This is true for "literary Germans". The rest uses much simpler Grammar and mostly only two tense.
Examples:
We will eat pizza tomorrow -> Wir werden morgen Pizza essen (Verb eat = essen at the end literary German)
-> Wir essen morgen Pizza (the verb just after We, normal German)
We eat pizza -> Wir essen Pizza
We ate pizza yesterday -> Wir aßen gestern Pizza (literary German)
-> Wir haben gestern Pizza gegessen (in normal German, verb at the end)
but actually, no one would use that phrase. Instead:
Gestern gab's Pizza. As in Yesterday gave it pizza aka Yesterday there was pizza

Absolutely. They always will find an excuse to do so. This was not intended to talk bad about agile approaches, but about the tendency of developers to throw good processes out of the window regardless what science and practitioners found out.

Agility is a property of a process. In software engineering and development it refers to the ability to be able to tackle requirement/feature changes which occur frequently. If you built something which has a different setup, you do not need agile.

In addition scrum is only one way to organize an agile process. There are others.

The truth is agile processes are becoming more normal and less hyped right now. While still a lot of people use it as bad excuse to chaos hacking.

People with student loans are not considered low in education. Also the student loan issue of the US might not be present in the same way in the UK, where the study was conducted. Furthermore, more workers does not result in lower wages in general. The issue is much more complex. If there would be only workers and employers and the employers have a constant need for labor then all workers compete with each other in this market and all employers compete with each other for workers.

This simple model fails in the very moment the workers have no alternative than competing in the market. If you cannot withdraw from the market you are in a weaker position. In case there are more workers and labor is required this could lead to a downward spiral of wages. This could be the case when (a) there are more workers in de beginning, (b) the productivity of the workers goes up, but the market where the employers are selling is stagnating, (c) if the market for the employer is shrinking.

Nowadays (b) is a important factor, as automation and digital supplements increase productivity rapidly. Furthermore, the increase in equality in western countries, results is decreased purchasing power of large groups of the population. Especially lower incomes are affected, which directly reduced their ability to consume, while $100 000 income households may just reduce their amount of saving.

We also have more workers in the skilled domain. In that area income is increasing even with more and more skilled workers are available. This is because the demand outpaces the supply. However, the increase in income is limited by the ability of employers to request more money from their customers.

Well she did not. And she did not open any borders. This is Schengen area. The borders are open. Merkel just helped Hungary and the refugees, because the Hungarian government was unable and unwilling to comply with the treaty. Therefore, Merkel did the human/christian choice and helped people in need. Western values at its best.

Who is we. I never heard of that before. Beside that it is rude and dehumanizing terminology.

There has been 1 in letters ONE incident in years. And that only happened because investigators did not intervene on time. And it was in 2016. No mass shootings or terror attacks in Germany since then. You are 32 more likely to be involved in mass murder events in the US than in any EU country.

While Ruby might be going out or not, the arguments for the demise of all the languages are weak. Haskell is used by a group of Haskell lovers. They rather need to die out before the language dies out. Also Haskell is used at universities. Therefore, students have at least some contact with it. It will not really die out it will have its market share and more or less stays there.

However, most illogical is the argumentation about R. Learning R is rubbish because data scientists and academics use it? First, who else use R except data scientists and academics doing data analysis. R has a numerous plugins with already implemented data analytics features and great visualization features. True all of it is hard to learn, as they naming-patterns rarely exist. And why is this how it is? Because scientists built it for them. They will use it in future. As long as R is part of one scientific pipeline, it will be used with it. True Python is becoming more prominent in this area too, but it is used in addition. You can even combine R and Python in your Jupyter notebook. Also a handful of academics means the author must have large hands, as there are millions of scientists world wide. More and more universities and research facilities start employing computer scientists to help maintain and develop their analyses. Then you need R.

He might be true, but he has no evidence. Only his opinion. This is not good enough and it is not a good argument against OOP languages. But first, lets see how OOP came into place. OOP was designed to provide encapsulation, like components, support reuse and code sharing. It was the next step coming from modules and units, which where better than libraries, as functions and procedures had namespaces, which helped structuring code. OOP is a great idea when writing UI toolkits or similar stuff, as you can associate the same interface to all the different types. True you can do this with a procedural language too, but you might need to reimplement a function for different types. Alternatively, you can have a language with interfaces which would serve the same purpose. Subtyping is also a great thing when thnking about data. True you do not need full OOP to do subtyping. However, if you want all these features in one language you might end up with a Java-like OOP language.

Today, we use different paradigms then in the 1990s. We have components and we have services (which is nothing more than a component or a component composed of components), which can be deployed multiple times (instantiated). They can adhere to the same interface. And internally, the receive data, transform data, store data and send data back. in all these cases functions are not necessarily attached to the data. In that scenario, functional languages are well suited, as they do not do state (which is helpful for parallelism). They just get a (complex) data structure and return another data structure. State is then handled by some other component.

You can use OOP languages to do this. However, you have to restrain yourself. However, this is (or should be) part of your training. That is why there are so many patterns to guide you to only use those features of the language which are suited for a particular problem.

Not to the article: The article claims and argues a lot, but it does not provide scientific evidence. Therefore, it is an opinion piece with not a lot to gain from. You can disagree, you can agree, you can ignore it. In recent years different articles on this subject have surfaced, yet none of the authors bothered with finding scientific evidence, which sucks, because we are not a religion, we are (or should be) a scientific discipline.

Jira is so complex and configurable. Maybe you can make it do WBS with tickets. Joking of course. Jira and other tools are designed to support agile approaches which are usually tailored to small projects. Large projects get subdivided into smaller projects so you can apply agile development or random hacking what most do -- regardless how long you tell them that this is not agile development. These approaches work well when writing software for companies and administration, as you can easily subdivide software in services which can then be implemented separately. In complex systems or systems of systems, this does not work, as all the decision making and control must be performed by the product owner. And he would need another tool to do this higher level of management.

Some people do. Oh shit we are all doomed. *hmm* Well actually, I will be dead by than anyway. So carry on.

No it does not solve the problem. It just gives everyone more room to wiggle. Also population will top with 10 billion people and then decrease again. Unfortunately, we have to address the climate issue long before that.

Yes the software and development was key for the success, like all the other engineering features of the project. The big heros are, therefore, all the people who worked on the machines, which made the flight to the moon possible. This of course includes all the test pilots and astronauts who tested the machinery.

Therefore, it would be great if we could have this cooperation and collaboration on a new really pressing issue. The climate crisis. It is a societal challenge, but it is also an engineering challenge.

10 hours behind a desk and 10 hours on your feet is quite a difference. Also in Germany it is not legal to work more than 10 hours for a reason. Workers are humans. They have rights and they shall not be screwed over. Unfortunately, Amazon thinks they can get away with it. So workers have to organize.
And if YOUR job is shitty too, well form a union. BTW. 20 days of payed vacation is mandatory. I have 30.

(a) In total the USA is not the 15th country in the list but the second https://www.statista.com/stati...
(b) Per person the USA is in lead https://www.economicshelp.org/...
(c) It is stupid to wait until all others start doing something. This might lead to everyone waiting for another.
(d) We are all collectively holding a gun to our collective head and are pulling the trigger. Might it not be a good idea to stop pulling that trigger? Unfortunately, we all have to do this and the governments must support it.
(e) BTW: When you establish a CO2 tax, you could also tax products coming from abroad based on their CO2 production for the goods. This is necessary so that no one is moving job abroad to avoid the tax.