That's not quite what I said.

I said you'd need to not think very hard to not see any drawbacks or potential pitfalls to what you suggested. It's the kind of statement that usually would be followed by a facetious, "What could possibly go wrong?"

Have you considered the possibility that those people might actually not care and might actually believe no one else should, either, and that no attempt at humor is involved?

If you can't come up with any reason why that's a bad idea, you're either not thinking very hard or you're an anarchist.

If I were a betting man, I'd lay money on it being both.

Everyone thinks some of government should be cut.

No one agrees on what that some should be.

That's the entire problem.

Considering the 4 had some well-publicized problems the 3 didn't (whether or not you consider those problems significant in your own case), is your statement based on a belief that lightning can't strike the same place twice?

That sounds like something the kind of socially maladjusted person who would eat a cake alone in an igloo would say. :P

In other news, Steve Jobs is seeking to have a new liver transplanted in along with whatever bodily organ it is that keeps a person from being a huge douchebag.

If only he could rise to the ethical standards of 1990s Microsoft. Yeah, it's gotten that bad.

Several times I've been unfortunate enough to have Mr. Anal Indenter be the boss/manager involved.

Not much salvaging that.

So this.

In my experience, around 20% of developers are the kind of hyper-anal people who will argue endlessly about the stupidest details. Your chances of having at least one on any given team is extremely high.

In one case I (and everyone on tha team) lost literally 3 hours arguing over whether a particular boolean variable should be named something like 'finished' or something like 'isFinished'. And everyone but the one guy who had a hard-on about it conceded the point within the first fifteen minutes.

In some teams, management is wise enough to tell the hyper-anal guys they're not invited to other people's code reviews anymore. In a lot, they're not, and good lord can you waste ridiculous amounts of time on nothing important or useful that way.

TL;DR: I like code reviews in theory but in practice for most teams they waste much more time than they save.

FWIW, that Australia was once the English prison colony is pretty much the only thing they teach American kids about Australia, at least when I was in school.

Which, silly, but if you're wondering why you hear that one so much that's probably why.

This is a pretty good point.

When you're writing software for a business and one of their requirements increases the complexity/time of the project for no good reason, you talk about this with management and generally they come around to your way of thinking. (Or they agree to spend the extra time, but mostly no.)

When you're writing software for a government and run into an unreasonable requirement like that, oftentimes there can be no wiggling on it, because it's a [b]law[/b], usually made by people who aren't involved in the project directly in any way.

I was part of a software project for a fairly large city's government that successfully completed early and under budget.

Maybe that's the equivalent of lightning striking but it does happen at least sometimes.

Even shipping a bad game is better than shipping no games.

In the game industry, the number and quality of games you've shipped is generally the only part of your resume that actually matters.

Well, no.

You know what's even cheaper for enterprise? Continuing to use IE6.

And that doesn't require some kind of odd closest-Fortune-500-equivalent of the United Nations to get together.

If a big corporation can keep doing exactly what it's been doing without spending any money that it's not already been spending, it almost always will.

Eh.

You can't make it impossible for anyone to get anything, but that doesn't mean that making it harder for someone to get something serves no purpose.