1,942 karma · joined March 27, 2021
Yeah this, to me, totally invalidated the rest of your example. Pick a low number to win the bid, blow the timeline/estimate, require more money to do anything at all. It is not clear to me that any "estimation" changed this calculus at all.
Also, how frequently do hardware and life science projects go far over budget and under scope? Do their estimates matter?
As I said, if you have $5MM, you'll get what you get for $5MM. If you want to spend a boatload of time researching, your estimate might be closer, but that research isn't free.
And what do estimates provide here, that sales just picking a number doesn't? Estimates are made up numbers. They're estimates.
Also this line that you omitted answers your question more directly:
> If you're a sales driven/feature factory company, the estimates won't matter anyway as you'll demand to meet your obligations regardless of estimates.
Why does the size of the work that needs to get done matter? If you need it you need it. If you don't, you don't. If you want a fast fix, note it. Speak in outcomes. "The lowest amount of work possible to get us ________"
> All is us have likely experienced "why is x taking so long??
I wouldn't work with a PM that disrespected me like that.
> Had we known, we wouldn't have done it now!" and/or "we didn't realize y was so simple, otherwise we would have done it months ago and probably won a few more deals!" How do you avoid that?
This isn't prioritization, it's a PM making ill-informed judgements on dev work. Don't have your PMs do that. Product people can define priority, scope, etc. If your PM isn't prioritizing something because they think it takes a long time, they do not understand their role.
It's not simple at all.
Sure, you cannot replace an in-person experience with an online experience with no other changes. But why would you? You can't replace a car ride with a motorcycle, but you can absolutely travel effectively with a motorcycle. Thinking there's only one way to work, and if that way doesn't work in all contexts the working context is correct, is just silly.
They have to convince themselves.
What an impactful little nuance to leave out of all previous conversation :)
> And _most_ devs who touch anything in FE, mobile apps, IoT, DBAs also have to touch the corresponding back-end
I do not agree with this statement at all. If your org is large enough to use K8s at scale, your mobile devs aren't touching your infra. Being aware that infra exists is not the same as modifying and managing infra.
> Now I agree that k8s is a nightmare for the infra people who run it, but honestly it is insanely comfy for the (back-end) devs who need to use it.
If your BE devs involvement in K8s is cloning a repository that may or may not contain a directory of k8s config that they never open, yes.
This is silly. Most devs have too many other things they know they don't know, to also add on something like kubernetes.
Did you read the article? Most of the issues weren't related to GraphQL, they were just Node issues/optimizations.
> I think it's regrettable that all the big money got behind GraphQL instead of aiming for solutions which provide resource granularity and shift decision-making to the client side.
This is the stated intent of GraphQL. Literally the reason it exists.
Good!
Either alone is insufficient. Both together aren't necessarily sufficient.
What could go wrong?
> Scuttlebutt can be transformative for society, decentralizing and enabling local community development free of big corp. It is a fast growing decentralized social network. As an alternative to the large corporate social networks it enables autonomy for the users and a free zone from big data harvesting...
> Secure Scuttlebutt (SSB) is a peer-to peer communication protocol, mesh network, and self-hosted social media ecosystem.[3][4] Each user hosts their own content and the content of the peers they follow, which provides fault tolerance and eventual consistency.[5] Messages are digitally signed and added to an append-only list of messages published by an author.[6] SSB is primarily used for implementing distributed social networks, and utilizes cryptography to assure that content remains unforged as it is propagated through the network.[7][8]
This exactly. In my city, Comcast's phone support is nothing more than "Did you restart your modem? We'll send out a tech", which can take days.
I would probably compare it moreso to just the abysmal state of quality of support, even for expensive or important services. Call your health insurance provider and try to get something changed/fixed in a reasonable fashion and you'll be met with red tape/nonsense/phone tag. I am a person that usually starts out angry on any customer support line, only because of the shenanigans it takes to get someone on the phone in the first place.
You can play any F2P game without paying for it.
> it becomes "free to", which doesn't make any sense, or if you DO pay money, it becomes "to play" which sounds like toupee. Which is another kind of scam,
This doesn't make any sense.
> Free to play is a scam if you need to pay to actually win
You don't.
> except that relies on Apple's review process being any good, but as we see here, that's clearly not true.
F2P means it does not cost money to play. All F2P games allow you to play without paying money. These complaints are strange, but definitely founded in some sort of confusion. I would encourage you to downloaded pretty much any F2P game - you'll find you can absolutely play it right away!
The argument is about government distrust. I'll skip the rest of your post.
As you've commented (but then hand waved), the motive behind the distrust. "An orange man told me" vs. "The US government has spent hundreds of years oppressing our people, and the US medical system fails minorities consistently time and time again".
Free to play isn't a scam. They're free to play. You can choose to spend money if you'd like.
It's not hard. It's insanely not hard. It's so unfathomably not difficult that this comment reads like satire. Walk into any grocery store or pharmacy.
My comment was about how, if this statement is true, you mostly skipped over it in favor of asking for action out of non-conservatives.
It's interesting that you didn't say "I wish more conservatives would admit they were wrong", but instead put the onus of action on liberals.
edit Someone already pointed out that this is an obvious biased misinformation post.