netflix movies is mostly really horrible, though.
I hope they make some better movies because the world does not need more bad or even mediocre ones. We have plenty.
Ireland and Apple weren't following the law, that's the whole point of this.
But it’s also not relevant at all. As I tried to spell out the situation you describe is not unique at all. It’s the same thing every software dev encounters.
I’m glad you found tools that work for you, but this exchange has been unpleasant so I’m done with you.
But outside of a very small company to me it’s a bigger crime to waste engineer time with all the meetings necessary to give them that full perspective. When I started at my current company I was the only developer and I worked directly with the CEO and our single marketing person. Back then I helped decide priority. Now the company is too big for that. I don’t have time for all the manager and marketing and business planning meetings to be able to decide priority.
As far as defining features, we can propose them like anybody else but I think I already explained why usually it makes sense for them to come from whoever owns that piece of what you’re doing. But this of course again depends on the structure of your company.
The solution is not to blame whatever particular form of agile you’re using; the solution is to replace the bad managers if you can’t educate them on why that’s short sighted.
If it does result in development work; like your pull request results in revisions. You have choices about how to account for that. If you feel you have confidence about how much extra work that will add based on the issue you’re working on, you can account for that when pointing it. (Much like you’d account for writing tests or going through code review process within a team.)
If you have no handle on how much work it takes for whatever reason (contributing to multiple projects with wildly different expectations) then you can make new issues for each set of revisions. This will give you clear history that you can reference afterwards and learn from.
In any case; it’s a poor craftsman who blames his tools. SCRUM can work for all these situations if you want it to. If you have a defeatist attitude or if you prefer to blame systems and tools for your problems instead of finding solutions, you can do that too.
Let me be clear; I’m not saying SCRUM is for everyone or the best system or any of that. I’m just saying these specific claimed problems don’t hold water with me.
For the way we do it, when a stakeholder wants our team to do something, they come to us with user stories and acceptance criteria that matter to them. Then we hash out the rest of it. I don’t really see a useful way we could be trusted more. The Marketing department knows best what feature it is they want on the website, and why. So they specify that part. We estimate complexity and the business weighs the priority of that feature against other stuff in our backlog and it falls into an appropriate sprint based on that and other motivating factors. Then we do the work.
I don’t see a lack of trust? So I’m curious where you see it and feel it should be done better?
In my mind it’s no different than waiting on a design or pricing sheet or API key or any other dependency that holds up work. Yeah you might have to context switch to something else for however long you are waiting but that’s what happens.
Also why the “do your work fast like SCRUM forces you too”? SCRUM doesn’t mean do your work shitty and fast. Maybe your organization wants it to but whether you prioritize speed or doing it the best you can or whatever is up to you, I don’t see that as part of SCRUM.
I’ll restate my point plainly; hero worship articles about anyone who’s work is actually part of a team (all the many articles about Jobs are much worse than this one, for example) help paint a false picture in our society of the lone genius. This false narrative is harmful just for being false, but also helps lead people to feel like being a lone genius is an achievable goal and what one should strive for. Which of course leads to failure.
My problem is not with Kare or someone writing about her. My problem is with this author and many others writing in this way and denying the reality that geniuses of all kinds collaborate with others and are enriched for it.
When people wrote lots of hero worship articles about Jobs they missed the contributions of Kare and others. This quote does the same thing:
> “If the Mac turned out to be such a revolutionary object––a pet instead of a home appliance, a spark for the imagination instead of a mere work tool––it is thanks to Susan’s fonts and icons, which gave it voice, personality, style, and even a sense of humor. Cherry bomb, anyone?”
Her work is important and great, but she didn't do it in a vacuum.
It seems like every profile of someone nowadays has to make them out to be a singular genius who's work is of individual, utmost importance. It's not enough to just say "Hey look at this cool stuff this person did!" They have to be singularly responsible for something.
I didn't draw that conclusion at all. It didn't sound like he was advocating healthy discussion. He came off to me as being brand new to a team and insisting on his way, while not being open to any explanations of why that either wasn't a priority or wasn't viable at the moment.
Walking into a team as a new member and immediately insisting on sweeping changes is never a good idea.
1. Things aren't always black and white in terms of right/wrong or better/worse. Things usually have tradeoffs, and what might seem like an obviously worthwhile tradeoff to you might not be to everybody else.
2. You're wrong way more than you think you are. Be more open minded about others' views, and don't take one instance of being right delude you into thinking you're right about everything else. Stay open to being wrong.
3. Be nice! I still have to work on this one. Even if you are 100% factually right, don't be a jerk about it. Don't be insistent that things have to go your way. There's other factors (like time and resources.)
It may be unsatisfactory to hear "We don't have the time and resources to do things the Right Way(tm)." But it's reality. Every organization has to deal with that.
And yes, being liked by your coworkers is as important or even more than being technically proficient. If I hate working with you, that's probably not something that can be fixed. If you lack technical skills, I can probably teach you. So I will always choose the person who is pleasant to work with over the Ultracoder 3000 who's always complaining and miserable.
When I was a kid "grown men" were only allowed to be really into sports or maybe cars. Now those barriers of what is "acceptable" for adults to be into (among other things) are broken down.
As far as someone dressing up as a super hero for a professional conference; I'm sure if you could dig through the reports of Comdex from the 80s you'll find lots of ridiculous stuff. Most of which would be totally unacceptable today.
Also I think the author maybe should have taken a little more care when referencing attractive females working the booth to contextualize it for people that won't give him the benefit of the doubt that he was pointing out it was absurd. Gender politics being a hot button issue right now.
One size fits all decrees like this are almost always baloney.
If I had to sit on bench seating all day I'd probably quit after a week.