No anger here, just common sense.

If you get paid by product manufacturers to review their product, and you air critical reviews, guess what happens to your income? Product sellers don't like bad reviews, so they'll go where they can get good reviews. Influencers know this, and want to keep the money coming, they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them. So guess what they'll do...they'll keep the good reviews coming, so they keep the money coming.

This is precisely why Consumer Reports doesn't accept free samples for their reviews. https://www.consumerreports.or...

Indeed. People tend to brush off the disclaimer and believe the influencer anyway. It's like those drug commercials with the soft, droning voice telling you how many ways the drug can kill you, while the video shows pictures of people having fun together, jumping into the water, setting off fireworks, anything to make you not notice that droning voice. *This* is how we should regard reviews that contain these disclaimers. The disclaimer is there to distract us from the pleasing words surrounding the product, attempting to be "honest" while at the same time saying what the advertiser wants you to hear. Those influencers know full well that if they don't say things the advertiser wants them to say, the advertiser money will soon disappear.

Some cosmic rays interfered with my electronic speedometer. It told me I was driving exactly the speed limit. Honest!

Yes, and so is every form of automation.

We software developers have been automating things for decades now. What does all that automation do? Reduce a company's need to pay wages.

And somehow, we're all still employed. Amazing! It's almost as if all this automation creates more jobs in the long run!

That was so...2019. None of the "dollar stores" sell everything for a dollar any more.

How would you know the difference? Because you trust the influencer so much? Sucker!!!

When a review is paid for by the seller, the review is never impartial.

So those teams report to _no one_? Really?

What you're describing is actually a cluster of teams that (in all likelihood) report to a single manager (or director, or whatever).

I don't believe that your teams are truly autonomous.

In the real world, we have to get work done with flawed, imperfect humans. If our expectation is that everyone will always read their emails carefully, we are delusional. Perfection is the enemy of good.

A person who refuses to indulge others' weaknesses, within reason, is someone who will not get far or make friends in the real world. You certainly won't make friends with *me* with that attitude. You, yes you too, have weaknesses, despite your apparent insistence on perfection.

I hear you, but when people send long emails, it's my experience that most people don't read them, and especially they don't read them paying attention to the details.

If "being a tie breaker" were the only thing a manager does, then I'd agree with you. But you conveniently left out all the other items in my list, making your argument artificially simple.

What if there are three approaches being pushed by three team members? Or four? Are you going to create four teams to prove out all four ways? What if you start building out all these teams, and two people in one of the teams disagrees?

The reality is, as long as a team has more than one person, there will be disagreements. Somebody has to resolve those disagreements. Your managerless-solution quickly becomes a management nightmare.

So you have to _release_ both products (because if you don't release them, the customer never sees them) and then let the customer decide?

What does happen to the team that loses? Maybe some customers like the losing product better, and some customers like the winning product better. Now what?

And your approach wastes a LOT of money to make a point that managers aren't needed. You now have two teams doing essentially the same project, in different ways. You are essentially throwing away all the hours spent by the losing team. It would be better, in my opinion, to do good planning up front, and spend hours / dollars on only one team, following a good design from the start. No sane company is going to set up such a competitition.

So in your scenario, who is going to determine which product is better? Wouldn't that be a...manager? And what happens when someone in your smaller team disagrees with someone else in the smaller team? No, this scenario doesn't make anything better, it just makes the groups smaller. If you have more than one person on a "team" you will have issues to resolve between team members. It's called human nature.

I actually lived through your approach once. Two dev teams were given the same assignment. The better product would win, the inferior product's team would be fired. Talk about back-stabbing and sabotage! It was by far the *worst* environment I've ever worked in. But not for long, the company plowed through $300 million in investor money and went out of business. Stupidest management decision ever.

Apparently you can't deal with the truth, because every argument you just made, claimed I said something that I didn't say.

I never said the teacher was qualified to diagnose ADAH. What I did say was that the teacher might have seen sufficient signs of concern, to warrant a referral to a doctor.

I never said you *were* in the subset of parents who don't know how ugly their own children can be. Are you? You refused to listen to your teacher, and to the doctor your son saw. Those are two important clues that you might not be seeing reality.

I never said that doctors "never" rubber stamp anything. I do say it's not as common as parents claim, when a doctor diagnoses their child with a "label" the parents don't agree with.

So when you respond, how about let's stick with the truth, and not claim I said things I didn't say.

Nobody said anything about lawbreaking. The "challenge" I replied to, had nothing to do with legality, but with outrage.