You're sure? Why is that? Any data? Or is it just you?

Actually, the upgrade/adoption rate for iOS is amazingly good, in both absolute numbers and in comparison to Android. (Note: I am not making any "this OS is better than that OS" statements, just talking about documented statistics.)

iOS 3.x usage looks to be in the single-digit range, while iOS 5.x was quickly adopted by up to 75% of iOS users. Source: http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/03/06/why-do-developers-prefer-ios-over-android-try-75-adoption-of-ios-5-while-ics-is-stuck-at-1/

Larger/louder/more voices drown out smaller/quieter/fewer voices -- regardless of the authority or quality of comment. (Unlike on /., which has moderation and meta-moderation based on content.)

True story: My sister and brother-in-law left their kids with their grandmother and escaped to see a movie and relative peace for a few hours. My sister came back, really angry with her husband. "But sweetie," he said, "_2012_ got a good score on Metacritic!"

Really. Happened.

Ha! No, I'm old. And Spartacus.

No, I'm not insisting a journalist is like a scientist/engineer, nor am I insisting a journalist is like a fine artist. Why does a journalist have to be like either?

The parallel I was attempting (poorly, it seems) to draw is one of accountability. Which was the answer to your question. It's not tied to writing or expression, but in trust and confidence (perhaps the sociological technical senses of these terms are best here). You need to have a way to track back to the person writing the article or coding the software, because that's the primary mechanism to protect the user/reader from either incompetence or maliciousness.

I hope that makes it clearer. (And I'm not being passive-aggressive! I'm really trying to engage and be expressive.)

The difference is accountability. I should think this is obvious.

Journalism -- real journalism -- relies existentially on correction, whether self- or outside. The whole thing depends on being able to track who was responsible for reporting what and track records. Your name, your byline, is your career in journalism not just because of narcissism (though that happens) but because you have to put your name on each story and, if you screw up, each correction. If you can't trace where bad info came or _regularly comes_ from, it's not journalism and not reliable info.

Since you're on /. and have a low ID, I'll guess you're involved in... software, perhaps? Do you install unsigned software or buy from developers you've never heard of, have no reputation, and no contact info?

Journalist here.

What you're missing is the strong definition of "cover". In that very example, IIRC, the Journatic stringer just rewrote an agenda for the meeting, published before the meeting. The report that got published did not reflect what actually happened at the meeting, had no context of whether citizens questioned, applauded, or rioted. The Journatic stringer did not contact anyone to get a second source.

Think if this model were replicated on a larger scale. "Official government press releases said that the Congress is functioning smoothly and all citizens are happy" or "Microsoft press releases stated that Office 2018 is a must-buy and everyone loves Windows."

First off, I'll say that I have little to no direct experience working in this system, as I am not a developer. But as has been pointed out to me by many Agile-experienced managers and developers, what I have done -- worked at monthly, weekly, and daily newspapers and news sites -- is very similar in structure. That is, we have daily meetings about what we're working on and where that is, the editorial goals, checking in on longer-form projects, and then going off and working our asses off.

Of course any snake-oil consultant can come in, propose a "just-add-water" buzzworld-compliant solution, and screw up any endeavor. See also: metaphors about having only hammers.

But I think the key is that at least in journalism, we had an existing superstructure and larger mission, and regular content that we delivered, so that kept us on track and gave us regular learning feedback. Think of it as daily iteration based on user research.

Do software/hardware projects have that sort of thing? Is the superstructure in place, and does Agile fit into that, rather than imposing Agile because... well, it's Agile?

I kind of take exception to a phrase and assumption used here: "pushing the edge" (if I will).

What makes you assume that someone doing work -- writing, editing, painting, thinking, developing, accounting, philosophizing -- can't "push the edge" on even outdated computer equipment? Sure, if you're are doing specific work that requires a lot of computing horsepower, you can be more efficient on a newer computer. You can also churn out more unimaginative, derivative crap.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but I'd like to point out that the quality of most (probably 99%+) thinking is not dependent upon, and does not require, faster and more configurable and more fun-for-you-to-build computers with multiple monitors. Again: _you_ may be more productive that way, and feel more deep thinkin' coming on when you have a hardware stiffy, but please do not look discount others who can kick all of our asses in thought with even a paper and pen (logicians, creatives, and too many examples to count).

(Just want to make clear the tone of this isn't an angry "you insensitive clod!" -- just want people to think about how tools do not make the quality of thought, but are, you know, TOOLS.)