It's easy in the short term to cease development and switch to maintenance-only.

Then a few months later you start to discover why it's typically easy, but dumb.

You can't attack education, non-whites, non-MAGA, all your allies, enact random tariffs, and then disrupt the world's flow of oil, all while building a kleptocracy and expect anything but a major long term downward trend.

You can no longer trust the government numbers. They're lying, and anyone who won't lie gets fired. Unemployment is probably higher than they're telling you.

No, it's more about how teams work. Teams have a scope. They don't typically go beyond that scope. So if my team owns the Foo and Bar modules, I work on those. But if there's little important work on Foo and Bar, but a lot of important work to be done on Baz, it's generally organizationally difficult for us to work on Baz. Typically we need to be lent out by our manager and seconded to the other team. Which can be a lot of red tape and politics.

Now if you're imagining some alternate world where programmers an be moved at will- then we're already one big team instead of multiple small teams.

And no, a smaller team doesn't win every time. If it did, then then smallest team possible is teams of 1 and we'd all do that. There are sweet spots, which depend on the organization, the work to be done, and the importance of that work. For some that's bigger, for some smaller. I've definitely worked on teams that were both too small for the work, and that were too big.

The robot didn't 'pledge' anything - it mindlessly followed a script. A pledge requires self-awareness and will, neither of which this device has.

They can, under some circumstances. If the scope of what they work on is too small to fill the team's feature set. Or if the work they would be doing is significantly less important than other work to be done, having them in one large team makes it easier to move to more important work and can get critical features built faster. In that case it may not be overall more work done, but it may move the important stuff quicker. If larger teams weren't useful on some level, we wouldn't have teams at all- we'd all be individuals.

They're one of the 4 biggest stock brokers in the US. If you aren't trolling, you're showing yourself to be really ignorant.

In the end- good engineers with sufficient experience and support will get stuff working with any methodology. Bad ones or ones insufficiently supported will fail with any methodology.

There are some things that agile works well for, but it's really limited to domains where you can quickly build something tangible for feedback and you have stakeholders willing and able to give frequent feedback. UIs are a good example. It's a horrible fit for anything that requires actual research, or that can't be shown to low technical knowledge customers frequently (in other words anything that actually needs weeks or months of backend work, algorithm writing, or infrastructure to be written).

The problem with that is the skills needed to manage and the skills needed to do real work (let's take programming as an example) are pretty distinct. Someone can have both, but they tend to have one or the other. Forcing those without the skills to do the practical work into doing it doesn't actually help the team, it just slows everyone down. And if they get on the critical path of any project you can be royally fucked.

There are a couple of ways to solve this problem:

1)Larger team sizes. This can work if the team owns enough to keep everyone busy, but it can lead to effectively being independent subteams calling themselves one team while being inconvenienced by each other.

2)Each manager managing multiple independent teams. This can work if it doesn't overload the manager. The biggest problem is when the manager decides one team is more important and doesn't support the other(s) enough. This works better the closer the teams are, as it requires the manager to know fewer sets of collaborators and politics

It would be much less expensive to put some mice in a rotating orbital habitat to see what low g does to a mammal than to send humans on long term missions to the Moon or Mars, but other than one limited Japanese experiment nobody seems interested in doing so.

That tells me that nobody is yet serious about such missions.

Where I live, the rules are generally the same for e-bikes as regular bikes. Wear a helmet, stay off the sidewalks.

The additional rules are "max assist speed 32 km/h" and "counts as a motorized vehicle if your dumbass has been prohibited from driving by a judge"

If licensing rules come here, I want a speed increase.

One of the things I like about Linux is that it's common to follow a philosophy of "start with nothing then add what you need" rather than "throw in everything and good luck trying to remove anything problematic".

Make it an optional component suggested during the installation procedure and it's fine. Force it on everyone and you're undermining good security and I have to suspect you're doing it for reasons I wouldn't like.

I get sick after 10 minutes last time I tried it (a few years ago). It's not anywhere near solved. Of course I have no desire to try the new versions, because even if it was solved it doesn't actually make anything useful better.

In Sony's eyes, you have no rights. This is a company that deliberately installed malware on customer computers.

If you do business with Sony, you get what you deserve. It's not like they've made a secret of their utter contempt for you.

It's an impressive accomplishment - nobody liked Iran, though it had allies. This unnecessary war is pissing everyone off enough they're more or less siding with Iran over the US.

That's the 'respect' Trump has brought to America.

I seem to recall the Mythbusters did a reasonably well designed practical experiment and found this just wasn't likely - if you think a place is haunted, it's because you're susceptible to that kind of thinking, not because of infrasound.