Among the most "oversold as a cure" methodologies introduced to business development teams today is Scrum, which is one of several agile approaches to software development and introduced as a way to streamline the process. Scrum has become something of an intractable method, complete with its own holy text, the Manifesto for Agile Software Development , and daily devotions (a.k.a., Scrum meetings).
Although Scrum may have made more sense when it was being developed in the early '90s, much has changed over the years. Startups and businesses have work forces spread over many countries and time zones, making sharing offices more difficult for employees. As our workforce world evolves, our software development methods should evolve, too.
What do you think? Is Scrum still a viable approach to software development, or is it time to make way for a different way of doing things?
As I understand it, random bets should yield about the same outcome. You just get fewer, larger payouts. Either way, the house is taking its piece, and you share the rest with the other players.
Ideally, the stats that matter are matching your knowledge of the race against everybody else's. If you know that this horse does better than people expect, or you know that some horse is a sentimental favorite but isn't likely to perform well, you can beat the other players and walk away with more than your randomly-determined share of the money.
It would be interesting to see how well the bettors actually do. The outcome I described above only works if the odds are mostly equivalent to the true odds. If a lot of bettors are betting badly, it would be easy to beat the market. It's generally hard to beat the stock market, except under narrow circumstances where you really do have better information than most (without ticking over into inside trading). Are horse tracks mostly filled with knowledgeable people, or are they just a bunch of rubes waiting for smart people to take their money? (Besides the house, of course, which always wins.)
Even without data to back it up, it does seem reasonable that a bike would be dangerous with headphones on. You're sharing the road with cars, and you've moving very fast. There's less room for error, and if you have to ditch, you hit the ground pretty hard.
It's tricky, since there's so much wind noise that it can be hard to hear cars coming anyway. Frankly, I just don't feel all that safe on a bike, and I prefer running. Worse, I find cycling duller than running, since I can't let my mind wander as much; I have to constantly pay attention for anything that might throw off my steering (glass in the road, cracks, objects, etc.). So I often put one headphone in as a compromise, though I'd like to try getting a mount that might let me listen through the external speaker.
A proof is a proof, regardless how extraordinary, extravagant or hillarious the claim is.
Well... yes and no. Even a mathematical proof isn't just a proof, because humans are involved in creating and checking it. A complex proof requires considerable work, and occasionally even a fairly sturdy result has to be withdrawn and reconsidered. Some examples.
Real-word experiments are never "proofs" in the mathematical sense. Directly, the only thing you can say about an experiment is "this thing yielded this result on this occasion". Everything else is extrapolation, and there are many different ways to extrapolate. The more you want to extrapolate, the the more work you're going to have to do to rule out the alternatives. When you want to extrapolate to something as big as "a new law of physics", you're going to have to rule out a lot of alternatives.
That's what "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs" really means. There are, at this point, a lot of far less extraordinary alternatives to "brand new physics", especially since the effect is such a tiny fraction of the input energy. The clearer you can isolate the effect, the more likely your particular extrapolation is the correct one.
I've got a bad feeling about this.