People are bad at telling if they're overloaded. The fact that only 20% self-report as overloaded is pretty unsurprising. But look at the way people choose the news that they prefer. That's an actual example of them being overloaded by (mis?)information and unable to handle it. Way more than 20% of people are unable to synthesize enough information to have a clear view of what's real and what's not.
IIRC, Binge On was strictly based on protocols... was it identifiable as video and did it respond to commands to downgrade to 240p
That is, anyone can do it. Although there was paperwork you had to fill out saying that you abided by those limitations, so possibly it was de facto non-neutral even though it was expressed as a neutral policy.
I tried using my phone only underwater, and now they say the warranty is void!
I'd totally let him hem my pants. Sewing/stitching is one of a surgeon's basic skills.
I grant that expertise has limitations, but you have to know where skills overlap.
Of course the few remaining people will be crucial. They just imagine that the few remaining people will be them, their interchangable secretaries, and some yes-men.
I actually imagine CEO positions will be replaced by AI far earlier than "guy who declogs the toilets" or "guy who fixes the X machine when it breaks"
You're talking about power... which is a different topic. After all, Bill Gates has more power to get his message out than the vast majority of companies. Now, I'd be happy to talk about whether that means that limitations have to be placed on Bill Gates's speech (for example, campaign contributions limitations).
But the point I was making is actually different. I was saying corporations occupy a midstep when it comes to being an artificial organization, expressing one view, while simultaneously representing multiple individuals. One of the reasons we don't want society to condemn certain speech acts is that, pretty much because those views are being expressed by a member of society, we can confidently assert that not all members of a society feel that way. So we limit society's ability to act. Similarly, a company is made up of many individuals. Allowing a company to speak with one voice means that some of their employees/owners/etc. are being misrepresented.
One such principle is that we can't, as a society, punish things which we are allowed as individuals to punish.
But we also have companies, which occupy a space between an individual and society in total.
he can most certainly wake you up with a 2am CMAS
Why would I leave my phone close enough to wake me when I go to sleep?
like attempting to let ketchup count as a vegetable in school lunches
I believe that succeeded
Crediting Hawking for inflation is yet another example of the Matthew Effect.
So is crediting Einstein for the idea that light, in a vacuum, moves at a constant speed. In fact, that was the assumption he used, which then caused him to invent special relativity and general relativity to explain away paradoxes that arose from reconciling that rule with, you know, non-quantum physics.
Seems a bit early to speculate. Tons of preorders may be good, or may cause the whole thing to disappear if it fails to live up to expectations.
Funny, that's the #1 value on the Agile Manifesto!
That's not interesting. People are important. Agile recognizing that isn't a benefit of Agile. Unless it's the only methodology that did. (Hint, it's not)
Still not enough? This HP survey found that 69% of development shops now are pure agile or "leaning" agile.
See, "shops using Agile" is irrelevant. Absolutely irrelevant.
Science isn't that hard. If you wanna talk about why X is good, and Y exists, you have to compare the results of X and Y. If you showed that 80% of places had an increase in productivity after switching from Y to X, that makes sense. If you talk about a controlled study where people are randomly assigned X and Y, and the group assigned X improves, that makes sense. Even if you somehow account for which groups choose X over Y, you can let individuals chose (but that's harder).
Bottom line, there may be arguments for Agile development, but you have yet to make any.
Sorry, I meant to type "society has a goal of having laws followed". And that's true. And the laws are, as decided by whatever governing body, things in societies best interest. But I would say, even avoiding the benefits from following the laws based on the specific law, society cannot function if its laws are flouted. Hence, society has an interest in either enforcing or removing laws.
When Agile fails, it is almost always due to the implementation NOT actually being agile
When Waterfall fails, it is almost always due to the implementation NOT actually being waterfall.
It's a process. A process should be judged based on its expected outcome in a typical use case. Give me brilliant programmers, and you can use any* methodology. Give me horrible programmers and you cannot use any methodology. The case that Agile needs to make is given average programmers (of whatever subset based on skill Agile claims to apply to), Agile produces better results. Cherry-picking in either direction is retarded.
Ironically, after railing against cherry-picking as something used by Agile's detractors, you cherry picked LinkedIn and Amazon.
"There is nothing new under the sun, but there are lots of old things we don't know yet." -Ambrose Bierce