2. There is no step 2.
3. There is no step 3 either.
Indeed. Web browsers have generally not been on my list of applications that are permitted to play sound, ever since the capability to play MIDI was introduced in Netscape. Why would anyone want that? I do NOT want random websites that I look at to be able to decide what sound comes out of my speakers. I already have a media player, thanks, and the web browser is not it.
More people leaving Oregon == more Oregon left for me. Take a few hipsters with you and don't let the door hit you on the way out.
... cyclists' contribution to road wear would likely be too small to collect.
Oh yeah? What if the cyclist was wearing a backpack, too? What then? Tax them all!
Anything that is in the public domain, and anything that is "basic research", is exempt.
So, if it costs too much they'll automate and you'll pay to support them anyway. Here's the thing - you can either find jobs for people and let them work (or force them to work, Kim Jong Il), you can support them (either in their homes or poorhouses or prisons), or you can let them die of starvation. You can manage the process or let it go on chaotically - that's about it. Which of these options are you going to choose?
Well, is yours? I do own a business and I sort of like the fact that my government sets minimal rules. You, of course, are free to move away from LA should you find their rules onerous, but I have a feeling you don't even live near LA.
Since we've lived without "pump your own" gas for this long, I figure lack of Uber "services" and reliance on old school taxis and mass transit will be fine with our retro/hipster kultur here in PDX.
Actually, it's fine with me, too. I have a car. I know how to drive.
Most gas stations in Oregon don't have canopies. If you want to stand out in the rain to pump your gas, you can always go over the state line into Washington.
So your organization uses process change as a euphemism for "firing bad developers we were too chickenshit to fire for being bad in the first place". Sounds like a well-managed company with a recipe for a happy and productive workforce. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter, Catbert.
If your Scrum meeting takes less than 30 seconds, you must not be doing Scrum either. Scrum is not about rigid time absolutes, it's about communication. Too much? Bad. Too little? Bad. Sometimes you need more, sometimes you need less. By the way, Scrum masters are often bad at determining which communication is important and how long stand ups need to last on both the short and long ends.
Ultimately, the question is not your "One True Scotsman" shibboleth, but what is industry standard. And right now, industry standard is standup meetings that run too long, transmit too little useful information, and take up too much project time as a percentage. Are we getting the transparency "bang for the buck" that Scrum promises from its process or were we better off with half-hour weekly status meetings and dailys when projects were coming down to an end? Are standups what bring value to the process or is it all of the other practices that often get snuck in on the back of Scrum? Strict timeboxing on tasks, TDD, continual improvement, transparent status, all of which actually reduce risk? How much does the standup actually bring to the party? More importantly, why is the Scrum community unwilling to discuss questions like this, simply saying "It's not true Scrum, so I don't care."?
Translating a car chase or an explosion into a foreign language is cheap.
Care to explain what the potential students who didn't get in have done wrong?
Hackers are just a migratory lifeform with a tropism for computers.